All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Well first off Chris. Mckee's Story, isn't a how to book. Infact if you had been listening, he explicitly tells the reader that this book is about the philosophy of story not to teach you how to be a great writer.
I was listening but it's been awhile since I read his book and attended his seminar
Mckee isn't a writer as so much he is an analyst. Movies like Momento and Mullholland drive are perfect examples of movies that share something unique about the art. The whole point of Mckee's book is to get you to think outside the box. However before you can think outside the box you must first know what the box is. For that reason I can't see talent as mere accident. "I will write and write until I stumble upon something creative and imaginitive." That's false and not really talent at all. Hence what you perceive as talent is actually fluke!
I disagree. McKee himself says thou shall rewrite. So what you're saying is if someone writes a first draft of something and then rewrites it and imrpoves it then it was a fluke? Crap!
Like anything else in life writing for the cinema takes understanding and knowledge of the craft. One cannot create great music without first knowing time and note signature. You also have to remember that the writers of the great movies knew their stories from finish to end before they played with the time sequence.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with reading books on screenwriting or understanding the craft did I? I just said at some point you need to stop reading about it and start doing it.
This on the final page of Me and You and Memento and Fargo by JJ Murphy:
Quoted Text
In an interview in Filmaker Steve Buscemi, the actor/screenwriter/director talks about his experiences taking John Truby's workshop:
"I learned about what should go into a commercial screenplay. But when I tried to apply (his instruction) to what I wanted to write, I got stuck. I think good scripts incorporate all these things intuitively. What helped me --there was a retrospective Cassavetes at MoMA, so I saw all his films in one shot. It totally freed me up. His movies inspired me to just write and not worry about structure. One of the things Truby said was you have to know your begining, middle and end before you start, or else you're going to get into trouble. I think it's ok to get into trouble, it's ok to lose yourself in these characters and find out where they're going. And if you have to start all over again fine."
"As Buscemi suggests, the manual approach can be inhibiting as well as constricting through overemphasis on plot structure at the expense of character. In addition, it only guarantees that your screenplay will end up being conventional. All truly independant films manage to provide some element of novelty-whether in terms of form or subject matter-- that can't be reduced to a set of rules. As Jarmusch puts it. "There are no rules. There are as many ways to make a film as there are potential filmmakers. It's an open form" This is not to suggest that screenwriting is better mastered by a fly-by the-seat-of-your-pants approach. Screenwriters need to have a broad understanding of the entire film spectrum of narrative procedures available to them. Real innovation in screenwriting, as the various American independant films in this study boldly attest, comes not from an ignorance of narrative film conventions, but from being able to see beyond there limitations.
I didn’t say that great insight or knowledge cannot be found in a book, what I said was “Talent” can’t be found in a book.
I know from personal experience, as I started classical piano lessons at the age of four, by the age of ten I was offered a place at the Royal College of Music for when I was 13.
But I knew I wasn’t a talented musician, sure I could perform like a trained monkey and passed my exams with distinction but it wasn’t in me to compete with my peers, I knew I wasn’t good enough.
But when I picked up a paint brush for the first time and painted an oil on canvas without tuition, the reaction I received from other people including well established artists told me I had a talent.
The same happened with script writing, I had my first professional commission within five months of beginning to write screenplays after a Director read a couple of my scripts on InkTip.
The feedback and success I have had in just four years is because of my talent not my ability to format, structure or present a screenplay correctly, these are the things I did gleam from books.
My originality, ability to create an engaging story with believable characters and always have unexpected twists and turns that keep the reader reading, is my talent.
Presenting in the correct manner for a screenplay is my knowledge.
How to get my work to the right people is my insight.
Then I suppose I don't understand why you equated Mckee's book with the "how to books", because I don't think his book was ever intended to instill talent in people, but rather to teach people how to utilize their talent in its' most effective way. Now of course I must assert that each of us have our own process of working which is great. And we should only use what works for us and reject what doesn't.
This is an age old debate and people tend to come down on one side or the other. Can people be taught to write interesting stories, or can they only be taught the craft?
The same debate arises in all creative disciplines. I think you can tell if someone can act or not just by looking at them. It's all in the eyes. you can tell if the person has thought about life, if they have the depth of emotion that is needed to speak truthfully and with feeling.
A lot of the best actors tend to be introverted. They have deep emotions and they just need to learn to express them and then they can act because they always had those emotions ionside them. A shallow person who is confident and secure may not ever be able to act well because they simply haven't been through enough to find the resources to be convincing.
Can you learn that, or is it just who you are?
I'm an optimistic fellow and I believe people can do pretty much anything when they set their minds to it. I personally think that a lot of these books start in the wrong place. Or at least, start in the wrong place for some people. They are the gateway to show someone who has the stories already how to get them on the page.
In order to get the stories, to get the voice, you need to live. You need to travel, meet weird people, listen to the world around you. Get involved in things. Watch, observe, learn to be fascinated by human pschology, find deep interests in the mundane and realise new insights. Walk round museums and study paintings, photographs and let your imagination flow. Write down your own feelings about what has happened during the day. Be inspired in a million different ways.
The vast majority of screenwriters, the vast majority, spend their days either watching films or reading other scripts. They basically swamp their conscious and subconcious minds with already existing work and then when they write all they have access to are things that have already been done. You see works all the time that are almost plagiarised from other films, but the author themselves doesn;t have a clue about it, it's just that it's all there in their subconscious.
I suppose that in some ways I see talent as a mark of how much work one has put into their life. It's similar to the research you would spend on a specific work. If you work hard at being an interesting person and getting involved with interesting things, you'll make it easier for yourself to tell interesting tales.
Decadencefilms I agree with almost everything you said. In saying that I don't want to restart this debate with people. I can accept that I may be in the minority when I say, that "Art is a discipline as it is freedom to create". One can take any path one chooses to learn the art of writing. I personally don't choose any side because history has shown that both idiologies have produced results. I would be an idiot to argue the contrary.
I think writing is alot like cooking. If you are intelligent, gifted and worldly, then you don't need to go to school to learn the art. However some people may choose to go to school to understand the art. As a result I believe certain things can be taught.
I disagree. McKee himself says thou shall rewrite. So what you're saying is if someone writes a first draft of something and then rewrites it and imrpoves it then it was a fluke? Crap!
Rewriting still requires you to actively apply your skills and knowledge as a writer even if you approach the content differently.
I guess the point Mckee was trying to make was everybody misses on their first attempt. However the more you rewrite the more you know what your story is about. And that's the key point here.
In an interview in Filmaker Steve Buscemi, the actor/screenwriter/director talks about his experiences taking John Truby's workshop:
"I learned about what should go into a commercial screenplay. But when I tried to apply (his instruction) to what I wanted to write, I got stuck. I think good scripts incorporate all these things intuitively. What helped me --there was a retrospective Cassavetes at MoMA, so I saw all his films in one shot. It totally freed me up. His movies inspired me to just write and not worry about structure. One of the things Truby said was you have to know your begining, middle and end before you start, or else you're going to get into trouble. I think it's ok to get into trouble, it's ok to lose yourself in these characters and find out where they're going. And if you have to start all over again fine."
I disagree with some of the points made by
"As Buscemi suggests, the manual approach can be inhibiting as well as constricting through overemphasis on plot structure at the expense of character. In addition, it only guarantees that your screenplay will end up being conventional. All truly independant films manage to provide some element of novelty-whether in terms of form or subject matter-- that can't be reduced to a set of rules. As Jarmusch puts it. "There are no rules. There are as many ways to make a film as there are potential filmmakers. It's an open form" This is not to suggest that screenwriting is better mastered by a fly-by the-seat-of-your-pants approach. Screenwriters need to have a broad understanding of the entire film spectrum of narrative procedures available to them. Real innovation in screenwriting, as the various American independant films in this study boldly attest, comes not from an ignorance of narrative film conventions, but from being able to see beyond there limitations.
I disagree with some of the points made by Steve on John. To be frank I never heard of John Truby until today so I may not truly undestand his model of story telling. Anyways, as writer, you don't want to get into trouble or else you will be in trouble. That much is obvious. A writer should know exactly what he wants or else he runs the risk of creating a cliche.
The way to avoid a cliche or "movie summary" as I call it, is to know what isn't a cliche.
A cliche is taking a saturated genre and using it to tell a different human experience. In original story is the exact opposite. It is taking a new genre or aspect of reality and telling it through a common human experience.
Don't just believe me, try it for yourself.
Anyways Mckee's book isn't about telling you this is how it has to be done. Do you know the difference between a rule and a principle or guideline? So many people think Mckee is giving rules like the ten commandments. This is 100% false.
Mckee's book isn't a manual, it is a philosophy. That much is clear when reading his approach to writing.
I'm like you when it comes to "how to" books, I toss them out.
The way to avoid a cliche or "movie summary" as I call it, is to know what isn't a cliche.
A cliche is taking a saturated genre and using it to tell a different human experience. In original story is the exact opposite. It is taking a new genre or aspect of reality and telling it through a common human experience.
Don't just believe me, try it for yourself.
Anyways Mckee's book isn't about telling you this is how it has to be done. Do you know the difference between a rule and a principle or guideline? So many people think Mckee is giving rules like the ten commandments. This is 100% false.
I like your take on cliches.
However:
McKee's Ten Commandments of Writing are as follows:
ONE: Thou shalt not take the crisis/climax out of the protagonists' hands. The anti-deus ex machina commandment. No surprises!
TWO: Thou shalt not make life easy for the protagonist. Nothing progresses in a story, except through conflict. And not just physical conflict.
THREE: Thou shalt not give exposition for strictly exposition's sake. Dramatize it. Convert exposition to ammunition. Use it to turn the ending of a scene, to further the conflict.
FOUR: Thou shalt not use false mystery or cheap surprise. Don't conceal anything important that the protagonist knows. Keep us in step with him/ her.We know what s/he knows.
FIVE: Thou shalt respect your audience. The anti-hack commandment. Not all readers know your character. Very important.
SIX: Thou shalt know your world as God knows this one.The pro- research commandment.
SEVEN: Thou shalt not complicate when complexity is better. Don't multiply the complications on one level. Use all three: Intra-Personal, Inter-Personal, Extra-Personal
EIGHT: Thou shalt seek the end of the line, the negation of the negation, taking characters to the farthest reaches and depth of conflict imaginable within the story's own realm of probability.
NINE: Thou shalt not write on the nose. Put a sub text under every text.
McKee's Ten Commandments of Writing are as follows:
ONE: Thou shalt not take the crisis/climax out of the protagonists' hands. The anti-deus ex machina commandment. No surprises!
TWO: Thou shalt not make life easy for the protagonist. Nothing progresses in a story, except through conflict. And not just physical conflict.
THREE: Thou shalt not give exposition for strictly exposition's sake. Dramatize it. Convert exposition to ammunition. Use it to turn the ending of a scene, to further the conflict.
FOUR: Thou shalt not use false mystery or cheap surprise. Don't conceal anything important that the protagonist knows. Keep us in step with him/ her.We know what s/he knows.
FIVE: Thou shalt respect your audience. The anti-hack commandment. Not all readers know your character. Very important.
SIX: Thou shalt know your world as God knows this one.The pro- research commandment.
SEVEN: Thou shalt not complicate when complexity is better. Don't multiply the complications on one level. Use all three: Intra-Personal, Inter-Personal, Extra-Personal
EIGHT: Thou shalt seek the end of the line, the negation of the negation, taking characters to the farthest reaches and depth of conflict imaginable within the story's own realm of probability.
NINE: Thou shalt not write on the nose. Put a sub text under every text.
TEN: Thou shalt rewrite.
The "ten commandments of Mckee" didn't come from his book although a few of the so called commandments are part of Mckee's story epistomology.
The commandments that are misconstude at verbatim are Commandments number: 2,4 and 9. In his book Mckee states that it is drama not conflict that is diserable for the writer because conflict is a form of drama, but drama isn't always conflict. Mckee also states that the audience can be left in the dark provided the writer doesn't conjure up too many questions. In a few instances Mckee sites stories where the audience new more than the characters themselves and vise versa. Lastly, subtext upon subtext leads to confusion. Mckee said that dialogue should be (not always) the last piece that goes into the script because, the dialogue is from the characters figure of speach not the authors. Movie dialogue should mimic the fludity of real life but to the point that only comes in stories.
I own the book so I know the content pretty well. One thing to also remember is that all of Mckee's principles can be "broken". He never states that his guidlines are commandments. A guidline is just a guide. It isn't a manual or a rule book. It is certainly not the story bible for that matter it is what I always claimed it to be, his philosophy.
Yeah. But McKee hands the commandments out at his seminar. So you can't distance him from them just because they're not in his book. Also, I still maintain that McKee's book is a how to book because it tells the reader "how to" structure a screenplay. Anyway, I don't have a problem with McKee he taught me a lot. All I was saying in my OP was that there comes a time when you need to put the books down and get on with your writing.
Yeah. But McKee hands the commandments out at his seminar. So you can't distance him from them just because they're not in his book. Also, I still maintain that McKee's book is a how to book because it tells the reader "how to" structure a screenplay. Anyway, I don't have a problem with McKee he taught me a lot. All I was saying in my OP was that there comes a time when you need to put the books down and get on with your writing.
Just so you know, I don't entirely disagree with you. I believe there is always a time to write. If we don't write, we won't get anything done. A simple logical fact. However just to hit home my case again I want to state that whatever Mckee does is to make a point. Mckee wrote a screenplay on Abraham. Some biblical story. His "ten commandments" is just satire against the establisment it isn't meant to be taken literally as Donald does in the movie Adaptation.
His entire siminar is about empowering you the author to make thoughtful and intelligent decisions when writing, it isn't about telling you this is the only way to do it. He explicitly states that countless of times in his book (I am assuming he does also in his siminar).
Logically you will have a process that works for you so I am totally on your side with what ever turns out the best script. I'm by nature very analytical and creative so I like to create on purpose instead of by accident. I would like to know exactly why this works when this other method doesn't etc.
When some people hear the phrase "study the art", they get scared because these people are not very logical and can "only create by the fly of their seat" as Steve B said.
IMO Mckee's book is not a how to book because it doesn't tell you to put your inciting incident on this page, put your third act climax on that page, make your sceen act this long and so on and walla here is your "perfect" screenplay. What he does do is breaks down story in a logical and analytical way, so that we the student can make some conclusions based on observable correlations on the authors method.
Movies like momento are unique because they take the authors method and add to it, which is perfectly fine. All disciplines are always evolving over time. It doesn't mean we shouldn't study them.
However if you really think about the premise of Momento it isn't all that unique. BUT what is unique about Momento is the execution of the story. We are going from the end to the beginning. However if you lay it all out, it is still a linear story. And yes to know how to be innovative you need to know what the hell is convention. Like I said to you before to learn how to write outside the box you need to first know what the box is.
You also have to remember that the writers of the great movies knew their stories from finish to end before they played with the time sequence.
This isn't always the case. To take one great film - one McKee references I believe - "Casablanca".
The film had a troubled production history. The Epstein twins were the main writers, but another was brought in to deal with other aspects of the script (I forget exactly now, but think it was to beef up the politics). Pages were being handed to the actors on the day of filming, as it was being written and rewritten on the hoof.
There is a story - probably mythical - that they had two endings and had to toss a coin to decide which to have - but they certainly had a lot of issues over the ending, whether this is true or not.
The 1969 British "Italian Job" went into production with no ending written - not one anyone could agree upon at any rate. Eventually the Producer imposed the famous "I have an idea" ending against the wishes of the Director - and yet it is one of the most famous parts of the movie.
Some writers will work out their films in detail before they write - and will produce great screenplays. But to say all do is not accurate. As with all things in life and art, there are as many ways to write a screenplay as there are people writing them.
My fear is that if you reduce something like writing to a list of bullet points, your end result will be a bland and unimaginative scripts produced on a factory production line, all technically perfect, but all lacking any individuality.
Thing I noticed is if I manage to invent a character who's not 'me' then it all becomes interesting to me. The bloodything takes a life of it's own and I want to know what happens next. If you manage to get your audience to care about what happens next then the nut is well and truly cracked.
This isn't always the case. To take one great film - one McKee references I believe - "Casablanca".
The film had a troubled production history. The Epstein twins were the main writers, but another was brought in to deal with other aspects of the script (I forget exactly now, but think it was to beef up the politics). Pages were being handed to the actors on the day of filming, as it was being written and rewritten on the hoof.
There is a story - probably mythical - that they had two endings and had to toss a coin to decide which to have - but they certainly had a lot of issues over the ending, whether this is true or not.
The 1969 British "Italian Job" went into production with no ending written - not one anyone could agree upon at any rate. Eventually the Producer imposed the famous "I have an idea" ending against the wishes of the Director - and yet it is one of the most famous parts of the movie.
Some writers will work out their films in detail before they write - and will produce great screenplays. But to say all do is not accurate. As with all things in life and art, there are as many ways to write a screenplay as there are people writing them.
My fear is that if you reduce something like writing to a list of bullet points, your end result will be a bland and unimaginative scripts produced on a factory production line, all technically perfect, but all lacking any individuality.
Niles my good man I never said all do. But a good portion of writers know exactly what they want in their stories. Of course you will always find the exception, and if what you say about Casablanca is true then this is just one of them. However I highly doubt the authenticity of your claim because great writing is rarely by accident, but that is besides the point. The point is, learning story structure frees your creativity more than hinders it, because you see things as they are instead of what you wish it to be. You also learn how to write for the audience instead of writing as so many talented but amaturish writers do, writing for themselves. Leaving it to the audience to care enough to watch it on the screen.
Thing I noticed is if I manage to invent a character who's not 'me' then it all becomes interesting to me. The bloodything takes a life of it's own and I want to know what happens next. If you manage to get your audience to care about what happens next then the nut is well and truly cracked.
So true, however there is a way to do this on purpose instead of by the "fly of your seat".
Another point I wanted to make to Niles is that, the minute you write for the audience. You create something magical that people WILL care about. Hoping that they will care about work that you created for yourself is what I call, "art masterbation". It only pleases the individual and no one else.
Pages: 
Author
Robert McKee
Logged
Locked Board