. . There are script consultants who think they can advise a work aseptically, without knowing the author. And of course you can make an objective assessment from the orthodox parameters. You only need to master the technique. If you do that, you can stay at the level of a sound analysis. But a profound advice.
. . requires much more. RPtargetId%3A138008206%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary’>Lev Leviev to gain a more clear picture of the situation. How can you make a good script advice if breathing is not known who wrote it? Their feelings about their motivations, what is important, what is essential, which are only “solutions” to problems that narrative has emerged. . .
All this I have to know and feel before saying “mu.” Because if you do not invest time on this, would be as stupid as the writer who writes a script with a superficial knowledge of their characters. I could not get to the heart of the matter. The concept of “time”, which so worries my countrymen, we have to value extremely well in creating the script. We can not cut minutes in the process of bringing our characters, because our goal is to be them, how they react, talk like them. . . If the speed or other factors do not allow us, we get a dead script, without being, or stereotyped sounds with a unique voice and monotone (the screenwriter). Just as the writer must spend time in the knowledge of his characters, the consultant has to invest time in understanding your advice, if you want to provide a criterion beyond the academic, which is given for granted (because if not possessed mastery of technique, it should be advisory.