AI and Literature (8): Screenplays

This is actually helpful

One of the themes that runs throughout this on-going investigation is the question of utility, or — if you like — value. For something to be “of value” one has to first come to the problematic with values. The way I usually do it is to ask a primary, structuring question: What is the condition in the world that I want to see? If I can answer that clearly, I have a goal, and on the basis of that goal I can begin to assess what is “good” in this world that can help me move successfully, or confidently, or at least better in the direction of that end-state.

A tool is of value if it helps you move better towards that goal.

So far so good.

In some cases, we almost all share the same preferred end-state and we have little trouble sharing our evaluations of tools. Take the stapler, for example. Unless you have some questionable habits, your preferred condition is: “the sheets of paper stick together (within the standard expectations of a staple rather than, say, glue).” Is this a good stapler? That’s pretty easy to evaluate now that we know what we want.

If, on the other hand, you’re a museum curator and your task is to collect design artifacts from the 20th century and demonstrate how certain eras drew off of shared influences, you might be in the market for an iconic stapler design (in great condition) as your display object. Whether the damn thing works (e.g. the internal spring is missing) is the least of your concerns because you have no interest in sticking sheets of paper together. This stapler is, in effect, retired from that career.

So … different values based on different criteria, based on different goals.

(Conceptual frameworks are very, very helpful when trying to get your head on straight).

Today the topic is screenplays. Why? Well … I’m writing one and I anchor everything I’m doing here in the practice of a creative writing professional (that’s me). I engage and report on my use of AI and what I’m learning. Someday this will be useful. (As the line goes in the movie, “Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life …”).

I am turning The Curse of Pietro Houdini into a feature film. Whether the director and producer get the thing off the ground is a conversation for later.

So why did I approach AI (in this case, ChatGPT 4.0)? Was it to drop large parts of my novel into and say, “Make me an Oscar-winning screenplay from this, or, failing that, a beloved film that will make me gobs of money”?

No. Although, now I’m starting to wonder why.

Never mind.

The short answer is: Formatting!

Q: Do you know Final Draft, the industry standard for screenplays?

Yes. Yes, it did.

Q: If I provide you with a scene I wrote can you help me format it better to industry standards?

Yes. Yes it can (really).

So off I went. Scene by scene I asked it to clean things up. It helped nudge me into crisper if more boring descriptions of action; helped me differentiate a “transition” from a “shot” and also helped me understand better when to add less common notes into the “action"

At one point Dino (a young Italian soldier who has deserted) is explaining his ordeal to a group of monks and Pietro Houdini. The story is a bit long and involved but very dramatic and I decided (at least for this draft) that I wanted the scene to transition to a series of flashbacks with Dino providing the voice over. But I wanted the scenes to be less “documentary” and more told as memory: which means Dino’s innocent, naive, and kind personality would structure and present the visual storytelling.

How do you explain that in a screenplay?

The short answer was: I didn’t know, and I wasn't keen to watch two hours of YouTube videos hoping to stumble on the answer, nor did I want to read twenty screenplays where I vaguely remembered a similar technique being used.

So I write the scene as best I could, but then explained to AI what I was trying to accomplish. This was the result:

---

STYLE NOTE:

The following flashbacks are not perfect historical representations but are filtered through Dino’s personality: comedic, naive, and slightly exaggerated.

BEGIN VOICE-OVER: DINO

EXT. GREEK ISLAND - DAY (FLASHBACK)

A peaceful Greek village under occupation. Italian soldiers, including Dino, patrol the streets. Dino is trying to peel an orange and drops his rifle. An old Greek woman hands it to him upside down. He tips his hat, embarrassed.

DINO (V.O.)

Mussolini was deposed and captured and sent to the top of the mountain in exile. But then these German commandos captured the hotel he had been placed in and flew him away. Okay.

CUT TO:

EXT. ITALIAN MOUNTAIN - DAY (FLASHBACK)

A German commando unit swiftly overtakes the hotel. The commandos escort a disheveled Mussolini to a waiting plane. It takes off into the sky.

DINO (V.O.)

So then they put him back in power and we have the new Mussolini government called Salò. Okay.

---

So that helped.

Scene by scene, I fed the material into AI and it came back with tweaks and recommendations that assured a better alignment of my vision to the expectations of a director or professional screenplay reader.

In almost no circumstances did AI provide new or better dialogue. I say “almost” because sometimes it would omit a word or two and I decided that — yes — less was more and the line was a little better that way. But this was not “writing". At best it was suggestive copyediting.

What did happen, though, was AI would sometimes suggest or change the Actions or descriptions and it provided me with a baseline from which I could them imagine something better. Said differently, I would read it and think, “If that’s what the computer can do, I can do better and will.” So the automatically generated text set the bar that I then set out to exceed in terms of writing quality, directorial insight, and viewing experience.

It was not difficult. Maybe, someday, it will be. We’ll see.

What we’re back to, then, is AI being extremely helpful in providing a natural-language interface to provide standardization solutions to my creative acts.

While some screenwriters may try and make the case that every shot, every transition, every word is a creative or artistic act, my response is to roll my eyes. I’m a novelist. I already consider this a less art form. Yes, I absolutely do, and unapologetically. It is a skill and writing a good screenplay is very hard especially if you’re writing it from scratch, which I don’t do because I’m adapting my own novels. But the complexity, richness, and open structure of the novel is a nearly infinite canvas to compared to the expectations, limitation, and much shorter duration of the screenplay. I’ll defend this more later if asked to.

In conclusion: AI is an excellent editorial assistant, and occasional professional mentor, in formatting screenplays once you already understand the basics. It is not a writing assistant, and it is certainly not a writing substitute but — as with the valuation of the stapler — it all depends on your definitions and standards of value. Because, on request, it can create something (derivative and bad) that is perfectly formatted.

More later.

— DBM, 23 August, 2024