Hawaiian Punch Line

Among the many perks I have enjoyed over several decades as a UCLA screenwriting professor, few compete with the visits I made throughout the ‘90s to the Maui Writers Conference (now known as the Hawai’i Writers Conference). If the venue had been a Motel 6 that would have been okay; it’s still Maui. The events were held, however, at the five-diamond nosebleed-luxury Grand Wailea Hotel, Spa, and Resort, all expenses paid for me and my family.

Among writing conferences, Maui represented a rare fusion of film and print. The presenters were world class practitioners and educators, authors, biographers, historians, screenwriters, and powerful executives from movie studios and major league publishers. There were parallel events going on every hour, sometimes ten or twelve or even more at the same time: panels, lectures, workshops, seminars, and master classes offered by first-rate educators and practitioners.

On one occasion, I was particularly interested in attending a panel addressing the script development process in Hollywood. On the panel were the heads of the story departments from several of the major studios, TV networks, and prestigious independent production companies. They would discuss that most elusive of subjects: What the Studios are Looking for Now.

I had, however, a conflict. A regular presenter at the conference, Prof. Steven Goldsberry of the University of Hawaii, himself a writer of fiction, nonfiction, and screenplays, was offering a poetry workshop. Over the years I have myself written exactly no poetry. I have also read precious little poetry, and had precious little interest, therefore, in attending Goldsberry’s event under any circumstances, but especially in light of the fact that it was scheduled opposite the development workshop.

What did I need with any rinky-dinky poetry workshop? Are there even merely six writers in the nation who make a living writing poetry?

The problem was that over the years Goldsberry and I had become friends. What’s worse, he had attended my own screenwriting and literary presentations, and I felt an obligation to reciprocate. The thought of offending Steven by snubbing his workshop caused guilt to wash over me like the surf at Mokapo Beach.

I devised a strategy. I would catch the opening of the development panel’s presentation. After that I would pop into Steven’s workshop ten minutes late, stay for five or six minutes, make sure that he spotted me, and then at the proper moment (for example when he turned away to face the blackboard) slink quietly out of the conference room and return to the development confab.

The development panel was so well attended that there were writers hanging from the koa-wood rafters. I settled in at the back of the room as the development heads struggled to define the sort of screenplays studios sought. Not anyone could come up with a remotely reasonable description.

Frustrated, the head of development at Universal said, “I’ll tell you what Universal is looking for. We’re looking for whatever script Tom Cruise or Tom Hanks (or any other bankable movie star de jour) wants to do.”

What he meant, of course, was that the studios don’t know what they’re looking for.

Imagine, though, if you asked one of the Toms (Cruise; Hanks), “What are you looking for?” It’s fair, I’m sure, to imagine that they’d say something like: “I don’t know what kind of script I’m looking for, but I’ll know it when I see it. It will have, first of all, a compelling story. That story will have a stunning lead role for me to play, but that can’t be the only meaty role in the movie. There will be also other worthy roles that will attract worthy supporting players, as a protagonist needs solid characters to support him.”

No solid lead role exists in a vacuum.

One or the other or both of the Toms would likely have continued, “I want my character to have brilliant dialogue that is all by itself fun to listen to because it’s peppy and punchy and perky and provocative, and those are just the P’s. It’s got to be worth listening to all for its own sake. But it can’t be there all for its own sake. It’s also got to advance the story. Notwithstanding that, the script will not be talk-heavy but active, that is, the story will be moved forward not by dialogue so much as by action.”

Isn’t that merely a description of good writing? Do writers truly need a highfalutin’ studio executive to tell them that?

I checked my watch and saw that it was time to put in my appearance at the Goldsberry poetry workshop. I poked my head in the door for what I thought would be five minutes. Instead, I stayed for the entire presentation, and all that happened was that my writing life was changed forever.

The most important lesson at the workshop: economy. Steven had all the writers in the room take ten or fifteen minutes to write a poem on the blackboards that surrounded the conference room. He then went around the room wielding an eraser, changing not a word, adding nothing, rearranging nothing, but here and there merely eliminating words, sometimes phrases, occasionally sentences and sometimes collections of sentences.

For the most part, the poems were overdrawn and overwritten. Steven deftly swept away redundancies. From clunky, klutzy, unwieldy, self-conscious and heavy-handed mega poems there emerged smaller verses, sometimes merely a handful of haiku-like brushstrokes, which rang with clarity, joy, pain, and the sweetest, purest beauty. Here were capable poets drowning their own best stuff in storms of indiscriminate language. Once again I learned the critically important principle that applies to all forms of creative expression: Less is more.

I had to suppress the urge to dash next door into the development panel and proclaim, “Hey! Writers! Forget this development crap. You’ve already know what the studios seek: good writing. You want to learn how to be a good writer? Come next door and listen to Steven Goldsberry.”

Among the most poignant lessons I learned in Steven’s seminar that late summer Hawaiian afternoon: Consider every sentence to be a joke, and jokes end on the punch line.

Writers need to poke about in their sentences to find the central point, the word that represents above all others the sentence’s import, its punch line. In the sentence immediately prior to this one, for example, the punch line is ‘import.’ That’s why it’s a better sentence than, say, “For maximum import writers need to decide the central point of their sentence.” The latter sentence isn’t particularly dreadful, perhaps, but compared to the other it is inferior.

Exactly as the previous sentence is better than: “The latter sentence is inferior to the other.” It is not ‘other’ but ‘inferior’ that constitutes the punch line.

I realized, also, the reason I don’t write poetry. I’m not good enough. Poetry is not the easiest but most difficult of writing formats. In other kinds of writing a poorly chosen word will hurt you.

In poetry, however, it will kill you.

6 thoughts on “Hawaiian Punch Line

  1. andrew worsdale

    this doesn’t surprise me – i was a student of walter’s in the early 1980s at UCLA – he was verbose, arrogant, self-obsessed and frankly of no help to a fledgling ‘foreign’ screenwriter – the terms university and tenure and conceit still make me think – richard walter – thank god we never had to endure any of his poetry – because of all the teachers i’ve encountered he was the biggest patronising windbag i’ve yet encountered – the fact that he’s tutored many successful screenwriters is a matter of statistics not of his dubious pompous, self-inflated ‘talent’…

  2. Barry J. Moskowitz

    Poetry is the language of implication, achieved through imagery. In a very parallel sense, motion pictures is moving imagery which directly hits our senses, accompanied by the musical score, sound effects, editing, etc. Conversely, written words describing images and sounds appeal to our senses indirectly. Thus, motion pictures in hitting our senses directly can very succinctly imply ideas, feelings and transcendent ideals while dramatically eliciting emotional responses with its accompanying sounds. It is imperative to complement the aforementioned with succinct, creatively inventive and effective dialogue. In the classic 1940s movie, Body and Soul, a boxer [Portrayed by John Garfield] betrays his deal with mobsters to throw a championship fight. He wins. Then, he exits through the loud, frenetic crowd with his girlfriend [Portrayed by Lilli Palmer]. The mobsters step forth threateningly. He looks at them with bemused contempt and sarcastically says [Paraphrase], “Whaddya gonna do. Kill me? Everybody dies.” He and she exit. THE END. Hopefully, you would agree, Richard, that this is illustrative of great screenwriting. Beautifully chosen words which hits the audience with the boxer’s knockout punch! Regards, Barry Moskowitz

  3. Liliana

    I’ve always loved poetry and even wrote a poetry book, but like Richard never read a poetry book other than what was required in High School. How does one make a living in poetry I wonder! Excellent article by the way, I lived in Maui for almost 7 years and never had the chance to go to the Writer’s Conference. Now that is moved to Oahu maybe I will be able to go.

  4. Jessica Burde

    I started writing poetry, and never managed the transition to prose writing. Finding scriptwriting was an eye opener – a way to tell a story without any ‘excess’ words.

    Thank you for bringing back some great memories. And for the reminder to be careful of my punchlines!

  5. Mario Di Pesa

    Great article, and even greater lesson! (should “lesson” be the punchline in the previous sentence? I’m trying to determine if I really learned something here!)

COMMENT