Go Into The Story Interview: Stephany Folsom
My in-depth interview with the screenwriter currently working on Toy Story 4.
I’m a big Stanley Kubrick fan and Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is my favorite satire of all time. So when I saw this script make the 2013 Black List — “1969: A Space Odyssey or: How Kubrick Learned to Stop Worrying and Land on the Moon” — I knew then and there I had to interview its writer. That turns out to be Stephany Folsom and in April 2014, we had an informative and fun one hour plus conversation.
Stephany is currently writing Toy Story 4 for Pixar.
Scott: I understand you’re originally from Colorado Springs, Colorado. Did movies play much of a role in your youth, as you were growing up?
Stephany: Movies were everything in my youth. Other than outdoor activities, there wasn’t much to do in my hometown, so I grew up watching movies all the time.
Scott: Do you have any favorite movies from back then you remember?
Stephany: I’m a big classic movie fan. The Third Man has always been one of my favorites. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is another one I absolutely adore. God, there are so many. I love big studio movies. Steven Spielberg really resonated with me as a kid. I loved Jurassic Park and Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of my favorites.
Scott: What about your educational background? In college, were you doing any writing or film classes there?
Stephany: I told my high school guidance counselor I wanted to go to film school. She was this very, very old woman and she tried to convince me I should study radio instead. She thought a career in radio was more sensible. Luckily, I didn’t listen to her. I moved to Los Angeles when I was about 17 to go to film school at Loyola Marymount University.
I received an excellent film education there. It was completely immersive. They made you do everything in the classes. I got to direct. I got to produce. I ran the cameras and lit the set. I got to write the script. You got your hands in every aspect of filmmaking, so you really learned what it took to make a movie. I’m really thankful I went to film school.
Scott: I’ve read that some of the people who inspire you are Lou Reed, Steven Soderbergh, Kurt Vonnegut, Jean Renoir, John Hughes… Talk about variety!
Stephany: I know [laughs]. When you go into a meeting with producers or executives, they always ask, “What’s your favorite movie?” I try to hone in my range a little bit to more with them, but I’m drawn to interesting characters in extraordinary circumstances.
I love dark comedies. I think that’s where the John Hughes and the Kurt Vonnegut of all of it comes in. But I also love drama. I like extreme pathos, and that’s where Renoir fits in. I also love Hitchcock. I love thrillers and science fiction. To me, it’s ultimately about the characters, and the crazy circumstances you can you put them in to play out the drama.
Scott: Didn’t you log some time as a journalist?
Stephany: Let me start at the beginning of my background. It’s just easier that way. After film school, I did a brief stint in feature development where I worked with some very famous producers and did coverage, got coffee and learned the ins and outs of the business.
I left my development job to focus on my writing, but I still needed a way to pay the bills. I had a friend who was working with a foundation and she says, “Hey, you went to film school. You know how to work a camera. How about we give you a small budget and you go and shoot a short documentary for our donors about this AIDS clinic were building in Northeastern India. You can explain to them what’s going on and how their money is being used and how this clinic is being built.”
I was like, “Sure. A trip to India. This sounds great.” So I went to India with a sound person and a camera. It ended up being a total nightmare.
There was no way to get money in or out of there, or supplies. The clinic was never going to be built. It was near the Golden Triangle so there were all kinds of problems with drug trafficking. I didn’t know any of this was going on there before I went. That is how ignorant I was of that part of the world. While I was there the neighboring state invaded. We ended up being in lockdown and under curfew.
I got out of the area safely, but I had to come back to the foundation and tell them, “Hey, your clinic isn’t going to get built.” It was awful, but I had captured some great visuals and gotten some great interviews, so I met up with a friend who was doing some freelance work for the National Geographic Channel, and he suggested I sell the stock footage and the interviews to various news outlets.
I ended up shooting some short docs for various foundations and other outlets. I travelled the world, shooting stories on human trafficking, and the AIDS crisis. I went into war zones. I did this for a couple of years, and got completely burnt out on the travel and tough subject matter.
I came back to Los Angeles and returned to my first love, which was writing. I did a whole bunch of ghostwriting, I wrote for some premium YouTube channels, I did some commercial copywriting and I did and a lot of freelance articles. That’s how I paid the bills, and it afforded me enough time to focus on my screenwriting career.
Scott: One thing interesting to hear when you were going down the litany of all the things you did after your traveling and coming back to the United States… writing, writing, writing. Everything involved writing, right?
Stephany: Yeah, it was tons and tons of writing. Hours and hours of practice.
Scott: Let’s talk about “1969: A Space Odyssey or: How Kubrick Learned to Stop Worrying and Land on the Moon.”
Here’s how it’s been described: “With NASA troubled Apollo program and the Soviets threatening nuclear war a female PR operative conspires with NASA’s public affairs office to stage a fake moon landing in case Armstrong and Aldrin fail. But the op is faced with the biggest challenge of all, filming the fake lunar landing with temperamental Stanley Kubrick.”
Obviously the title’s inspired by Kubrick’s brilliant 1964 film, Dr. Strangelove: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. Is it safe to say you’re a Kubrick fan?
Stephany: Yes, and I can’t believe that I didn’t say that as one of my favorite movies. Dr. Strangelove is one of my favorite films of all time.
Scott: Me, too. I think we mentioned this on Twitter to each other. Strangelove is one of my top five films, absolutely.
Stephany: Definitely. The movie is so brilliant. It’s a terrifying portrayal of nuclear annihilation and an absurd comedic satire. That tone is so extremely hard to nail. Kubrick and Sellers were such a powerhouse.
Scott: I figured you had an affection for Kubrick’s work because I saw a quote where you described your script as being, “A cinematic love letter to Kubrick’s work.” I’m wondering how long you had known about the conspiracy theory that’s been floating around for decades that Kubrick did, indeed, film a fake lunar landing.
Stephany: I have an obsession with conspiracy theories. Ever since I was a kid, I’ve collected articles and research on them in a file. I don’t necessarily believe in conspiracy theories, actually I think most of them are not true, but I love the idea of conspiracy theories. I love giant plots with synchronized efforts to pull of a mission.
I had collected a lot of fake lunar landing conspiracy theories over the years, and my favorite had always been that Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landing.
Last fall, I went to the Stanley Kubrick exhibit at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. As I was walking through the exhibit and looking at all of Stanley Kubrick’s work and I remembered, “Oh my gosh. There’s that amazing conspiracy theory with Stanley Kubrick faking a moon landing. Quick, has anyone written that script or told that story?”
I came home from the museum exhibit and started outlining the story that would become 1969 A Space Odyssey.
Scott: So you go to this exhibit and you are reminded of the fact this was an actual conspiracy theory, then something clicks in your mind where you say, “Wait a minute, this could be a movie”.
Stephany: Oh, completely. I was just like, “That would be an interesting movie.”
Scott: Let’s talk about the two primary characters in the story. First is the PR operative named Barbara Penn. I believe she’s an amalgamation of two actual historical figures.
Stephany: Yes. In 1969, the Nixon administration recruited women to work in various positions at the White House, and Barbara’s character is an amalgamation of two of the women that were part of that program.
Scott: How would you describe her as a character? Where is she at this point in her life, setting her up for this wild personal journey she goes on with the filming of the fake lunar landing?
Stephany: Before we meet Barbara in the script, she had worked as the head of marketing for Singer sewing machines. She went as far as she could in her career at Singer and she wanted to prove she could do more than sell sewing machines to housewives. As a career woman in 1969, Barbara had a lot to prove to the world.
When the opportunity came up with the Nixon’s Task Force on Women’s Rights, even though it was an extremely low level position, Barbara jumped at the opportunity to work in government, because it was something she could really dig her teeth into. Barbara wants to make a difference in the world. She believes in our country and she believes we can make it to the moon. Ultimately, Barbara is an eternal optimist.
Scott: There’s a terrific moment in the movie where she goes to see 2001: A Space Odyssey and I think is under the influence of a bit of a stimulant. That’s when she has an a‑ha moment right?
Stephany: Yeah, she does. [laughs] Through my research, I discovered 2001 was not taken very seriously when it was first released.
The film was a bit of a box office failure until it became popular with the hippie counterculture. Droves of young people would go see the movie and drop acid and smoke pot. At the time Barbara would have seen 2001, there would have been a lot of people doing drugs in the theater. So it only seemed natural that Barbara would have watched Kubrick’s masterpiece under the influence of a bit of a stimulant.
I think it bothered Stanley Kubrick that his film was perceived as a “drug movie.” It was only in later years that 2001 was deemed a masterpiece.
Scott: That’s a fun way to intersect her with Kubrick. Speaking of Kubrick, how did you go about forming your impression of his personality as a character for this movie?
Stephany: I did a ton of research. I dug up everything. There isn’t much video and audio on him, so I had to do some digging to find the footage that exists. I wanted to get the cadence of speech just right.
I had an image of him from the movies he made, and I was surprised to find he had a Bronx accent. I didn’t expect that. I was also surprised by his childlike excitement and dry sense of humor. Kubrick was a complex man.
Scott: In your mind as you’re writing this, are you thinking, “This is how Kubrick would actually be,” or are you thinking, “This is my characterization of Kubrick”?
Stephany: I would say this is my characterization of Stanley Kubrick. I didn’t know Kubrick. I tried to be as honest as I could in my portrayal, but to say this is the definitive Kubrick is just ridiculous. Even people close to Kubrick didn’t really know the definitive Kubrick. That is what makes him so fascinating.
Scott: That actually gives you some latitude, doesn’t it, in terms of your iteration of him? He is a mysterious figure.
Stephany: He is very mysterious. It gives you some room to play with. Still, you don’t want to be truthful in your representation. In addition to studying Kubrick’s interviews, I researched what everyone around him had to say about his character, and the stories they told about him.
Scott: You have two parallel storylines. One is the filming of this fake lunar landing, and the other is over in the Soviet Union with some events going on over there.
I don’t want to get into the details and give away the plot, but I’m wondering, from a writing standpoint, if part of your thought process in creating that structure was you’re able to cross‑cut between the two and create a visual representation of the space race. It’s like you’re adding that tension to the story.
Stephany: That is exactly what I was thinking. When I first started thinking about ways to tell the story, I didn’t want to make it solely about filming a fake moon landing, because at the end of the day, what are the stakes in finishing a film? There needed to be more at risk. I really wanted to make it clear how close our country came to not landing on the moon.
I really wanted drive home, “Hey, if we don’t land on the moon first, we’re not going to win the Cold War.” I wanted to make it very clear the stakes were high, so that if Barbara and Kubrick can’t get this movie made, it’s going to be detrimental to the entire United States, not just, “Oh, shucks, we didn’t get the film made.”
Scott: I’ve read where you describe the story as a drama with some humor, but I thought the script was really quite funny. And a big part of the humor for me was conceptual in nature.
Broadly speaking, it’s the idea of putting this right brain creative type, Kubrick, smack in the middle of all these left brain science types, NASA. It’s such a fun idea, and you milk it really well in the script. Was that something you were consciously trying to mine or did those dynamics more or less emerge organically?
Stephany: I think it was a little bit of both. For the movie to be taken seriously, it had to be handled with a little bit of humor. Without acknowledging the absurdity of a fake moon landing, you don’t buy into any of the stakes or care about the mission. The humor was done on purpose as kind of a wink-wink, yes, we know this is a little absurd, but come with us on this journey.
Scott: I laughed out loud several times because Kubrick has some really funny sides. One is such a tiny thing, but it caught my attention.
Kubrick is insisting on bringing his assistant, Kara. But she’s nine months pregnant and in fact, goes into labor while they’re filming a lunar landing and she’s rushed to a hospital.
Later, Barbara shows up on the set and she finds Kara there. She turns to Kubrick and says, “Kara’s back. What did she have?” Kubrick responds, “A child,” which is such a tiny little thing, but it’s so indicative, I thought, of the type of obsessive myopia of his character. He couldn’t have bothered to say “a boy” or “a girl,” he just says, “a child.” There’s a lot of these wonderful sides of dialogue from Kubrick’s character. I’m just imagining, you must have had a lot of fun writing him.
Stephany: I had a blast writing him. In my research, I got the impression Kubrick was very aware of the persona he was creating. I felt like his every move was calculated, and a lot of his unorthodox behavior on set was so he could manipulate situations, and get his crew and cast to deliver the best film possible. He’s just a great, layered personality to play with.
Scott: There were some films that came into my mind as I was reading your script. For example, the fake lunar landing recalls the plot of Argo where they created a fictional movie project to help get the trapped Canadian embassy workers out of Iran. I was wondering, were you at all inspired by Argo?
Stephany: Completely. I watched Argo knowing how the story ended in real life and the movie still put me at the edge of my seat.
Being able to create that kind of anticipation, when you know how the real story ends, takes very careful, careful pacing and plotting. Argo was definitely an inspiration on how that can be done well.
Scott: I’m guessing Argo, because it was hugely successful, that can only help your project.
Stephany: Yeah. So far, so good.
Scott: There are a few moments in the script where Kubrick inserts himself into history. For example, the origin of the line “the eagle has landed.” That reminded me of Forrest Gump impacting history. Were you cognizant of that dynamic?
Stephany: Not at all. I must have done that subconsciously.
Scott: Another movie that came to mind was Shakespeare In Love. Will Shakespeare is constantly seeing and hearing things at random that later ended up in his plays. In your script, there are a couple moments like that.
For example, at one point, Kubrick tells Barbara, “All work and no play will make you very dull,” which is, of course, the famous bit of business from later on with The Shining.
Stephany: I layered in references to Kubrick’s work throughout the script, but I tried to be subtle. It’s a fine line to walk between clever and creating an eye roll moment.
Scott: You mentioned you did a ton of research. I’m curious about the process of the writing. How long did you spend in research, and how long did you figure you spent writing the first draft and all the rewrites?
Stephany: I would have to say the research took the bulk of the work. From there, I did an outline. I’m a big proponent of outlining. I ridiculously outline everything before I go to pages. By the time I had the research and the outline finished, it only took a few months to actually write the full script. Doing rewrites and everything, I would say the entire process probably took about five months.
Scott: You’re repped by Kaplan/Perrone and Verve?
Stephany: Yes.
Scott: How did that happen, and how did the script get out in the Hollywood marketplace?
Stephany: My manager signed me off a TV pilot I’d been developing with some producers. He asked me if I had any other scripts, and I told him I had this crazy script about Stanley Kubrick faking the moon landing. My manager loved the script and sent it out the town. It ended up on the Hit List and the Black List. Since then, Kurtzman and Orci have come on to produce, which I’m very excited about.
Scott: That’s a perfect fit, isn’t it?
Stephany: They are also love conspiracies, so that’s been fun. They also love Kubrick’s work as much as I do, so it’s been great match.
Scott: As you mentioned, last December the script makes the Black List. What was that experience like?
Stephany: That was amazing. I’ve been reading Black List scripts for years and following the Black List, and I don’t think I ever once thought, “I’m going to be one of those writers that gets a script on the Black List.”
You struggle for so long in obscurity and it’s just you and your computer, and the loneliness and self‑doubt you face every day. To have any type of validation for a writer is just like, “Thank you. This is amazing.”
Scott: The script garnered a lot of attention. I’ve seen articles on it in Slate, Mother Jones, and LA Times. What’s all that been like?
Stephany: I love that people are so intrigued by the script. There seems to be a community forming around it, which is really awesome. It’s put me in touch with all kinds of people all over the world, and we’re all sharing our love of Stanley Kubrick’s work. It’s fantastic.
Scott: What’s the status on the project right now?
Stephany: Hopefully we’ll get the movie made soon.
Scott: You’ve got other things that are in the fire for you?
Stephany: Yeah, I do. I have a bunch of TV stuff I’m working on. I’m working on a new spec. I’ve also been doing the rounds of meetings, and studio pitches. So it’s been busy and wonderful. I’m never going to complain about having too much work. Never.
Scott: That’s really good to hear and you certainly deserve this. It would be just a hoot to see that film made. I hope it happens.
Stephany: Me too. We’re working really hard to make it happen. As you know, you never know what can happen. So far, it seems like it’s on a good track.
Scott: Let’s jump into some craft questions here. How do you come up with story ideas?
Stephany: I’m an avid reader. I’m constantly reading articles. I’m constantly reading books. I devour information like crazy, and I’m always running across interesting ideas. Being open and being curious brings so many great ideas to your doorstep.
Scott: Are you one of those writers that thinks in terms of high concepts or does that not even enter into your thinking at all?
Stephany: That enters into my thinking, definitely. But I don’t think that’s where I start. I start with, “Is this an interesting character that we’re going to care about on their journey?” That’s where I start, and then I build the world around the character.
Scott: You mentioned you spend a lot of time focusing on an outline. I’m curious about your prep‑writing process. Do you have a specific approach or do you feel your way through it? What are the component parts of your prep writing?
Stephany: I’m really methodical in how I write. I do a ton of research up front. Once I have my pile of research, I start outlining. I go into crazy detail in my outlines.
You have to have certain things happen at certain points in the script or the story won’t work. Structure is so important in visual storytelling, and your structure lives or dies by your outline.
Once I have a solid structure in place, I can go to pages and put all my focus on the emotional arcs of the story. I’m like, “I’ve got the setup and the payoff and the plot all taken care of in my outline,” and I can be in the moment when I’m writing the scene, and concentrate on making my it resonate on an emotional level.
Scott: That’s exactly what I tell my students? I say, “If you break your story in prep and you have worked it out, basically, nailed the major elements in terms of the structure, and whatnot, once you go to pages that allows you to devote your attention to the cool stuff, like dealing with the characters, and as you say, being in the moment.”
Stephany: Exactly. It’s like you get all of that logical stuff out of the way so you can bring your story to life.
Scott: You mentioned character several times. Even when I asked you about concept you were like, “I really need to know what this character is, with that kind of emotional resonance.” I’m curious, how do you go about developing your characters? Is there any specific type of tools you use or angles that you go at when you’re developing characters?
Stephany: I approach my characters like I’m writing their biographies. I write up where they were born, what their favorite food is, all kinds of crazy stuff. I try to envision them as people with full lives, so that I know how they will organically react to anything in the story.
When developing my characters’ personalities, I try to give them traits that will create more obstacles in the plot. You want to create as much conflict as possible, and you can do that by giving your characters conflicting personality traits and motivations.
Scott: I’m assuming from just hearing you, because you mentioned those words “they tell you,” that by getting to know the characters in that respect that’s where the dialogue starts to emerge, you start to hear their voices?
Stephany: Completely. Once you have figured out their life story, you will know their voice.
Scott: What about the theme. How important is that to you? Do you start with a writing project where you’ve got theme or themes in mind, or do you find that those evolve or emerge in the context of writing your story?
Stephany: I think when I first find an idea that I’m not like, “Oh, gosh, let’s find the theme in this.” But as I go through my steps to see whether or not this idea is going to be something that can actually make a good movie, one of my steps is, “What is going to be the theme?”
To me, stories are supposed to convey something about our human experience and why we’re here. Theme isn’t what I lead with. But theme has to be there or else it’s not a movie. What’s the point of telling a story if it doesn’t have something to say about life?
Scott: Screenwriting when you really boil it down is scene writing. What do you think about when you’re writing a scene, do you have any specific goals in mind?
Stephany: In my outline, I layout what needs to happen in the scene, and how it’s part of the overall plot, and what the characters need to get across. So when I start writing a scene, I can get into the meat of it right away. When I’m writing a scene it’s about finding the truth in that moment. It’s about finding a connection that’s going to make you care about these people and what’s going on with them.
Scott: One thing I enjoyed in your script was your scene description, your action description. What keys do you have to writing entertaining scene description?
Stephany: I think scene description is so important. I’ve studied a lot of scripts, and I think Shane Black really changed how scene description was written. Before Shane Black wrote Lethal Weapon, scene description tended to be pretty basic. But Shane Black used his scene description to set the pacing and rhythm of his scenes. He had choppy sentences, dashes and sound effects. It was groundbreaking stuff.
Scott: I can still remember sitting in my office on the old MGM lot, the Sony lot, reading, The Last Boy Scout. It had gone out and sold for $3.5 million. He broke a fourth wall several times.
Stephany: Oh yeah.
Scott: It was so much fun. You just got into the spirit of the story. It was just great.
Stephany: Yeah, he uses the scene description to get you emotionally invested and excited about the story. That’s just genius. I think that while the ultimate goal is to have a script you can shoot, you have to get past the reader first, and you have to engage the reader.
You can use your screen description to be like, “Hey, this is a movie. I’m showing you how it’s a movie.” Shane Black, once again, hands down does it the best. If I can get even close his skill level, mission accomplished.
Scott: When you finish a first draft and you’re faced with the inevitable rewriting process are there some keys for you in terms of rewriting scripts, and if so, what are they?
Stephany: First, I do a throw‑up draft, which I don’t show anyone. Then I go through my throw-up draft with a very critical eye and get it to a point where I can show it to other people. Then I give it to trusted friends that have experience in the industry, and then I incorporate their notes into the script.
I go through the script multiple times. With each pass I try to focus on a different element. I’ll do a dialogue pass, a scene description pass, a character pass, etc. With every pass I’m very focused on one little aspect, so that all the details get addressed in my rewrite.
Scott: What’s your actual writing process like?
Stephany: I like to call it an office, but it’s really just a glorified shed with a window. It’s a small, quiet space where I write every day. For years, and years, and years, I’ve written every day. It’s just something that’s part of my daily routine. I try to get in at least two to four hours of writing a day.
I’ve done that all along, even with other jobs, and everything that I’ve had to do. I just get up early and get it done, or I get it done at night when everyone else is asleep. I’m a better human being if I get my writing finished.
Scott: There’s got to be those times where you come up with an excuse not to write. I like to ask writers, “What’s your single best excuse not to write?”
Stephany: Single best excuse? There are tons of excuses. I’ll make up excuses all the time. Getting into my office and sitting down at the computer is probably the hardest thing I do everyday. My entire being just fights against it.
It’s not a natural thing to do, forcing yourself to sit alone, and stare at a screen, and make up people in your head. When you really break it down, it’s really a sick, twisted kind of thing to do everyday.
Scott: Conversely what do you love most about writing?
Stephany: What I love is that moment where your story coalesces and all the pieces come together. The story is feeling right. The plot is working and your characters are interesting. Nothing beats that feeling. It’s the best high ever.
Scott: Where do you see yourself at five to 10 years?
Stephany: Hopefully still writing. I have a lot of heat on me right now, which is great. I think the trick is to keep the momentum going. In the next five to 10 years I want to have a body of work I can be proud of.
Scott: You said that you’re working on a TV thing so you’re obviously interested in TV, too?
Stephany: Yes, I am definitely interested in TV. I feel like so many people are down on the movie business right now, which is understandable to a certain extent. But also I think we live in such an exciting time and the technology has just blown open the door on what we can do with storytelling.
I think we are on the verge of recreating how we tell stories. There’s so much cool stuff being done in television and the digital space.
If you have a story that’s one minute, there’s an outlet for it. If you have a story that lasts for three episodes, there’s an outlet for it. If you have a story that goes on for three years, there’s an outlet for it. The doors have just been blown wide open on what you can do. I think it’s very exciting. They sky’s the limit right now.
Scott: It’s interesting. I have the same philosophy about that. I remember seeing some comments by the CEO of Netflix, or whatever, and he said, “We don’t consider, ‘House of Cards,’ to be TV. We consider it to be an extended movie.”
I started to think about it and it’s like really with all the cinematic sensibilities moving over to the TV side, I think that one of the reasons you could say that we have a Golden Age of TV now is that they’re really more cinematic. They really feel more like movie characters and that sort of thing.
You’re right. There’s an interesting explosion, in terms of storytelling, where we may not even call them “movies,” “TV,” or anything. They could just be some other thing, in the future, that’s just a matter of how long they are. You know what I mean?
Stephany: I completely agree. That’s the way it’s all going. The medium isn’t going to dictate the story. It’s going to be based on how much time you have to watch something. Do you want to binge‑watch it for days? Do you want an hour and a half worth of entertainment? It really blows the door wide open on the types of stories you can tell.
Scott: It’s funny too. My college students, I’ll ask them every semester. I say, “How many of you people watch TV?” None of them actually watch shows on TV. They all watch them on their computer. If they’re not watching it on TV, can you call it “TV”?
Stephany: Exactly. Netflix won an Emmy. Does that make Netflix TV? It’s all becoming more fluid. You can’t hold on to the old system. You’ve got to look at not how it used to be done, but at the amazing things we can be doing.
Scott: In some ways, it’s never been more competitive to break into the business, and yet, in other ways, there’s never been more access to an opportunity, for people who are storytellers, to break into the business. Do you think?
Stephany: I watched an interview with Stanley Kubrick’s wife. They actually asked her that question: “What would Stanley Kubrick think of the state of cinema today?”
She’s said Stanley would have loved what’s going on with cinema today. He was such an avid proponent of new technology. He would have loved that anyone can pick up a camera and make something. She believed Stanley Kubrick would have risen to the challenges of new technology.
If you want to get noticed, you have to work hard and put your best work forward.
Scott: That leads to my last question, then. Here you’ve managed to break in to the business. You’ve got some heat right now. What advice would you offer to those writers that are outside the fortress of Hollywood in terms of learning the craft and breaking into the business?
Stephany: Don’t worry about getting an agent or a manager. When you have enough quality work under your belt, the agencies and management companies will come calling.
Worry about telling stories you’re passionate about. Because the doors are wide open to everyone, it means you really have to care about what you’re writing, and be willing to fight for it for months or years.
While you should be emotionally invested in your writing, don’t get emotionally invested in the business. It is a crazy, ridiculous business, and while you should care about your work, you also have to be able to step away from it and take an outside view. So it’s this weird line you have to walk of being passionate about your work, but not taking every note or comment to heart.
Also, I think writers tend to be very introverted, and I think now more than ever you can’t indulge your introverted side. You have to be a showman. You have to go into a room and convey your passion and sell your passion and sell your ideas. Ultimately, you have to be an amazing storyteller.
Stephany is represented by Verve and Kaplan/Perrone.
Twitter: @StephanyFolsom.
For more Go Into The Story interviews with screenwriters, filmmakers, TV producers, and industry insiders, go here.
