A big thing in Hollywood these days, something I’d say is way out of control, is the division of directors into two types: the “Actor’s Director” and the “Technical Director.” What is an Actor’s Director? Essentially, it’s an on-set acting coach who focuses on guiding actors through their performances. On the other hand, the Technical Director is more concerned with the technical aspects of filmmaking, such as shot lists and advancing the story through visual and sound collaborations with the DP, sound department, etc. A version of this division has always existed because some directors are naturally stronger in one area than the other. However, there was once a more unified perspective that there really is only one type of director, and that the area you are weaker in—whether it be directing actors or handling the technical aspects—is simply an area you should be continuously improving upon. This dichotomy has become increasingly prevalent, but where did it come from, and why is it so widespread?

It all started with the IP craze in Hollywood. After around 2010, producers began their decade-long cycle of loving IPs—intellectual property—more than original content. This happens in cycles of about 5-10 years, and we’re overdue for this one to end. Producers seem to think reruns work better than original content, or that finding books with a built-in fanbase is the only path to success. They’re right in some ways and wrong in others. For any producer reading this, look at all the original movies from the 1980s that are still beloved today. They were 90% original. Start researching why and how that was done, for God’s sake. Yes, I’m looking at you, Disney.

Back to this director issue. Part of the IP craze involves famous actors. For the sake of this article, “actor” refers to any man, woman, non-binary, or non-identifying person. So let’s say you can’t get a particular famous actor for your movie because they are either too expensive or there isn’t a suitable character for them. Well, if you can give them a directing credit, that will help, according to producers—though there’s actually no data behind this—get the movie funded and draw in an audience. I challenge this notion. People see it as a perk, but they watch a movie because of the story first and foremost. That’s a debate for another time, however. But if you have data to show me, send it over because I challenge you that it’s non-existent.

So a lot of producers started employing famous actors as directors, especially for television, because, to be frank, DPs (Directors of Photography) often take on more of the ‘director’ role on some television sets than the actual directors. Don’t get me wrong, there are amazing episodic directors, I'm looking at you Michael Nankin, I can't wait to work with you again, but oftentimes the DPs are there for more episodes and know the style the Showrunner wants. So the director relies more on the DP on a television set than on a movie set, for these and other reasons. This means that a lot of episodic directing on television sets can lean more towards working with actors from an acting coaching perspective—hopefully from a story perspective as well, but often not. I can’t name names, but I know of a Script Supervisor working on a huge show here in Toronto where the so-called ‘Director’ would come on set without a shot list, without script notes on what to change or enhance for the story, etc. They’d just show up every day and say, “I feel like today we should try this…” and then proceed to give some sort of wishy-washy idea of what to do. Little did they know, after a painful first episode, the Showrunner realized they needed to change things and quietly told the 1st AD and DP to have a meeting for each episode without the director, create shot lists themselves, figure out all the visuals, and just make the director think it was her idea. And this isn’t an isolated story. Now is this the right way to do things? No, but there were a lot of politics involved that I can't get into without revealing the show, so let's just say their backs were to a wall. In fact, these days, if I hear “Actor’s Director,” I know that either an incredible 1st AD and DP will call the real shots, or the set will be out of control, resulting in a quality that will lean more towards a short film or student film in look and design than anything else. Don't even get me started on the countless incredible books out there on directing that no one these days has read. I point you to David Mamet's "On Directing," Judith Weston's "Directing Actors," and the infamous "Film Directing: Shot by Shot," by Steve D. Katz. If you haven't read all three of this, and I'm being serious, you're not a director yet. There, I said it. Read them and tell me you didn't learn a ton!

How did this trend reach movie sets? Well, since television operates like this, it wasn’t a big leap for producers to think they could do the same in movies and just make sure the rest of the crew absorbs what should be the director’s duties into their own. And if the director has a ‘name’ that people recognize, boom! That helps get investors—that part I believe—and producers think it’ll draw in audiences. On a mass scale, I don’t think this is true, but show me the data to prove me wrong.

Now, the flip side to the Actor’s Director is the Technical Director, and I’m not a fan of them either. Some actors like to be left alone, so they lean more towards a Technical Director because they tend to be afraid of talking to actors. But there was a time, not too long ago, where whichever world you started in—Actor’s Director or Technical Director—you knew you had weaknesses in the other area and you grew your skillset to compensate. No one’s perfect, and no one will achieve perfection in any one area, BUT here’s a list of people I consider real directors, aka Actor and Technical Director combined: Kathryn Bigelow, Martin Scorsese, Ron Howard, Jodie Foster…the list is long. Special shout-out to Kathryn Bigelow, who I think is the number one and most underrated action director of our time. All of them work on storyboarding, regardless of how good they are at drawing, shot listing, shot planning, rehearsing with actors—the works. THESE ARE DIRECTORS. To me, everyone else is weakening their position to a point where, yes, they may get a few films under their belt, but if they want to become a great director and have a career, they need to be a real director and develop their skills so they are both an Actor’s Director and Technical Director.

Conclusion: Most Actor’s Directors start out as actors on set, watching the director make decisions, seemingly on the fly. But that’s deceiving. Just as an actor spends hours, days, months preparing for a role, the director does the same. By the time they are on set, all that preparation allows them to call things on-the-fly because they have done this scene 80 times beforehand—they’ve storyboarded it, and/or they’ve shotlisted it, they’ve discussed the characters with the actors, make-up, hair, wardrobe, sound, the writer, etc. So I hope one day we’ll stop with this “there are two types of directors” B.S., because honestly, it’s just a marketing ploy from producers, studios, or both. And it’s starting to breed a generation in the independent film world of people who call themselves directors but do no prep and don’t challenge themselves to learn how to break down a script and advance storytelling. I remember one famous director—I won’t name names—who said that they let the actors change the lines to whatever they want. I almost lost it. The actor sees the story through the lens of their character. The director sees the character as one instrument in the orchestra that is the story. So if the trumpets start changing notes, and percussion changes the rhythm, good luck playing Vivaldi. Can actors give suggestions, of course! They should and the director should hear them, but the way it was put by this one particular director at least implied that what the actors say doesn't matter to the story and nothing could be further from the truth. 

Think you know what character backstory is? Well, definitions kind of vary. Not to mention approaches to backstory. So, do you really need it?

​Backstory Definition #1: The character’s entire history before the actual story begins.
Some people, especially actors, write a character’s whole life history—childhood, likes, dislikes, traumas. This can feel like you’re working hard but can end up being a crutch to avoid actual storytelling or character development. It’s limiting if you stick to it because it might contradict your gut instincts while writing. For example, your gut might feel a character should launch a rocket in a scene, but your backstory tells you she’s too scared because of some unrelated past event. So you don't do it. Trust me, one thing I've learned over the years, and 34 awards later, is that your gut is often a way better writer and actor than your brain. Follow your gut.

Backstory Definition #2: Specific past experiences that form the character’s personality.
This means picking key events that explain a character’s desires, fears, and motivations. * But do you really need it? If the backstory is part of the current story, like Rick in “Casablanca,” it’s useful. But if it’s not on screen, it’s often pointless. For me, backstory is only important if it’s in the script. I just need to know the character’s personality, not the origins of it. Like in “The Lion King,” we don’t know why Mufasa is confident or Scar is evil; they just are. In “Shrek,” his grumpiness and feeling "othered" is shown through present events, not his past. We can assume this has gone on all his life, but neither the writer or the voice actor needs to know anything outside of present events to figure it all out.

My definition of backstory: I don’t have one unless it’s in the script as part of the story.
If it’s not part of the story, it doesn’t exist. Some of the best movies don’t delve into backstory. Take “The Godfather”—we don’t know his past; we just see who he is and how it shapes the story. Backstory only matters if it serves the plot. In the sequel, it's all about his past, but I don't consider that backstory 'cause that's the actual story at that moment.

I briefly took a class on character backstory, but had to cancel due to my father being hospitalized. This class insisted that all characters need a history of pain to be compelling. I so disagree. First, you don't need a character's history to be compelling. The Oscar and Tony award winning screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin, said, "I don't have character in mind when I'm starting a story. The character is born from intention and obstacle. And then, the tactics the character uses to overcome the obstacle, that's what the character's gonna be." No mention on the history of the character. For more, check out masterclass.com and go to "Developing Characters: Part 1." I do remember him saying something to the effect of, "There's no character history before page one of a story." 
In short, backstory isn’t essential unless it’s part of the story. If it’s revealed through flashbacks or plot twists, then it matters. Think of ‘No Country For Old Men.’ Do we know any of their backstories? Nope. Did the Coen Brothers write unseen backstories? I doubt it. Joel Coen mentioned that making ambiguous elements clear doesn’t necessarily add value to a movie. They prefer to keep some aspects, including character backgrounds, open to interpretation, letting the audience engage more deeply with the narrative.

Conclusion
In the end, I'm a part of the team that stick's to the present and how characters deal with current events to drive my narrative.

One thing I’ve discovered over the years from writing comedy is that a joke might be fantastic in a scene, but would the character saying it actually be that funny? The trend I’m noticing these days is characters in sitcoms and comedy series are funny beyond the realism set up for their personality. It used to happen from time to time, but now it seems to be all the time. While they talk like their character, when it comes to a joke, it’s beyond their established personality so the writer or producer can be sure the joke is as funny as possible. This makes sense, but is actually a massively missed, comedic opportunity!
I realized the difference between funny for the scene versus how funny the character when I watched the hilarious British series, “​Gavin and Stacey.” There were some pretty lame jokes from time to time and other times, just flat-out funny jokes and situations. So why did they have lame jokes? Well, those jokes were the extent of that character’s humor. From the character's point of view, the joke wasn’t lame. This actually made the moment even funnier because we laughed at how bad their sense of humor was.
So now, when I write a joke, I try not to go beyond the extent of the character’s established personality. If I feel they wouldn’t be as funny as the joke I want to tell, I either modify the joke, turn the line into an action that suits their personality or the scene, preferably both, or make sure the joke is so lame that the audience finds that funny. Just some Sunday food for thought. Have a great rest of the weekend!

1. It will be a long time before we have true artificial intelligence at the speed of human thought.​​​

There are two major schools of thought when it comes to how AI will serve the world:

1. It will assist workers and employers, making lives easier and more efficient so we can have more free time. 
2. It will replace more workers than it will help and the only people whose jobs are safe are those that will maintain and advance AI in the modern job world.

Here's why #1 is so wrong it's crazy. It's already happened before and it will happen again. It was called computers, then it was called the Internet. In both cases, companies said these will make our lives easier, give people more free time etc...Well neither did. Employers found out that they could double, triple, quadruple the workload an individual does in a day, therefore increase their profits thanks to this new thing called "computer." Same with the internet. Employers won't choose to say, "We have AI now so everyone can stop working eight hour days, but I'll still pay you your full-time wage." Should they, yes of course. Will they, no. If a business isn't growing, it's dying. That's modern business philosophy. I could go on, but you get my point. 
My big however to all this is, governments need to step up immediately. Not with banning AI. The cat is out and you actually can't stop it now without hurting smaller businesses, but that's another topic for another time. What governments can do is start instituting new concepts that are being proven, economically, to work in everyone's best interests. For example, Universal Basic Income or UBI! I believe, don't quote me here, it was Bill Gates who suggested over a decade ago that for every job a human loses to an AI, we "tax" the company that position and the money goes towards UBI for everyone. Click Here for an interesting article about it all. Economists have even done the math. Here in Canada many economists say UBI would actually save the government money because we wouldn't need as expansive social services that we currently utilize that has extreme overhead. So in theory we could be doing UBI now Canada-wide without even getting assistance from AI.

The Final Frontier​

One of my favourite TV shows is The Orville. In that show, they tackled the 'What if money didn’t exist in the future?' question. Money was replaced with social value. It wasn't some sort of rating system or anything; you just had to do your best in whatever career path you were passionate about. If you didn't, you were fine. You still had everything, but socially it would be seen as a bit of a wasted life. You weren't shamed either. It's simply that the new social norm was following your passions. Your home, food, clothing, toys—everything would be provided. They used this magical technological tool called a Matter Synthesizer that could create food, objects, anything, really, using atoms from the air around them. Think Star Trek's replicators, but without the copyright issues. However, UBI could, until AI creates its own version of this Matter Synthesizer device, be a starting point for all of that.

I've won over 32 finalist awards in some of Hollywood's top screenwriting competitions, both in drama and comedy. So I should have a manager and an agent and be a full-time working screenwriter, right? While I agree that I "should" be those things, but I'm not. So what went wrong? Nothing. I did everything right. I even spent over 10K on a screenwriter's retreat last year where I was at a castle in France being mentored by an ex-executive from HBO. 
I learned a lot at that retreat from my mentor, but something another mentor said to all of us as we were into our second glass of wine at dinner, was "Be so good, you don't have to convince other people to work with you." That hit me like a ton of bricks. I realized that I was spending too much of my energy trying to impress people and not enough of my energy focused on simply being the best I could be. Now yes, I think 32 awards is evidence that I'm good and the mentors all loved my pitch, they had notes of course, but the support and acknowledgement of my skills and all the hard work I put into my career was there. 
Remember that moment in the iconic TV series "Friends" when they're hauling the couch up the stairs and Ross keeps yelling out, "Pivot!" Well that's what I needed to do. I had spent over a decade doing it one way, I needed to pivot if I'm going to get results faster, sooner. Keep in mind, I could have kept winning awards to the point where I was the best person on Coverfly.com . That was definitely a direction I could take. I figured it would cost me about $3000 to $5000 a year just to enter those competitions and have my score rank me high enough, but I thought to myself "How can I make a bigger impact, sooner, and start to be seen by managers, and agents?" If you're new to screenwriting, a Manager is your number one goal by-the-way. Not an agent. Google the difference and you'll see why. That being said, if you're new to screenwriting, don't think about getting a manager until at least a few years of intense study and some recognition under your belt. 
Before I show you what my pivot looks like, first here are some things I learned from screenwriting competitions that will help you navigate them effectively. 

• Don't pay for coverage of your script. Why? Because most of the time you do not know who the reader is that's giving you the coverage. In fact, I don't know of any screenwriting competition that's out there that actually does give out the information on who the readers are. Sure, they advertise the judges that will be there for the finalist, but you have to get through two, three, or four readers before your script is even in a finalist position. And no, just because it's a reputable competition it doesn't mean the reader will be any good. I could give you a million examples, but trust me on that. I was even told by a reader from the Austin Film Festival, that two leading female characters wasn't believable. My jaw hit the floor. And I've had readers from one competition, completely contradict readers from another. And don't get me started on The Black List. One of my pilot scripts was basically praised as one of the best scripts they had ever read and they still only ranked it a 5/10, which apparently is common. To date, the only screenwriting competition where I paid for feedback from an unknown reader and I felt the feedback was invaluable was from the screenwriting competition based off of the best selling book Save The Cat. The reason being is because the reader has to analyze your script giving all one hundred or so principles of Save The Cat. So there is a nice structure there. It's a costly thing to enter, but that was worth it for me at that time. So don't bother unless you know the reader and their credentials, no matter how popular the competition is.
• Make a Spreadsheet Every Year of Early Bird Deadlines. This will just save you hundreds of dollars in the end so you don't miss a deadline. This will also help you work under a deadline as a writer which is invaluable. 
  
• Use Coverfly.com - I get no money for recommending them, but the reason I do is, not only can you enter most of the largest competitions as well as the more reputable ones, but they also keep a running score of your wins and losses which makes you as a writer look more appealing if your work ranks in, say, the top 1% of Coverfly. 
• Keep updating your script - I love the feeling of "done." I think we all do. That being said, many competitions offer the writer the opportunity to submit an updated version of the script if they have been accepted into semifinalist from quarterfinalist. Be sure to take advantage of this. 
• So who do I recommend read your script? - What kind of writer are you? Do you take notes well? Are you defensive? Do you live in fear over what someone says? I'm not judging you, but you need to know 'cause that will help determine where you get your notes from. The more professional the person, generally the better, but I don't discount even one or two trusted friends who don't read scripts, but are voracious readers of fiction. I know that means they can't comment on the formatting of the script, but they can tell me what they think of the story. To me the two best readers you'll ever have are, no, not other writers. Let me tell you why before I move on. First you need to see where they are in their own careers. If they aren't working full-time or have at least 30 screenwriting awards, don't even bother. All they'll do is quote the same cliché notes you'll hear from anyone like every ten pages there needs to be a shift or the plot needs to advance forward with an action. I don't disagree, but those kinds of writers will lead you through the fastest road to mediocrity. Who I was ACTUALLY going to recommend is established Producers and Screenwriting coaches like David Trottier. For the record, don't be fooled by his badly designed website that makes the Space Jam website look amazing. He's one of the best out there and I can say that from personal experience. So why a Producer? Because they are the ones you will inevitably be selling your story to anyways. So why not get into the heads of a producer who can look at your work and tell you why your script is bankable or not? Of course look at their imdb.com first. If most of their work is rated a 4/10 or 5/10, then you aren't going to get a great producer. If their work is consistently ranked higher, you might be good. Remember my mentor in France? Well she looked at a scene I wrote about a family in a mobile home. The kids were playing in the living room area while the parents were up front. She said given the dialogue, which I should cut down, why can't the kids also be in the front? She was right. They could be in the front, but why is that important? Because just having that in the script turned the shooting day from an eight hour day with multiple camera angles in the living area and in the front, to a four hour shoot since everyone can be in the same wide shot. Yes! Producers look at that too and you should do the same with your script during the edit-stage.
• To writer's groups or not to writer's groups? - I hate them and don't bother. Why? I find most are filled with what I call hobbyist screenwriters. If that's the direction you want to go in, then go for it, zero judgement. My direction, however, is full-time career. So to spend two hours once a week listening to half-assed attempts at writing from people who only have one script under their belt...why am I doing it? I'll write a whole article later about that. 
• Social media the hell out of your wins! - Unfortunately we're in the times where social media counts. If you're popular online, studios will take note of that. So advertise your wins, BUT, make them fun! Most actors and screenwriters do Instagram wrong. They do the, "look how great my life is," as the majority of their posts. Do you, as the audience, like that? I don't. Don't get me wrong, I still post like that from time-to-time, but the majority if videos and posts I like to watch are funny ones, or cute ones. So why not do that with your wins? Instead of just an Instagram post with an image of your quarterfinalist placement in a Screencraft competition, why not multiple images or a video where you bake cookies in the shape or design of a script? And then include the recipe in the description and be sure to hashtag #screenwriting #screencraft #coverfly #baking #writerswhobake etc...See what I mean? That will amass a way larger following.
• Be a Writer/Producer - This doesn't mean necessarily that you will produce your own work, but my writing has gotten sooooooo much better once I started discovering what producers wanted, what they were thinking, where the so-called trends are and more. How do you get started? My favourite place is from Life out Loud Films who have an amazing, affordable membership program called No Film School. No Trust Fund. No Problem. I get no kick-backs for recommending them, but if you do sign up, tell them you read Joshua Young's blog. lol. This way I know, as a writer, what producers are thinking, what it takes to pitch a show or movie nowadays, and a lot more!

Conclusion - So what is my new "pivot," to help make me stand out more? I started producing. I have years of experience as a video editor so I do know what makes a film look professional and what doesn't. You as a writer have zero excuses though. No money? Do you have a smartphone? Great! Write a one room scene using that and have it from the point of view of the cell phone. Enter that into short film competitions. Now you're being invited to Cannes, or Austin Film Festival, or TIFF. Make sure you have pilot or feature film scripts with you, so when they say, "I love your short film, what else you go?" you're ready! Don't be the, "I'm thinking about this story," person. They are useless to producers. So my new winning formula is this: Writing / Producing some of my work / Submitting to screenwriting competitions and festivals / Paying Producers to review my work. I'll be adding more to the list, but this strategy keeps me focused on my work, and makes sure I'm throwing darts into several locations. Crossing fingers!

I get this question a lot! I mean...a lot! Being a former acting coach myself, I have definitely learned that almost anyone feels they can teach acting, even after only a few years in the business. And it's a bit annoying. Google the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The market in most major cities is saturated with acting classes. I had a friend once travel from Canada to New York to attend a two month acting class because a few famous actors took the same class. I tried to warn her that I'm sure those famous actors went through every acting class they could get their hands on which means every acting coach could claim so-and-so was trained under them. So just because some famous actor took an acting class, it's really not evidence that the class is any good unless they still publicly endorse it. So how do you know if the acting class is worth it? Here is a cheat sheet that will help you out:

 At the end of the day, the answer is YES of course acting classes are worth it? Where's my evidence? Read the back of famous acting books and see who recommends them? You'll find it's from famous actors! The reason being is they didn't just once take a few acting classes. Many who are still winning Oscars, constantly take private lessons. Yes, even Meryl Streep. Look up one of her acting coaches Harold Guskin. David Mamet's book "True and False," was recommended by Anthony Hopkins. I could go on, trust me. So you should take acting classes, BUT, do your research first because there are too many out there who believe they can teach because they have a few years of training under their belt, google "Dunning-Kruger effect." I know I said that up at the top, but trust me, it's important to know 'cause this industry is filled with people who may have been working for ten years, but they've really only been working one year...ten times. They will waste your time or even worse, send you down a long, dark path with the wrong information and it will take another acting teacher a lot of work to clean up the bad habits you were taught.