This is something few books seem to focus on, and yet it's in some ways the most important part of making screenplays. This post is a request for insight!

It's very hard to do. Maybe there is no real guide, you just have to have the talent for it.

We all know how to set up a scene that has the ingredients for tension. But few amateurs seem to be much good at really building and drawing out that tension. I know I am struggling with it, thus this post.

A classic example I look to is the opening in Inglorious Bastards. QT sets the stakes by showing the innocent farmer with his beautiful wife and daughters. No songs, of course, that would undermine the scene by creating the distracting possibility of a son getting involved.

The Nazis arrive looking for a Jewish family. So right away, the scene is loaded with tension based on the stakes: the farmer's family.

While he has our attention, QT teases, disarming us with the polite Nazi colonel. But he has out attention, we know something is up.

And at the right time, the danger is amplified with a shot showing the family hiding under the floor(dramatic irony).

So we have stake setting.
Amplification.
Dramatic irony.

The tension really builds when the colonel lets on that he knows the farmer is not telling all he knows. So an increasing threat.

The key to the scene is suspense. Suspense is a delay before the events proceed to release the tension. In this film, the delay is milked for like 20 minutes, with the gradual amplification used to hold our attention.

But still, it's really hard to pull these scenes off.

Are there any other techniques people can suggest?

The IB opening is one of my favorite movie scenes of all time. I think you dissected spot on.  My thoughts on what you wrote:

Quoted Text A classic example I look to is the opening in Inglorious Bastards. QT sets the stakes by showing the innocent farmer with his beautiful wife and daughters.

JUXTAPOSITION:

i.e.,  two things being seen or placed close together with contrasting effect.

We know right away of the innocence of the farm family as contrasted against the evil of the Nazis. Boom - right out of the box he has them in the same - the juxtaposition creates tension.

This works with characters as well as places (e.g., think a priest in a strip club) or goals (e.g., defense attorney vs prosecutor.

Quoted Text While he has our attention, QT teases, disarming us with the polite Nazi colonel. But he has out attention, we know something is up.

SUBMERGING THE EVIL

We already know the evil goal, But the politeness and sophistication of the General, the seemingly inconsequential conversation about the quality of milk all serve to build the tension and escalate the impact. We ask ourselves how can this m-fer being this calm and blase when we know he is evil. A clever way to milk (pun intended) the scene. For me, something is far more riveting when it goes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10! then when it goes from 1 - 10! in an instant.

Quoted Text And at the right time, the danger is amplified with a shot showing the family hiding under the floor(dramatic irony).

FORESHADOWING THE EVENT

You are dead bang right here - at this exact moment, we are brought in. We can feel the fear under the floorboards and now are staying until there is a conclusion. What QT does so brilliantly here is not make it  really matter whether the Jewish Family is shot or not. There is so much tension built by the foreshadowing of what could happen, we will either gasp in relief if they are not killed or reel in horror if they are.  

I find that some many scripts want so badly to have the unexpected twist - they blow the tension angle by not foreshadowing what are the likely outcomes.  

Quoted Text The tension really builds when the colonel lets on that he knows the farmer is not telling all he knows. So an increasing threat.

I would also add that it builds as the villains goal becomes clearer. For me, in this scene, it was when the General went into his soliloquy using a metaphor comparing Jews to rats. He is telling us right there that in his mind they are merely rodents and he is merely an exterminator. Sent chills up my spine.

Quoted Text The key to the scene is suspense. Suspense is a delay before the events proceed to release the tension. In this film, the delay is milked for like 20 minutes, with the gradual amplification used to hold our attention.

Nice to have someone else appreciate this scene. I thought it was friggin brilliant writing.

Lessons From The Screenplay is a YouTube channel and they used the intro to IG as a lesson in tension.

It's really hard doing these scenes. The Bastards scene offers another clue too, in what it doesn't do. Back to that in a second.

I can usually set up the scene. That's the first step. There needs to be conflict, there needs to be a character that we care what happens to. Usually one character wants something and another stands in his way. It's easy to schedule these kind of scenes in one's outline.

It's more tricky when you get to the actual writing of them. That's where milking it comes in...drawing out the tension, letting it build.

But another problem is making the scene credible. The audience has to buy into it. And you have to avoid cliche dialog and, well, cheese. It's hard.

The Bastards scene again is a great example. In almost every other writer's hand, the colonel would come in as a standard grotesque Nazi. Probably a man of few words and menacing looks barking sharp orders. The kind of thing we always see.

QT made the scene memorable by changing the formula. His colonel is charming, enthusiastic, polite.

I'm writing a scene this morning, I won't bore with the details, but it's difficult to avoid the cliche while maintaining the threat level.

QT probably rewrote that scene many, many times. His colonel is polite and civilized and even friendly...yet he LOVES his job! He loves hunting Jews. He loves toying with those he interrogates. QT sets up his antagonist to be different, and that allows him to actually get into the character's head and make him dimensional, to make him drive the scene. He might have made the colonel polite, warm, friendly...and reluctantly doing his job. He didn't. He made him love his job, proud of his nickname the Jew Hunter, or whatever it was. And this allows him the big thing needed to build tension: TIME.

To create the time needed for tension to build, a scene needs to hold our attention. He does this by having a compelling character, compelling because he is unique and not cliche.

Cool link - thanks

Quoted from leitskev It's really hard doing these scenes. The Bastards scene offers another clue too, in what it doesn't do. Back to that in a second. I can usually set up the scene. That's the first step. There needs to be conflict, there needs to be a character that we care what happens to. Usually one character wants something and another stands in his way. It's easy to schedule these kind of scenes in one's outline. It's more tricky when you get to the actual writing of them. That's where milking it comes in...drawing out the tension, letting it build. But another problem is making the scene credible. The audience has to buy into it. And you have to avoid cliche dialog and, well, cheese. It's hard. The Bastards scene again is a great example. In almost every other writer's hand, the colonel would come in as a standard grotesque Nazi. Probably a man of few words and menacing looks barking sharp orders. The kind of thing we always see. QT made the scene memorable by changing the formula. His colonel is charming, enthusiastic, polite. I'm writing a scene this morning, I won't bore with the details, but it's difficult to avoid the cliche while maintaining the threat level. QT probably rewrote that scene many, many times. His colonel is polite and civilized and even friendly...yet he LOVES his job! He loves hunting Jews. He loves toying with those he interrogates. QT sets up his antagonist to be different, and that allows him to actually get into the character's head and make him dimensional, to make him drive the scene. He might have made the colonel polite, warm, friendly...and reluctantly doing his job. He didn't. He made him love his job, proud of his nickname the Jew Hunter, or whatever it was. And this allows him the big thing needed to build tension: TIME. To create the time needed for tension to build, a scene needs to hold our attention. He does this by having a compelling character, compelling because he is unique and not cliche.

Yes - not unlike Hannibal in Silence of the Lambs - he is an intellectual.

Stereotypical characters, regardless of genre, are the most boring and the least tension inducing because are own prejudgments wire us to  tell us in advance what they are going to do.  

Yup. Though I do have a hesitation. Remember I was talking about the film Genius? The critical review I read, from Rolling Stone, complained about the main character's wife being cliche. I thought it was a silly complaint. The wife is not an important character, she's briefly in a few scenes. Her role is not to create conflict in any of them. I didn't find her cliche anyway. It's the early 30s, she's a housewife raising their daughters almost by herself. But she has dreams of being a playwright and she is pursuing them! She's involved with theater. It was just the right level of making her different and at the same time credible...and still perform her function in the story, which is to highlight certain weaknesses of the main character.

I think the word cliche, or familiar, gets thrown around waaaaay too often. Drives me crazy actually.

But that said, for scene antagonists it certainly helps to have an original character holding our attention.

Quoted from leitskev Yup. Though I do have a hesitation. Remember I was talking about the film Genius? The critical review I read, from Rolling Stone, complained about the main character's wife being cliche. I thought it was a silly complaint. The wife is not an important character, she's briefly in a few scenes. Her role is not to create conflict in any of them. I didn't find her cliche anyway. It's the early 30s, she's a housewife raising their daughters almost by herself. But she has dreams of being a playwright and she is pursuing them! She's involved with theater. It was just the right level of making her different and at the same time credible...and still perform her function in the story, which is to highlight certain weaknesses of the main character. I think the word cliche, or familiar, gets thrown around waaaaay too often. Drives me crazy actually. But that said, for scene antagonists it certainly helps to have an original character holding our attention.

Some characters should be "cliche". One would go insane reading something where everyone is against form. I was mainly referring to protagonists and antagonists.  

Yup. I knew you were. You're right, I think. And archetypes are archetypes for a reason, no sense to throw them out.

When I come with what I believe is my A-game in feature writing, there's one question that is the most important regarding each story beat and scene in the outlines:

What does the audience think and feel at this specific moment? And then and then…

No theories, no detours.

This question is where I believe you reach control over genre (tension or not) and dramatic balance.

To me it's much more important to have contact with the reader/viewer than any story theory could artificially offer. Here, we all know Aristotle, 8 sequences, 3 act structure, save the cat beats and other story theories. It's even in our blood since we heard stories as we were kids at the camp fire.

Especially, when you truly start with the ending of the story, as most experts say, and then imagine what the people think and feel while walking back to the parking lot – at this place you will perceive if the story is worth telling anyway and more than that you will find the most authentic way how to reach that point and how to fill in those 90 pages.

Not meant to diminish the qualified knowledge of you guys, just saying your instincts and heart is where the trophy sits.

Probably I just wanted to make a post


@ possibly my post is too vague so I try to bring it into context with Kevin's Tarantino example.

I think QT does modern entertainment with few old school pop art characteristics. That's the only thing I feel after having seen his flicks. After Django I don't think much about slavery – after seeing 20 years a slave, I do. That's how they draw out their concept in every scene: What does the viewer feel???

(^^at least in climatic stories)

QT is clear about that impact and tries to transport that feeling in each and every scene to the max.

Here in Europe I feel we get much more anti-climatic stories than in the USA since we haven't that strong industry so that filmmakers take different chances. I heard Herzog did Aguirre while writing the script in the jungle at set.  All about instincts and direct impression. In a sense the approach is the approach there; no system at all.

"Probably I just wanted to make a post "

That's why I love this guy!

Hey, Prussia(Alex, right?), good to hear from you.

Let me refine what I'm asking for help with here: what are some techniques to help properly milk the tension out of any scene, whether comedy, horror, drama. Tension is the most important thing in crafting a particular scene. My guess is that's true in Europe too, tell me if I'm wrong.

I'm not so much asking about larger structure.

Let's make up a scene for our quirky French romance and see if we can come up with stuff.

Ok, so Pierre has been secretly in love with the girl in the apartment next door. But he needs an excuse to talk to her!

Finally he has just the thing: there's a charity bake sale in the building. She is a volunteer. So he plans to show up and buy pastry, make small talk, hopefully score some good flirts!

One problem: he's stuck at work.

So in our next scene, he has to convince his boss to let him half the afternoon off. But his boss already kind of hates him. So that's our scene.

So now we have to write the scene. The conflict seems obvious. He wants the day off, the boss doesn't want to give it to him. Looks promising in our structure that we designed weeks ago. But now we're at the writing of the scene...what to do, what to do?

We don't want to make the boss a cliche.
Yet the tension and conflict must be sharp, sharp, sharp.
We have to milk the scene but taking the time to build it, draw it out, fuel the tension.
How do we construct the scene?

One thing I usually do with my scenes is build them around a turning point, or sometimes a double turning point where the second TP reverses the first.

I've been doing my scenes that way for years...and it's still freaking hard to build tension! It's also hard to know, as the WRITER, if the scene has tension, because it's hard to feel it when we the writer know where it's going.

We can try to look for larger structural and thematic elements for clues. Maybe there is something we want the character to learn in this scene.

Maybe in this scene the boss can represent a different facet of the antagonistic force. But now I'm in over my head with talk like that!

So how do we make that scene with the boss feel really filled with tension(could be humorous tension, that counts)?

Kevin, yes I'm Alex still and for a while now.

"So in our next scene, he has to convince his boss to let him half the afternoon off. But his boss already kind of hates him. So that's our scene."

Should it be funny or dramatic, confusing? Again, what does the audience feel about the whole flick? Do you know the value for the audience? There you find the way.

Does he struggle to her all along – then let him struggle, hard.

If it's a story about how coincidence belongs to love – confuse, be natural, make the conflict usual, normal, About-Schmidt-like, low conflict; FITTING conflict, simply authentic. Mirror the story core. Don't go for individual scenarios if it's not true to your final message and the people's experience.

I haven't read McKee but he makes an impressive statement: Every line must aim at the core of the story. Every line.

"and it's still freaking hard to build tension"

You don't have to do it. You could write scripts that are exposition heavy and have higher climaxes. See: Moneyball. We see the coach grow, he learns. Slowly, and it's interesting. Empathic. Sure there might be conflict in scenes. Ask yourself: What do you remember in case of the film? Tension, conflict???? No. The movie is about, imo, that new things need courage and stamina. And that's what coach shows in most scenes. The scenes mirror the core.

"So how do we make that scene with the boss feel really filled with tension(could be humorous tension, that counts)?"

Indeed when the boss and guy have their talk you're within the heroes' journey. Where is guy? Ready to fight his boss to fight for the girl? Still unstable toward his goal?

I can follow your thoughts but I can't help you in those individual scenes/beats. As McKee said, I think the message defines. We shouldn't construct, rather feel, and share.

Hey Kev, I read your words in the birthday thread and it feels good to receive such sympathy.

In your thread here, I "tried" to make clear, for you, that people here who are serious, including you, are good screenwriters. All fine in that area. I just did that in an indirect way.

I know from you that you keep calling yourself into question and aim to get better. You are good. Good enough. Very good. Or ready. Whatever, 100% qualified to handle a script and guide it with producers. What I "tried to say" is that we know those "valuable" techniques, that f.i. Dave called out, to raise tension. You know them.

I understand that you keep your feature scripts away from public. I'm sure about it for years now since you were one of the first persons I interchanged with here and you always helped me to get contact on the board, so I kept an eye on your actions. And I ignore the specific scenes-thing to raise tension. To me: it's a theoretic monster discussion and in the end I KNOW you write good scripts and handle things right. It sounds stupid but as I wanted to explain to you, your scripts, have reasons - and that's connected to balance everything. And your reasons to write them, I know, are good reasons. Reasons, message, impact. That's feeling to me. And in a sense that should dictate tension and conflict. Authenticity. Otherwise you would do it for the money – then let's be serious: we would choose another job (learn some law or shit), wouldn't we?

You are ready. It feels as if the rejection bounces you back here from time to time. I myself get love for my script from successful filmmakers, and I mean Oscar winners and such. Never, has it been enough. Great, but "sorry not me", it was.

So this was a drama my friend, right? I hope there's some heart and tension :-) just continue and if we go under, then that was our passion in our life.

Hey Alex

Not rejections driving me back, I don't really shot any scripts. I have a project or two with Pia that's been shopped, and another one with Dena. The main reason for my absence is Jeff knocked me off the barstool at Simplyscripts Bar and Grille!

No, I left because I was turning to prose and novels. That's still my focus, though I dabble with scripts, leaving my stinky mark on Pia and Dena's projects!

I have yet to write a screenplay I consider commercially viable, so I don't shop them. I think I have a better chance breaking through with prose, even into the movie world. My prose has gotten to be pretty decent.

But I do still want to master milking tension out of scenes. Any advice is eagerly lapped up by me.

A key strategy seems to be this: how to effectively create the delay.

The delay is the suspension. That's often the tricky part.

Alex walks into a bank and pulls a gun, demanding money from the teller.

The teller says no, over my dead body.

That creates some tension, right? Well now we have to let it build, let it grow. So we have to delay events. Maybe the scene is supposed to end with Alex running out without the money. But we need to delay that conclusion. That's how we build tension.

So maybe Alex says to the teller,
hey, don't I know you.
Yeah, we went to junior high together.
Oh yeah, you were the teacher's pet.
And you used to pick on me.
I was just a kid, but give me the money or we'll be right back in school.
That's why you'll have to shoot me. I'm not gonna take it anymore.
It's not your money, fill the bag for god's sake.
I'm going to press the alarm.
I'm warning you! (he raises the gun)
You remember Grace?
Of course.
You stole her from me. I'm not gonna let you rob this bank.
(he puts his hand over the button and waits)
You little...
Go ahead, shoot me. That's the only way I won't hit the alarm. One, two...
I'm warning you!
Three.
(presses the alarm)
(Alex runs from store)

I know, that's lame. But the point is to try to build through delay. It's hard.

"The main reason for my absence is Jeff knocked me off the barstool at Simplyscripts Bar and Grille!"

Haha. But he's also qualified. Let's be serious. As I read, he wrote a script with Shawn Davis about Chernobil f.i.. They know what they're doing. And they feel the stuff and know why they wrote it (I hate it to talk about third persons like that btw)

"Not rejections driving me back"

I stated this comment as a placeholder, because it's noticeable that you are hungry (< we'd say it like that in Germany). Do it, Kevin. Sell that book, whatever. Self-publishing etc… There is no other way than being brave, pitch, call, email, talk,,, and eat shit without much/any despair.

… your dialoge…

"I know, that's lame."

It isn't. It's a good scenario. Of course, it even could be milked out more. The question is: What for?

What is the flick?  Does it fit? .... You cannot, imo, invent 3 minutes and let them work or function independently from what you're doing as a whole.

I repeat myself: You are ready and qualified. It's not only my opinion, Kevin. It's the truth. And that's not a smarm move, or whatever you'd say in English.

IMO you hide yourself behind those systems. You're good enough. I read your discussions with Dream for three years now, and he's an expert, but more pragmatic than you, what is good and respectable too (again: I hate it to talk about third persons), -- and you withstand (<not sure if it's the right word) with your emotional side. Movies are about feelings: I never thought you have a bad position in whatever kind of discussion, rather a massively strong one.

Quoted from leitskev But still, it's really hard to pull these scenes off... Are there any other techniques people can suggest?

I wish I knew. I’m in the same boat when it comes to writing anything that might be construed as ‘loaded with tension’.

Sometimes, I think the scene plays itself out based on elements no one could have anticipated at the time of shooting; those involved in production that is, and perhaps, not really what the writer had in mind for tension but, saw it come to life when the actors took it into their own hands.

A good example is the “Do I amuse you like a clown?” scene from Goodfellas. From what I understand, that was ‘Pesci’ just doing what he does so well… act. The scene wasn’t even scripted, he improvised the whole thing. You can see the immediate ‘WTF’ look on everyone’s face in the scene but, they just rolled with it. Great scene loaded with tension but, not even on the page.

Another similar scene that Johnny Depp took the  upper echelons of tension was his portrayal of ‘James "Whitey" Bulger’ in Black Mass.  You may have seen it but, the dinner scene has this immediate tension that went from fun to ‘whoa! … this dude is creepy.” I believe that scene was on the page, but still.. worked so well.

I recall watching a documentary from/about Duff McKagan on Netflix a few months back. He stated, that Guns n’ Roses was put together and in the studio almost immediately after the band was formed. He said something like: “all the right elements were somehow put in place to enable them to instantly gel and crank out one of the best selling debut albums in the history of rock.” Not years of practice together, just 5 guys coming together to make something happen like it was destined to do so. He was told by execs in the industry that shit like that just “Doesn’t happen but once in a lifetime.”

I think movies are somehow like this… the best ones that is. A script, director with a vision, good actors, and a chemistry that somehow follows the movie crew around from the first scene to the last. Like the Gods somehow pointed a finger down from the sky on the first day of shooting and said… “Make it happen.”

Tod Browning liked to use silence to build tension.

@ Rick

What, Rick? I read into one of your latest scripts some time ago - where the guy loses the girl and goes to war in France by ship.

I then had not found the power to comment on the script; although I actually wanted to give you feedback; because it felt so demanding intellectually, to communicate about it. You act there, as usually, as a completely fanciful writer who only works with instincts. Whatever you say here does not mirror your work to me in any way.

Yeah, but if one wants to be a writer, they better learn how to write tension into a scene in a way that the READER can feel it. This is one of the biggest differences between pro scripts and highly(perhaps overly?) trained amateurs.

This is what gives pro scripts that readability. You fly through a pro script. And amateur script, no matter how well written, is almost always a chore to get through;.

I do have something to add to the list though, something that can be hugely important to scene construction. Back to that in a moment!

The most common way to build tension into a scene is by having 2 characters with opposing goals. Thus you have conflict.

But it's not the only way. Hitchcock gave the famous example of two guys talking over coffee. No conflict, just friendly talk. Add a bomb under the table that the audience knows about and you have tension. Dramatic irony is what it's called I believe,

I have a list somewhere that I started compiling a few years back that lists situations with natural tension. For example, a man afraid of speaking in public is forced to give a speech. I had quite a few things on this list. Anything that makes the audience uncomfortable, that's tension. The geek has a crush on the cheerleader, and finds himself through circumstance sitting next to her on the bus. A patient has something really embarrassing to tell the doctor. All kinds of things.

Ok, now for what I just learned. I've been watching comics. This is also a form of storytelling. They also use the technique of keeping audiences uncomfortable. But the big thing I learned tonight watching them: surprise.

They use surprise. Yeah, a punchline is obviously a surprise, but it's much more than punchline use, which requires a set up. I was watching Dave Chapelle. Most of his laughs comes from simple surprise inserts. He'll be telling a story, several normal things are listed...and then something unexpected. There's often humor in that. And it keeps us paying attention.

Now, surprises won't build tension by themselves. However, what builds tension is delay after a good set up...and surprises can help build that delay.

So let's look at the QT Bastards scene. The tension is established with the stakes(the farmer's family). We know if the farmer makes a mistake hos family will ay the price. Now QT needs to DELAY the conclusion of that build up. One useful too is surprise. We don't expect the colonel to ask for milk, or pull out a ludicrous pipe to smoke.

Yeah, it's all s**** with the writing, big problem of the medium itself and a huge task for us.

Screenplays don't read like prose, Goethe or Hemingway. It's just forward, forward, forward. I read about 50+ professional scripts. My favorite one, the only one I liked in case of reading experience was "Fear and Loathing", there, you can perceive Hunter, even if the adaption process.

That screenplays read good, is an illusion. That they can read bad is truth though.

OMG!  I can hardly contain myself any longer.

Well, actually, I can't contain myself any longer, as I'm responding.

Kevin, you continuously, over and over, pounding it again and again, say something to the effect that there's such a big difference in a "Pro" script and an "Amateur" script.

I disagree so vehemently!!

It's as if every "pro" script is this unbelievable piece of work, or movie, but in reality, the vast majority of "Pro" scripts suck someone's arsehole.  And, the majority of actual wide screen release movies, from "Pro" scripts, usually multiple "Pros", are downright pathetic!

Your examples keep coming from "Classic" films and Top Notch writers, but the reality is that there's so much more out there!  So much more that deserves a nod of recognition

All this garbage about what a script has to contain, what a scene needs to have, is just that...GARBAGE!

I don't know how many movies you watch a week, month, year, or in total, but my bet is that the number is relatively small.  If you watched more and watched all types of flicks, from big budget to small Indie, you'd change your tune and understand that like Canis said, sometimes, things just work, and in reality, that's really how it works.

And it's not based on following some dumbass formula or making sure this and that is within every scene, character, and shot.

Just write what works...what makes sense, what's entertaining, and I bet you'll feel a whole lot better about life in general.

Calgon, take me away!!!

Jeff, you are even more clueless this time of night. I'm not wasting time with you. You know a lot about asides and stuff. Have fun with that useless knowledge.

My examples, ironically, when it comes to pro scripts, never come from classic scripts. I never read those scripts. I only read recently written spec scripts generally.

I do use movie examples to illustrate a point, and naturally I try to use movies we are all familiar with.

I have challenged Jeff many times to name ONE pro script he approves of. One! He never has. He never will.

Because there are no pro scripts that conform to the rules he was taught in some class. He'd rather count asides than look at what works or doesn't, and sadly I am not exaggerating. He once trashed an Oscar winning script because he counted the number of orphans, sentences that run onto an extra line by a single word. I kid you not, that's what he looks for.

Jeff, just stay out of this particular thread. You have nothing to add. We're not discussing rules.

I'm sorry, Kevin, but I can't just stay out.

Once again, it is you who brings up rules and the like, not me.

Unless I'm totally delusional, you have been referencing exact scenes in this thread...like QT's IB.  Over and over, in fact, much as you have in past threads.

It's very funny, actually, as so many peeps discuss this opening scene, and although it works, it's so far from an example that would work in almost any other situation, that's it's redonkulous to continue to try and have peeps emulate it.

It's also funny how you and others like you only quote this scene from IB.  Why not talk about how amazing the 25 minute scene is where they're playing that game in the bar?  It's very powerful, right?  It's also insanely long and dull and overblown, too.

Oh, my friend.  I respect how you try and help peeps.  I really do.  I just hope these peeps understand how unimportant all these ramblings really are.

For some reason, which I'll never understand, so many peeps feel the need to "rationalize" things and put them into a box, and say, "Here's why this works, and because it works here, make sure everything else can fit into this same box."

Leave your boxes at home, my brother.  You don't need them.

It would be a shame to see the thread derailed because of infighting. It is an interesting topic.

Jeff: Pro scripts are a valuable reference point because they have been filmed and it gives one the opportunity to see whether what works on paper also works on the screen. Yes, there are tons of shitty pro scripts and an equal number of crappy films. So, just assume that when one is referencing pro scripts they are doing so because it gives a rare opportunity to compare something on paper to something on film. The opening in IB is a great scene IMO and worthy of analysis. Pro scripts are also valuable because the writer is more at liberty to color outside the box then your average day amateur and we also get to see how that works. No one is going to give a shit about whether QT, Sorkin, Allen (insert your favorite) follows rules and guidelines. They are liberated from these constraints.

Kevin: Rules and guidelines are valuable and it is beneficial to have peeps around, like Jeff, who have knowledge of those rules. When I first starting writing and joined this site, I knew very little of them. I learned here and am a better writer from having learned them. I do not think they are a be all end all, but they have their place.

Long winded way of saying you both have valid, but differing points of view. You should both focus more on the commonality rather than exploding on the differences. It is counter productive and pointless. Stick to the valid reasons that you share different views.

Dave

I don't want to see the thread derailed either. And if it continues in that direction, I'll just got back into hibernation because it's a waste of time. I have a May 1 deadline on something and the clock is ticking very loudly now.

I also learned the rules from Jeff when I began, I always express my appreciation.

And then I moved on.

A little on that. Within that first year of writing screen, I was already questioning things, as Jeff might remember. At first, applying the rules was great because it improved my writing. But then I began to run into situations where the rules not only didn't offer a good solution, but finding the optimal solution meant breaking the rule. At this point, I had no access to current pro spec scripts. All I had were old classics, so I didn't even bother reading them, those scripts didn't even resemble what seemed to be modern rules.

Then I ended up on the mailing list for Scriptshadow back when he was sending out scripts. So I'd get about 4 pro level spec scripts a week. Many of these never even made it into production. But, wow, what a difference. I had read a lot of amateur scripts at SS over a couple of years, giving people notes or just reading features scripts. The difference was night and day, midnight to noon. Almost every pro script I read had a compelling story and was written in a style that made it more readable. I had never read a single amateur script that even approached that. There was no single pro style. But all of them were written in a way light years more effective than amateur scripts, even those by long time amateur writers.

The journey continued. I would get the Nciholls scripts every year, scripts on the tracking board, Oscar scripts, Hit List scripts. Not all pro scripts were great, in fact almost all of them have some notable flaw. But even in the really unappealing stories, they almost all had much more compelling writing styles. And none of them adhered to the rules the way many like Jeff think they are written.

What helped these pro writers separate from the pack? Talent, of course.

But I would guess this: courage. They have the courage to think for themselves. They don't mindlessly parrot rules, whether writing rules or story rules.

They THINK about what they are doing. And the write a lot of scripts trying to master that. They don't spend two years polishing the orphans out of their scripts. They learn how to craft scenes that draw out interest, hold our attention, make us feel. They learn how to use writing styles that achieve that for a reading audience.

My writing is not pro. My writing is a TON better than it was. And that growth came from analyzing, questioning, thinking about what works in a scene. It's not a box, because there are many kinds of scenes that work. Apparently it takes courage to look under the hood, to look inside that box and see what's in there.

I didn't start this thread to "help people". I started it to hopefully learn a new trick or two, because I need them. I shared my thoughts hoping others would do the same. I'm still learning. I'm done counting orphans though.

I don't really see the need to argue about rules here. The thread is about how to "milk the tension cow". That's a good worthy discussion, in my book.

We do have different experiences.

I have read amateur scripts that I thought were great and pro scripts that I thought were dreadful. Again, what I get most from pro scripts is the ability to compare what is on the screen to what is written since they do not always translate. As an example, I loved the scripts for Gone Girl and The Fault in Our Stars and in both cases thought the movies were mediocre. The inverse has been true is well. I do agree that in general, your average Pro script is going to be better than your average Amateur script. But is not my experience that Pro script = good and Amateur script = bad.

In terms of rules and guidelines, IMO breaking them does not make a script good and adhering to them does not make a script bad. I also believe that if you are going to write outside the guidelines, have a good reason.

In the area of unfilmables and asides s an example. Sometimes their use greatly enhances the readability of a script.  They can help establish tone and pace and IMO give the Director some leeway to figure out how to shoot it. Other times they are lazy and used to substitute for what should be made clear in action or dialogue. Long winded way of saying rules are not bad. But making story and clarity sub-servant to them is.

I also don't think it is an element of courage as it is as much liberty. A pro writer bares little risk from having a script hit the reject pile because of a format or rule issue. Conversely, it could be deadly for an amateur because many of those guarding the fortress  between script and production are looking for any reason to filter the thousands of scripts that I have to read.

Nor do I think talent is necessarily the dividing line between pro and amateur. Why - because it is not true in almost any form of the arts. For example, how many times have you heard a great singer or a band at a local bar and asked yourself how in God's name did they not get a record deal and Britney Spears did?  Talent does not necessarily equal success and the absence of success does not equal the absence of talent.

Anyway - we agree on the core issue. Story and clarity are king.  If you are turning the pages the writer has done a good job.  

I don't want the thread derailed, either, and for that, I apologize.

I also don't want to cause someone to leave the site, feel bullied, or whatever it is I may be making Kevin feel.

Quoted from Dreamscale I don't want the thread derailed, either, and for that, I apologize. I also don't want to cause someone to leave the site, feel bullied, or whatever it is I may be making Kevin feel.

If there was a LIKE button I would have hit it . Good post

Quoted from eldave1 We do have different experiences. I have read amateur scripts that I thought were great and pro scripts that I thought were dreadful. Again, what I get most from pro scripts is the ability to compare what is on the screen to what is written since they do not always translate. As an example, I loved the scripts for Gone Girl and The Fault in Our Stars and in both cases thought the movies were mediocre. The inverse has been true is well. I do agree that in general, your average Pro script is going to be better than your average Amateur script. But is not my experience that Pro script = good and Amateur script = bad. In terms of rules and guidelines, IMO breaking them does not make a script good and adhering to them does not make a script bad. I also believe that if you are going to write outside the guidelines, have a good reason. In the area of unfilmables and asides s an example. Sometimes their use greatly enhances the readability of a script.  They can help establish tone and pace and IMO give the Director some leeway to figure out how to shoot it. Other times they are lazy and used to substitute for what should be made clear in action or dialogue. Long winded way of saying rules are not bad. But making story and clarity sub-servant to them is. I also don't think it is an element of courage as it is as much liberty. A pro writer bares little risk from having a script hit the reject pile because of a format or rule issue. Conversely, it could be deadly for an amateur because many of those guarding the fortress  between script and production are looking for any reason to filter the thousands of scripts that I have to read. Nor do I think talent is necessarily the dividing line between pro and amateur. Why - because it is not true in almost any form of the arts. For example, how many times have you heard a great singer or a band at a local bar and asked yourself how in God's name did they not get a record deal and Britney Spears did?  Talent does not necessarily equal success and the absence of success does not equal the absence of talent. Anyway - we agree on the core issue. Story and clarity are king.  If you are turning the pages the writer has done a good job.

And I'd hit the "Like" button on this, as well.

And, I will go into a little more detail here, as well...

The issue I have with most of Kevin's posts is that they all talk about rules and why it's OK to break them.  Then, we're given examples of Pro scripts, where rules don't come into play, which is then equated to a Pro being better than an Amateur, and therefor, rules need not apply, once one actually knows these rules.

What I always say is that "rules" don't have much to do with anything, really, and shouldn't be viewed as "rules".  It's about what's right, what's wrong, what make sense, and why something is deemed as right, and why something is deemed as wrong.

Check this out...

It's the law that we adhere to speed limits, while driving, right?  Why is that?  It's so we're all (in theory) driving at the same speed, which results in less situations where accidents occur - it's for our safety.  If half the traffic is driving at the speed limit and the other half is going 20 MPH faster, there are going to be problems. If you're driving along a lonely open highway, with no traffic, trying to get to your destination as quickly as you can, do you need to adhere to the speed limit of 65, 70, or 75 MPH?  Well, if a cop is in the area and catches you going 90,  you're most likely going to be pulled over and given a hefty ticket, but in terms of why the speed is set where it's at, going an extra 10, 15, or even 20 MPH all by yourself is not going to be a problem (and I'm talking about wide open, straight freeway, not dangerous curvy, and/or mountainous terrain).  You don't have to be a Pro driver to break that rule.

If you think Shane Black is cool, then throw in a bunch of asinine asides, and see where  that gets you.  But also understand, they have no purpose whatsoever in a script, they will not transfer to film, and therefor, they're a waste of space.

Word out.  

Quoted Text If you think Shane Black is cool, then throw in a bunch of asinine asides, and see where  that gets you.  But also understand, they have no purpose whatsoever in a script, they will not transfer to film, and therefor, they're a waste of space.

If it got me where Shane Black is I would be ecstatic! I love his scripts.

It's not a matter of being bullied. I think Jeff knows me better than that. It's a matter of wasting time. Frankly, a lot of writers I think move on from Simplyscripts because the conversation is continuously dragged back to the introductory level when then want to move on to graduate level work. If that sounds arrogant it can;t be helped.

No one should break "rules" to be cool, and Jeff keeps saying that same mantra as though that's the reason most pros break them. It has nothing to do with that, except in unique cases like Shane Black. It has to do with the simple fact that the rules become a limiting factor in certain situations that prevent the script from being written in its best form. I'm not a pro, but I have written a lot of scripts. At least a dozen features and a fair sample of shorts. So I've run into plenty of situations where the rules just don't lead to the best writing.

And I'm not just talking about the writing rules. I'm talking about story plotting rules too.

I think you never stop learning about what's the best way to craft a scene, to build scenes towards something, and so forth. There are people here that have insights. I'm eager to absorb them. If the cost is my sharing so,e of my own, I'll pay it.

Jeff is not interested in any of this stuff. Fine. But why interrupt this thread? I don;t mind a good shit storm now and then, I just don't have time.

Quoted from leitskev Jeff is not interested in any of this stuff. Fine. But why interrupt this thread? I don;t mind a good shit storm now and then, I just don't have time.

I am very interested and entertained by this stuff.  That doesn't mean I can't disagree with it or chime in when I feel the need.

There will always be examples of instances where the norm doesn't quite work or something else works better.  That is not a debate, IMO, nor is it the topic of this thread.

As for following "classic" structure or the like, everyone knows I am not a follower or believer in such garbage.

Take the example that's come up here numerous times on the opening of QT's IB.  Analyze it all you want.  Point out exactly what it has in it and why it's so amazing, and how it follows this or that, but at the end of the day, it works for what it is and the movie it's a part of.

No reason IMO to think one has to emulate it or the characters involved.  It worked here, it did not work  in the later scene with the bar game, nor did a similar technique work in Hateful Eight (although it was reversed).

Jeff, it's equally useful to look at those scenes you mentioned and figure out why they didn't work, I'm not trying to hold QT up, I'm just trying to look under the hood and examine the mechanics of a scene, what makes it work or not work. I find it strange that someone who wants to understand screenwriting/storytelling/moviemaking would not want to do that.

So why not give it a try?

You get annoyed by my attempts to get under the hood because you don't really like looking under the hood. It's easier to stick to the familiar: slugs, orphans, etc.

But the thing is you're an intelligent guy, there's no reason you can't start taking a close look at scenes. If there is a chance this could help your own work, why wouldn't you take it? There is a fear here that you need to get past.

I don't say this to provoke, but rather to challenge. Watch a movie, pick out some scenes that work or don't work, and try to get to the why of it. Just saying "it works because it works"...come on, you can do better than that.

Kevin, no fear here, but no interest, either.

I just don't work like that.  All these things you look for, point out, and have discussions about, are done in my head pretty much instantly, which is why I keep saying things just work, or things just don't work.

I'm sorry you don't understand that.

I've yet to see evidence of any of this stuff done in your head, Jeff. That's not a poke. I just have never seen any in depth discussion of a scene. And you've not written very many screenplays over all these years, which suggests some writer's block issues. Maybe these could be cleared up by thinking beyond orphans and slugs? Suit yourself. But shouldn't you recognize that people that make films and sell scripts do tend to think about these things? So maybe not insert yourself into these types of conversations that you have no interest in.

Kevin, if that's not a poke, I guess I'm out of touch as to what a poke is.

Orphans, Slugs, grammar, and the like are all aspects of the "written script"...as in, they're all on the page and what we all see as readers.  You and I know damn well they have nothing to do with a filmed movie.

No writer's block here, either. I just don't have that much interest in the actual writing anymore.  Maybe some day, I'll jump back in.

But, unlike you, I watch alot of movies and I do know what works and what doesn't and why.  The problem is that based on the vast majority of movies, Pro writers don't know these very simple concepts.

As I said yesterday, I am interested in these discussions and am very entertained by them, so please, don't stop on account of me.  I'll be here, I'll be watching, and every now and then, I'll be commenting.

Peace out and word to the Mutha.

That opening was brilliant stuff. Shame about the rest of the film though.

How does one create more "general tension," in situations where their isn't anything life threatening or conspiratorial going on but there's a conflict nonetheless?

Hi Reccher.

That's the question, how to create tension. How to build it, how to milk it for all its worth.

The stakes don't have to be life an death. It could be a geeky guy asking the cheerleader out to the prom. It could be a wife telling her gentle husband she's leaving him. It could be the stuttering prince in the King's Speech who has to give a radio address. It could be someone bumbling through an audition for a part they really want in a play. It could be a preacher giving a sermon on faithfulness while his wife AND his girlfriend are in the pews.

Unlike Jeff, I think it's useful to analyze this stuff. For example, you might have a scene in your feature that is essential to the story, but it lacks tension and conflict. There might be tricks to adding that to the scene. You might add a character to the scene, or place the scene in a more unusual setting.

T

Quoted Text he stakes don't have to be life an death. It could be a geeky guy asking the cheerleader out to the prom. It could be a wife telling her gentle husband she's leaving him. It could be the stuttering prince in the King's Speech who has to give a radio address.

Exactly. Take a film like As Good As it Gets - a lite rom-com. There is tension in every scene because they all either involve:

- Nicholson's fear of everything from door handles to cracks in the sidewalks.
- Nicholson's discomfort with homosexuals
- Kinnears conflict with his parents
- Helen's Hunt unending journey to find health for her son
- etc.

Small everyday struggles where the writer continually puts the character in scenes where they are faced with these struggles. Small conflicts creating great tension - and comedic tension at that.

Black comedian Dave Chappelle, before a black audience in Detroit, begins a segment: "Let me tell you why I hang around with white people."

It creates tension...and then he delivers a punch line.

Tension in a rom com begins with creating ANTICIPATION.

First, we set it up so the audience wants to see two people get together romantically. This involves making us empathize with the characters, making us see them as vulnerable and the perfect match for each other.

Once the set up is done, the anticipation is there...but the story keeps throwing obstacles in the way. Those scenes are easy to build tension into.

Quoted from leitskev Black comedian Dave Chappelle, before a black audience in Detroit, begins a segment: "Let me tell you why I hang around with white people." It creates tension...and then he delivers a punch line. Tension in a rom com begins with creating ANTICIPATION. First, we set it up so the audience wants to see two people get together romantically. This involves making us empathize with the characters, making us see them as vulnerable and the perfect match for each other. Once the set up is done, the anticipation is there...but the story keeps throwing obstacles in the way. Those scenes are easy to build tension into.

Yep. And PS - Chappelle is brilliant

If I can make a suggestion?  Personally, when looking at a movie or screenplay known for perfect or groundbreaking events, I don't really learn as much as when I look at a screenplay or movie that tried to do something and failed and died a terrible horrible death.

For every Grease there is a grease 2.

I think some if not all, might learn by looking at the mistakes in scripts, even pro ones.  

I know that I couldn't spot my own OTN dialogue until I saw it in someone else's story.

So perhaps instead of trying to break down a script that works, or that has been broken down in the past, we should focus on a bad story and see where the writer went wrong and how they could have fixed it.

There are tons of pro and amateur scripts to choose from, but if people don't feel comfortable having their choices ripped apart with the fervor that Jeff attacks an orphan, then, I'd allow my stories to be used.

Dan

Dan, I have another thread called dissecting the scene. I had though, similar to your suggestion, that it might be good to post examples of scenes that don't work, as well as scenes that work, and try to figure why the scene didn't work.

The thing is, it's easier to discuss scenes that worked because those are the ones that usually become iconic, so most of us know them.

I really don't want to get into reading amateur scenes though. I've read a lot of amateur screenplays in my day, generally found it to be painful and frustrating. No doubt people experience the same with mine. So I'd rather stick to scenes on youtube and pro work.