Certainty Masquerading As Knowledge
It’ll never work!Five years ago, Steve Jobs introduced a nifty little mp3 player called the “iPod”.
Maybe you’ve heard of it.
Among the myriad articles celebrating the success of the iPod—a device so transformative, one can actually argue it has changed the way we live—one can find some other precious nuggets that reveal something wonderful about humanity.
William Goldman said it best: “Nobody knows anything…”
Here’s Mazin’s Corollary: “…but you have to believe that you do.”
Allow me to reprint for you a few sample comments from the forums at MacRumors, a popular site for Mac enthusiasts. These comments were written while members of the forum first heard the details of this new device called “iPod.”
I still can’t believe this! All this hype for something so ridiculous! Who cares about an MP3 player? I want something new! I want them to think differently! Why oh why would they do this?! It’s so wrong! It’s so stupid!
It’s now at the online Apple Store! $400 for an Mp3 Player! I’d call it the Cube 2.0 as it wont sell, and be killed off in a short time…and it’s not really functional.
All that hype for an MP3 player? Break-thru digital device? The Reality Distortion Field is starting to warp Steve’s mind if he thinks for one second that this thing is gonna take off.
Any way you spin this it is: 1. Not revolutionary. Big capacity mp3 players already exist. With Creative Labs’ entrance into the firewire arena, future nomads will have similar specs and better prices. 2. A bad fit. This product is outside Apple’s core competancy - computing devices. When many are calling for a pda, they release an MP3 player. 3. Without a future.
Here’s to another bullet in the foot…
This iPod is for spoil rich kids with insane parents or an Apple fan as fannatic as a Taliban. It has good features but forget about getting it for $399!!!! Never, who gets that thing is a very stupid person. Steve Jobs is under terrible consuling or is under too much pot. This propusal is not realistic at all. If Apple does something like this again is going down.
Won’t last. Another Cube.
In its current incarnation, the iPod will fail because it’s being sold into a relatively small market, and due to its limited functionality and high price. It’s another Cube, and I can’t understand why it’s so plainly obvious to us but not to Apple.
Heh. Now that’s amusing, huh? You can read the thread for yourself here. Sure, not every forum member was negative. Quite a few were positive…almost prescient!
Still, one common thread runs between most of the haters and the boosters.
Certainty.
More to the point…certainty masquerading as knowledge.
Unfortunately, that’s what screenwriting is.
Look, we are movie theorists. We write documents that present a text-only rendition of what we believe a good movie would be. We do not deliver it and say, “This is rather bad. Do not produce this.”
We say, “This will make a very good movie.”
Certainty.
Of course, we just don’t know. Like all speculative endeavors, we use our talent and our experience to craft the strongest possible theory with the greatest possible chance, but the best-laid plans…
You do realize that’s how bad movies happen, right?
Notice that a number of those unfortunate Cassandras I quoted above referred to Apple’s short-lived Cube, a notoriously ill-fated adventure in computing.
The iPod is a good movie. The Cube is a bad movie.
Both made by the same company…in the way that Patton and Captain EO were both written by the same man.
When you’re building your device (or writing your script), you do the best you can. In the end though, you are quite certain that you’ve done something good. Of course you are. Why would you stop building or writing if you didn’t think the device or script were ready?
The hard part is that our certainty sometimes backs the Cube and sometimes backs the iPod. The people we show our work to sometimes praise the Cube, and sometimes curse the iPod.
None of that will ever change the fate of the product.
And so…we’re stuck in a terrible Zen puzzle.
In order to write successfully, we must be certain that we are writing something the right way, even though such certainty is impossible.
We have to believe that we’re building the iPod.
Even when we’re building the Cube.
Nice analogy, Craig.
Yes very nice. And I say with all certainty, you speak the truth.
Tragically accurate. For certain.
Don’t forget the part where people, meaning well, afraid for you and your reputation as a writer, tell you you’re writing a cube. You assure them you’re trying to write an iPod…and they give you a blank stare. Because they were going to suggest you write an abacus.
I miss my Newton.
;-) Seriously, well put.
Your great article brings to light other success variables, too: context and timing. The iPod faltered, upon release, until iTunes was recognized as the best solution to a growing problem (digital media organization); there was no “bigger picture” surrounding the ill-fated Cube (too many monitors in the world?). Alas, I’ve strayed from the metaphor for writing, except maybe to say that the Cube wasn’t a bad computer, it simply had no market.
Craig,
I read [url=http://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2006/10/17/stevejobsontheipodvszune.html?partner=rss]this [/url]this morning on Fast Company’s blog. It features a great quote about Steve Jobs certainty on the fate of his upcoming competition, Zune. Timely and appropriate.
3
okay, i screwed up that link… sorry.
Hmmm, you know what?
I reread your post a couple more times and took away more from it than the first time - you’re stating, via Steve Jobs, that we need to believe in our ability and leave the audience to decide whether it works or not later, which is what I most certainly agree with - so disregard my previous post (and I’ll stand, hands on knees, for another capital spanking) - it’s a good thing I was less than certain when I posted, wasn’t I?
Craig, so true. And it can be said of photography as well. Nobody signs on unless they’re prepared to offer their finest work. Beyond that, limitless reserves of zeal and advocacy. It’s pretty hard work shooting a movie and without that belief system it might be a whole lot harder. The undertaking could turn out to be a load of crap, but we still pop the light meters out at six in the morning, convinced and committed. In due course, just as with screenwriting, it will be determined whether we’ve done something wonderful.
Off topic, I never told you how much I enjoyed your Genesis article a few months back. There’s still a lot of mythology floating around out there which your piece did much to dispel.
All the best,
Tom
I love Captain EO too, but do you really think Patton is a bad movie?
Tom Ackerman! Welcome to the site. There was a pretty nutty debate going on in the comment section for that Genesis article. I understood none of it. Someone said something about f-stops, and I lost consciousness.
You should set those nutty kids straight.
I think you’re right, Craig, but I think it goes even further than that. This industry rewards the appearance of certainty at nearly every step.
(It’s like politics, that way.)
Actual certainty isn’t all that important, as long as we behave as if we’re certain. We have to be some unholy combination of a carnie-barker, cheerleader, and used car salesman at every moment, and we have to put on that performance with no sense of irony.
Personally, I’m a big fan of doubt. I tend to be skeptical about almost everything - not in a snarky pissy way, but just because I realize this: throughout history, almost everything that humanity has been absolutely certain about has been eventually proven to be mostly incorrect.
Because of that, I’m usually aware of both the strengths and weaknesses of my work. And because I’m basically an honest and modest* guy, I have the impulse to talk about both what’s good about my work, and what could be improved.
That impulse has lost me jobs, I’m sure.
I had a meeting with a manager a few weeks ago, to see if we would make a good match. I had been referred to her by one of her clients, and she said she was impressed by the sample I had sent.
I went to the meeting with the attitude that I might be starting a business relationship with this person, and I wanted that relationship to be based on honesty (in addition to being skeptical, honest, and modest, I’m also alarmingly naive).
So I left my Salesman Hat at home. I told her what skills I’m good at and what skills I’m still polishing, and when we talked about the specs I have on the shelf, I was honest about their strengths and weaknesses.
In short, I didn’t bullshit her.
And, in hindsight, I probably should have.
The impression I got was that she liked my writing, but she wasn’t certain I could sell myself in a room. Because I wasn’t wearing my Salesman Hat during our meeting, I think she assumed that I can’t put on the SH when I need to.
With all that in mind, I would modify one of your last sentences:
“In order to WORK successfully, we must be certain that we have written something the right way, even though such certainty is impossible.”
In this profession, the skills needed to do the job are not exactly the same as the skills needed to get the job.
I’m comfortable with uncertainty when I’m writing, and I think that basic willingness to admit when I’m wrong is useful in the long run. But when it comes to getting the job, confident flimflam (accompanied by talent and skill) will almost always win over modest ambivalence (accompanied by talent and skill).
~ Steve B
I saw the “Genesis” reference, and I thought “I don’t remember Craig’s post regarding Myths in the Bible.”
The f-stops mention just confused me all the more.
Then I remembered the camera.
Or even more important. If you have just written The Cube believe you can write the Ipod.
Peter Gabriel-era Genesis, or Phil Collins-era Genesis?
And this post is about School For Scoundrels, right?
Donnie Deutsche’s catch phrase seems appropriate:
“Often wrong, never in doubt.”
But don’t you think, Craig, that we can make some distinctions between the script and the film, and that the writer can be more sure of his story than whether or not a film made from the script will be any good.
I’ve read your posts, and I know you’re a braniac, and I know that you know when you write well. Yes you do. Don’t deny it. Besides, it doesn’t take much, save honesty, to know when you’ve written poorly.
Example of the disjunct between script and film. When I read the script LITTLE NICKIE, I cracked up. When I saw the same parts in the film, I had credibility problems, perhaps because of the visuals.
There are a lot of folks making the film, whose behavior they have little control over let alone you. Perhaps there is the source of that uncertain feeling.
But I suspect you have a lot more certainty about completing a good story than you let on in your post. You’re just trying to make us losers feel better. Thanks. Needed that.
Rob
Yes, if only because the writer is (when he’s allowed to be) only one of the filmmakers. Good scripts can be executed poorly.
However, some scripts are executed reasonably well, but they’re just not that good.
One thing’s for certain. A good theory of a movie (i.e. a script) is a necessity for a good movie.
That’s the problem of McTiernan : Average screenplay + awesome director = good movie
But if he could get a great script, he would be able to make masterpieces.
Don’t be knockin’ Captain EO! On an August day in Anaheim, those 17 minutes in the theater could be just as gratifying as Star Wars.
And will you deny the sheer genius of having Michael Jackson exclaim, “I’m going in”?
Yo Joshua dude, just finishing a session here, and I understand there are many, and I mean MANY parts to writing - one of them being ‘creating a VISUAL scene’
first there was this…. “…I’ll take a capital spanking from you any day of the week, Craig, as long as it’s with a firm hand in harsh, disciplined strokes. Posted by: Joshua James at October 12, 2006 1:47 PM”
and I thought, dude - whoa…
but then there was this, “and I’ll stand, hands on knees, for another capital spanking, Posted by: Joshua at October 18, 2006 8:24 AM”
and this, well dude, no this was a tough one man… but point being made - and confirmed with our Prof. that you accomplished the visual - won’t take that from ya man.
R
I don’t have much to say, except this was a good post, and I think you’re right on. I think it’s good to be more confident, an area in which I have some difficulty.
Mostly I want to say that I saw Captain EO when I was 8-years-old and it was pretty f*ing awesome.
I’m starting with the man in the mirror…
Thanks Rich!
And some people think playwrights are too “wordy”, hah! I’m visual, I’m visual!
I am … somebody!
At the risk of stirring up the usual hornet’s nest, the iPod isn’t exactly a rock-solid analogy for a movie. You’ve left out what some people might consider the most essential element of a screenplay - not will it sell a lot of tickets, but is it any damn good. And while you’re a hundred percent correct when you say it’s extremely difficult to look at a script and predict that it will be a hit, you CAN look at a script and determine if it’s good.
And here’s why the distinction’s important - if you’re writing to create hits, you’re gonna die a sucker’s death. You can’t ever know what’s going to capture the interest or the imagination of the public. All you can do - all you SHOULD do - is write good material.
Welcome back, Josh.
Actually, since a screenplay never sells any tickets, that certainly wasn’t the point I was making.
The only thing I’m interested in when evaluating a script is whether or not I think it will become a good movie.
Simple as that.
Reasonable people can disagree on what “good” is, of course.
certainty masquerading as knowledge… sounds like why I love sports. The Redskins will win this week!
still enjoy reading this blog (and the multitudes of comments - you’re as famous as clint eastwood)…
…although i found it funny you referenced aristotle in response to one of my earlier comments… yes, i read him, no i don’t remember everything i’ve ever read, in fact i never know what day of the week it is anymore…
…keep them coming :)