Interview mit Jurgen Wolff

Jurgen Wolff ist in Deutschland geboren, lebt in London und schreibt internationale Drehbücher, vor allem in Amerika. Außerdem hat er mehrere Bücher veröffentlicht und gibt Kurse und Seminare über das Drehbuch-Schreiben. Dazu ist er Hypnosetherapeut und gibt „Creativity Workshops“ in der ganzen Welt. Das Interview fand im Mai 2002 statt. Am Ende des Interviews folgt ein Überblick über seine Bücher.

Frage: Was sind die Fixpunkte einer Geschichte?

The minimums are a compelling (zwingende) opening that draws the viewer or reader into the story; a character who is interesting either because we can identify with him or her or because he or she is so unlike is that we are fascinated to find out more; along the way we need a few surprises (more and more difficult, as the audience has seen almost everything), a developing conflict which can be on a huge scale (war) or a small scale (romance); and a resolution that allows us to feel we have completed a journey. However, beyond all that is the need for a story that touches us in some way, an emotional connection with the audience that will make the story live on in their minds long after they have left the cinema.

Viele aus dem Filmbusiness behaupten immer, das Wichtigste für einen guten Film ist ein gutes Drehbuch. Ich kenne allerdings keinen Zuschauer, der mir jemals gesagt hat, dass ihm ein Film wegen des tollen Drehbuchs gefallen hat. Niemand erinnert sich an die Konstruktion, den Aufbau, die plot-Struktur des Drehbuches. 

Frage: Sollte nicht in Seminaren und Büchern und auf Filmschulen viel mehr über Geschichten, Archetypen, Psychologie des Erzählens und Dramaturgie unterrichtet werden, als immer wieder nur die plotpoints und die 3-Akt-Struktur durchzukauen?

Back in 1980, when I started out, there was very little emphasis on structure but since then, as you point out, there have been many, many books and workshops which emphasize the three act structure almost exclusively. It has become a kind of formula (inciting incident by page X, first turn by page Y, etc.) and the result often is a screenplay that is technically correct but lacks passion and originality. 

I welcome the recent emphasis on mythology and archetypes; however, my concern is that now many writers may turn this into a new formula (call to action by page X, meet the mentor by page Y). More important is the passion behind the story--what character or situation or conflict is so exciting to the writer that he must write about it? What shape does this story itself suggest? Reading the original myths and fairy tales and folk tales is useful as a stimulus to the imagination, rather as than the source of exact structures to use. In my workshops, I emphasize exercises that get the writers in touch with their own subconscious mind, which is the source of dreams and exciting stories. It may be more useful to read "Memories, Dreams and Reflections" by Carl Jung, or example, rather than another scriptwriting book (unless, of course, it's one of mine...).

Filme wie „As good as it gets“ oder „The Silence of the lambs“ haben eine sehr große Wucht und Wirkung auf den Zuschauer. In diesen Filmen, und auch in „leichteren“ Filmen wie „Pretty Woman“, sind die Hauptfiguren psychologisch sehr genau gezeichnet, die Motivation ihrer jeweiligen Handlung ist psychoanalytisch exakt ausgearbeitet. 
Frage: sind für uns Zuschauer (Film-)geschichten vor allem Einblicke in reale psychische Zusammenhänge und Abläufe?

The wide variety of films that work on their own levels suggests that we can't say that one approach is the correct one. I personally enjoy films which give me a deep insight into the characters and allow me to experience a variety of emotions in response to them. However, I can also sit there and watch something fairly mindless or funny in a silly way and still have enjoyed that ninety minutes. Those kinds of films are quickly forgotten, but they do serve a purpose. Sometimes the sense of mystery about what drives a character can work for you, as in the original "The Vanishing," in which we never fully understand the motivation of the sadistic character, or even the compulsion of the missing woman's boyfriend to keep going along with the bad guy's instructions. The dark undercurrents (Unterton) that drive the story work better, I think, because they are shadowy and maybe echo something deep in our own psyches that we'd rather not look at.

Bei „As good as it gets“ sehen wir Melvin Udal, der durch sein ständiges Abwehrverhalten jegliche menschliche Nähe schon im Vorfeld verhindert. Dadurch muß er nie testen, ob er vielleicht nicht doch zu einer „normalen“ Beziehung fähig wäre. Das ist ein hochkomplizierter psychologischer Vorgang, der die Figur Melvin Udal zu einem phantastischen Charakter macht.
Frage: glaubst Du (oder weißt Du es vielleicht sogar?), daß die Autoren des Filmes sich von Anfang an vorgenommen hatten, eine Geschichte „über einen Mann mit einer schlimmen Kindheit“ zu schreiben, und zu zeigen, wie er sich als Erwachsener so durchschlägt, oder war es eher so, daß sie einen „arroganten Kerl“ hatten, der sich mit allen streiten soll und am Ende nett wird und daß der Hintergrund mit dem Vater-Sohn-Konflikt erst viel später als Erklärung dazu erfunden wurde?

I don't know the answer to that, but my guess is that they thought of the basic characeter first, and then worked back to what kinds of influence might have made him the way he is as an adult. One interesting tidbit is that in the test screening, the audience immediately hated this character so much that it distracted them from the story. In response to that, the producers shot an additional scene which is very near the beginning of the film. It's where he comes back from pushing the dog down the rubbish chute and clicks the lights on and off a certain number of times, washes his hands obsessively, reveals how many bars of soap he keeps in the medicine chest, etc. This tells the audience that he suffers from the mental illness of obsessive-compulsive behaviour, and makes him less of a total jerk. As we know, that seemed to work, since the film was very popular. I also think that the casting was inspired--it's hard to imagine any other actor who could have produced such a love-hate reaction to the character. What I admire about the film is that it dared to have some very hard  moments, such as when he says to the waitress that her son obviously wouldn't live long. In most mainstream American films, they would have been tempted to soften those moments.

Frage: Welche 10 Filme würdest Du auf eine einsame Insel mitnehmen?

Lawrence of Arabia, Godfather I and II, Cabaret, Shane, The Wild Bunch, Bringing Up Baby, The Bank Dick (W.C. Fields), Atlantic City, King Lear (Paul Scofield). I'm not saying these are the best films ever made--although some of them are--but they'd keep me entertained while waiting for the rescue ship.

Gelungene Filme bestehen aus tollen Bildern, guten Dialogen, einer interessanten Handlung, sind meistens spannend, haben eindrucksvolle Szenen, sind gut und geschickt erzählt, haben oft sehr originelle Hauptfiguren und sind formal sehr geschlossen. Kurz gesagt: das genaue Gegenteil von den frühen Fassungen des eigenen Drehbuches, das man gerade beginnt zu schreiben.
Frage: in welcher Reihenfolge polierst Du ein neues Exposé / script? Was verbesserst Du als erstes, was als letztes?

When I'm ready to rewrite, I go to a different location (away from my computer) and critique the script as though I'm reading someone else's material. I try to identify the biggest problems first--is there a big section where not enough is happening, are there too few surprises, are any of the characters not coming alive? Then I try to identify what the problems are with individual scenes, and only then any dialogue problems. 

Frage: Gibt es einen Hauptfehler, den alle jungen Autoren machen? Was sollte man am Anfang vermeiden?

The biggest problem I see is younger writers trying to work with themes that they've seen before in other films, rather than drawing upon their own emotions, experiences, and conflicts. Also, sometimes they lock in too quickly to a particular way of handling a story, without exploring alternatives. I know from personal experience that it's very tempting to jump right in and start writing before you know where you're going. For some writers, that works fine, because they figure it out as they go along. But for many of us, it often leads to a dead end and we'd be better-advised to take the time to figure out the story before we start.

Das Image der Amerikaner und ihrer Filme ist, daß sie einfach alles schaffen können, in französischen Filmen geht es oft um Liebe, Genuß und Sex, in englischen Filmen sieht man immer wieder, wie die Hauptfigur mit ihren Freunden im Pub steht und alle sind von Arbeitslosigkeit und sozialer Härte bedroht.
Frage: aus Deiner Sicht: wie ist das Image der Deutschen und der deutschen Filme? Was ist die Identität des „deutschen Films“?

The sad part is that outside of Germany, German films have almost no image. Here in London, it's very rare to be able to see any German films (other than at the Goethe Institute). For a time, the films of Wenders and Fassbinder represented the German cinema, then sex comedies, but now I don't think there is an image. The only two that have had a (limited) release here in the last years were "Der Bewegte Mann" and "Lola rennt." The image of Germans in general in the eyes of the British is, I'm sorry to say, entirely predictable: overly-serious engineering types who get up early and take all the beach or pool chairs when you go on vacation...

Wenn Du ein neues Drehbuch / Exposé liest, von einem unbekannten Autor, gibt es dann etwas, was Dir sehr schnell zeigt, wie Dir das Buch gefällt? Was freut Dich an einem script, wobei denkst Du, daß es gelungen ist, und wobei merkst Du, daß es nicht gut ist? Worauf achtest Du als Leser besonders?

When I read a script, initially I just become another member of the audience. If the first few pages intrigue me and make me want to keep reading, if the character is somebody that feels fresh, if the story surprises me, and if the dialogue is sharp, then I'm happy. 

Letzte Frage: zu welchem Zeitpunkt sollte man sich entscheiden, für welches Publikum/ Sendeplatz man schreibt?

I think there's a difference between writing for TV and for the cinema. With television, the broadcasters may be looking for, let's say, TV movies that will play in the early evening. That suggests that the story should be suitable for a family audience, and if you write an ultra-violent slasher pictures obviously it's not going to fit. Or they may say they want a sitcom that will appeal to young viewers and have a working-class feel. If you have this kind of information, either directly or from your agent, then you can brainstorm to see whether you can come up with something that fits and that also excites you as a writer. 

With movies, the categories are not so clear and it's safer to write what you really want to write and hope that it will find a buyer. It's true that buyers will be influenced by the current trends (so, at a given time, thrillers may be in and teen films may be out, or vice-versa). However, if you try to fit the trend of the moment, it's already too late, because by the time your script is written, probably some other trend will be current. My solution to this is to have a couple of scripts in my drawer that I can pull out when the timing seems right. My feature film, "The Real Howard Spitz," which starred Kelsey Grammer from "Frasier" took thirteen years to get made... (patience is one of the essential qualities of the screenwriter). 

I don't think any script writer ever totally makes his or her peace with the fact that we are in show business, and that the "business" is at least as important as the "show."  This 
means if we want to make money, we have to give some thought to target audiences, marketing considerations, and so on. Often these call for compromises that are painful to make. The ideal would be to write only what we want to write and to offer it to the buyers and tell them they can take it as it is, or leave it, but that's not how the business works. Anyone who finds this kind of collaboration and compromise too painful should probably think about writing novels. But if you can live with it, and over time find ways to work with producers who have integrity and directors who don't feel compelled to rewrite your script just for the sake of it, it can be an enjoyable and profitable way to spend your life.
______________

Bücher:

My book, SITCOM: Ein Handbuch für Autoren, is published by Emons Verlag for Euros 22.50 and can be found on Amazon.de or in bookstores. It's a complete guide to writing sitcoms, from generating ideas to composing stories, creating good characters, and writing a proposal for a new sitcom.

The others are available in English via Amazon.de:

TOP SECRETS: SCREENWRITING, Jurgen Wolff & Kerry Cox, interviews with a dozen of the most successful film writers of recent years, including a structural breakdown of their best-known film and sample script pages.

DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, Jurgen Wolff, foreward by Richard Branson. One hundred case studies in how people creatively marketed themselves and their work. The examples come from all kinds of businesses and activities (including some writers) but this isn't a book about writing, it's about how to make people aware of what you have to offer.
 

best regards, Jurgen