Hi guys,

I was just looking around the net and I came across this interesting article about writing.

Quoted Text Syd Field or Robert McKee? I spoke to a group of aspiring screenwriters at the Toronto Film School today and as I was leaving, one of them asked me, "Syd Field or Robert McKee?" I replied, "Aristotle." Whatever Syd Field, McKee or all the other cats making a fortune writing how to write a screenplay books have to say was said 2500 years ago by Aristotle. What I told the screenwriting student was that it would be better to read 100 screenplays than Syd Field. Or at least read a few screenplays BEFORE reading Syd Field. The problem, and this is based on reading scripts for the Toronto Public Library for 2 months as part of my screenwriter-in-residence gig there, is that people ONLY read Syd Field and think that's all there is to screenwriting. (I'm not saying Syd Field or any of the other gurus even make this claim, but it's probably easier to read one copy of Screenplay than 100 screenplays.) Then these aspiring writers start writing fill-in-the-blanks scripts. Look, isn't it obvious that writing a good screenplay this way is like trying to paint the Mona Lisa using a paint by numbers kit? (It's sort of like da Vinci, but I doubt it's worth much.) It's really hard to write a good screenplay. Accept it. Embrace this truth. Recognize you are aspiring to winning the creative lottery. If it was easy, then everyone would do it and successful screenwriters would be a dime a dozen. How many do you know? See? It ain't easy! And even if it is--say you're massively talented and can't help writing award-winning scripts unlike the rest of us mere mortals--you still have to have SOMETHING TO SAY. Maybe this is self-evident, but after reading a few of the Toronto Public LIbrary's submissions, I think it bears repeating: without a point of view, a personal perspective, something that you need to get across to the world about the human condition or whatever you're passionate about, no matter what you write will be a waste of pages. If you do have something to say, if the passion burns off those pages, then you can pretty much break any rule Syd Field et al ever came up with, (though not Aristotle, I daresay.) And your script will still be readable and generate interest from someone. They're not going to toss it out because you haven't had a first act turning point by page 28. That kind of stuff can be adjusted, if necessary. But what no one can do for you is give you something to say. Read screenplays, live an interesting life, be introspective about that life and maybe, just maybe, you might have something to say that is best said in a screenplay. (Remember, they were writing great scripts long before Robert McKee started making a fortune selling books and seminars.) It's worth doing, but don't expect this to be an easy thing to do. If you read 100 screenplays you probably won't have to read Syd Field at that point. (And since you can read 100 scripts for free off various internet screenplay sites, you'll save some money for your post-draft steak dinner--my personal reward to myself.) Source: http://buildingtheiceberg.blogspot.com/2008/06/syd-field-or-robert-mckee.html

So basically this dude reckons you’ll get more out of reading screenplays ( a hundred  he says ) than you would out of how to books. If you’re interested in reading a few more scripts, here’re the WGAs 101 greatest scripts of all time.

http://www.simplyscripts.com/wga_top_101_scripts.html


As an aside, I noticed Casablanca, the script they rated as number one, has “we see” in the descriptions.

http://www.weeklyscript.com/Casablanca.txt

I read both Field and McKee when I first started out. I felt that they both offer good insight and helped with my foundation as a writer.

But, I've found reading screenplays have helped me more than anything else.

So I agree and disagree with this article. I would recommend reading both authors and taking what you can from them, but more importantly you need to read and read and read screenplays. It's amazing what you'll learn from them.

Stew

He said it was okay to read that stuff but I think he puts more stock in reading screenplays. I actually remember when I was at McKee’s seminar and he asked everyone who read screenplays to put up their hands. Hardly anyone did. McKee smiled, shook his head and said "fucking screenwriters".

I've been reading more produced screenplays lately. It's good because hanging around here for the past few years has given me a pretty good eye for the mechanics of screenplays and why some work and some don't. So, yeah, I reckon you can get a bit out of it.

Also in that article, I liked what the dude said about plenty of good scripts being written before McKee and Field were around and how it's important for writers to have something to say. I'm not a big fan of entertainment for entertainment’s sake. Those sort of movies leave me feeling a bit flat. I prefer the movies I watch to have a bit of insight. Whether or not I can produce a screenplay that meets my own standards remains to be seen.

Good link, Chris.

Totally agree that it's the reading of screenplays, and more so produced screenplays that gives you the ability to understand how it should be done, which in turn allows you to cast a decent eye on the scripts posted here, for example. Plus, reading produced screenplays is fun 'cos in most cases the writing makes you smile while you read, in part because it's well-written.

I think this was the most pertinent line: "Read screenplays, live an interesting life, be introspective about that life" - unless a writer has a need to think and analyse - from the big to the small and even when it's unnecessary/painful - I don't think they can sustain a lengthy career, and you either have that or you don't. Agree that reading the books is more of an aid, which I think is the point, read the books, but understand it's the foundation, but to build the house, a lot more is required.

Andrew

Quoted Text Read screenplays, live an interesting life, be introspective about that life and maybe, just maybe, you might have something to say that is best said in a screenplay

That's the most critical thing for me. Too many writers, both "amateur" and professional simply don't have anything to say. I've said the same thing many times.

As regards the main point about screenwriting books or screenplays, both are valuable in their own way and both are flawed as well.

The problem is that neither can inspire you to come up with an interesting premise, or teach you to write spell binding dialogue and they can't give you that burning passion to say something interesting.

One problem with reading a lot of scripts: A lot of writers simply copy other films or scripts. Maybe not deliberately, but by spending so much time watching and reading, you swamp your subconscious with the work of others. Every moment of inspiration is coming from other films, rather than somewhere else.

Reading scripts and screenplay books is useful to teach you HOW to convert your ideas into scriptform, it simply cant make you an interesting person with something to say.

To generate ideas, far better to read novels, magazines, art books, newspapers, travel etc

That being said, most of the problems with the scripts I see and are sent are far more fundamental than that. There are fundmental "rules" of storytelling, regardless of how much passion you have. It's a simple fact and there is no getting away from it.

For instance:

Suspense. So many thriller or horror scripts I read lack suspense. They may read the guru's books and know the rules, but they seem to fail to grasp entirely how it works, they don't understand them or use them.

There are only really a few ways to create suspense.

EG: http://ezinearticles.com/?Seven-Ways-to-Inject-Suspense-into-Your-Novel&id=177867

Something that that article doesn't mention:

The audience must know something ("bad") that the characters don't. It's that simple.

The classic example is the Hitchockian bomb ticking under the table. A much over used cliche is the presence of somebody in the house with evil intentions, unawares to the main character.

Good recent examples:

Wolf Creek. Brilliantly deconstructs the cliches used in so many horror films. It sets up a brilliant air of suspense, without anything really happening by telling the audience something is wrong and something bad is going to happen. We don't know what it is, but the characters are blissfully unaware that anything is wrong at all.

Some examples from that film: The bar scene (is the killer going to be a local in the bar? Suspense runs all the way through the scene because we've seen this before). Their watches stopping (is it something supernatural? The Ufo spotters the same). The car breaking down...

The Director even uses the geography and isolation of the Australian outback to constantly unnerve us.

But underneath it all is one very simple thing at play: We, the audience know that they are in trouble and they don't.

Teeth. The audience knows she has teeth in her vagina, the characters she interacts with don't. Every sex scene is full of suspense, because we know something they don't.

Some things are pretty much set in stone and Aristotle in his Poetics set some of them out, as the author rightly says. Breaking rules is fine if you know what you are doing, but too often people simply break their story instead. It's like drawing a straight line with a ruler. You can regale against it and decide you don't need a ruler, you're going to draw a straight line with just a pencil. You'r just making it harder for no reason.

There are numeorus other things I could say, but haven't the time. It's simply the case that story-telling hasn't changed much for centuries. Eisenstein's Film Theory lists some classic examples of natural ways to tell stories (and edit films) and it hasn't changed much since 1926.

Eg Contrast. If you are telling a story about a starving man, contrast it with images of a man who is greedy and wastes food.

Off the top of my head some examples: A starving ordinary Zimbabwean contrasted with a lavish feast for Mugabe and his supporters.

A homeless guy scrounging for food and a fast food restaurant that bleaches their produce before they throw it away.

There are numerous, obvious and logical things that simply work that people simply ignore or forget.

Writing screenplays isn't easy, but so many people make it unnecessarily difficult for themselves.

Dec,

That was a much better way of stating what I, too, was thinking.

Quoted from dec One problem with reading a lot of scripts: A lot of writers simply copy other films or scripts. Maybe not deliberately, but by spending so much time watching and reading, you swamp your subconscious with the work of others. Every moment of inspiration is coming from other films, rather than somewhere else. Reading scripts and screenplay books is useful to teach you HOW to convert your ideas into scriptform, it simply cant make you an interesting person with something to say. To generate ideas, far better to read novels, magazines, art books, newspapers, travel etc

Novels, magazines and newspapers are invaluable sources for stories, and help a writer to overcome another problem: having something to say, but missing the intriguing plot, which I think drags a lot of scripts down, by not telling the a good, intriguing theme/story in an interesting way.  RE: Travel; this has opened up my mind for sure, in terms of meeting people. Two people I met will directly be placed in upcoming scripts 'cos they were that damn unique and yet, they would never be found in my corner of the world, 'cos they are so un-English.

'Wolf Creek' is a great choice, and totally agree re: the suspense.

Quoted from dec The Director even uses the geography and isolation of the Australian outback to constantly unnerve us.

Totally agree, however, I do wonder if the film had been so good had it not been anchored by the incredible antag performance, which really elevated it, to my mind.

Another film that threatened to do the same was 'Funny Games US' (didn't see the original) but the suspense created early on was handled perfectly. For example, when the brothers first enter the house, drop food on the floor and then you realise they will not leave, which builds such fear; unfortunately, the film disappeared up its own arse later on with other elements and the unnecessary lecturing the audience for seeking out violence as entertainment.

Did you see the film, dec? Be interested in your views on it.

Andrew

Quoted from Andrew Dec, That was a much better way of stating what I, too, was thinking. Novels, magazines and newspapers are invaluable sources for stories, and help a writer to overcome another problem: having something to say, but missing the intriguing plot, which I think drags a lot of scripts down, by not telling the a good, intriguing theme/story in an interesting way.  RE: Travel; this has opened up my mind for sure, in terms of meeting people. Two people I met will directly be placed in upcoming scripts 'cos they were that damn unique and yet, they would never be found in my corner of the world, 'cos they are so un-English. 'Wolf Creek' is a great choice, and totally agree re: the suspense. Totally agree, however, I do wonder if the film had been so good had it not been anchored by the incredible antag performance, which really elevated it, to my mind. Another film that threatened to do the same was 'Funny Games US' (didn't see the original) but the suspense created early on was handled perfectly. For example, when the brothers first enter the house, drop food on the floor and then you realise they will not leave, which builds such fear; unfortunately, the film disappeared up its own arse later on with other elements and the unnecessary lecturing the audience for seeking out violence as entertainment. Did you see the film, dec? Be interested in your views on it. Andrew

I enjoyed Funny Games. It was manipulative of the audience though, as you say. Particularly the "rewind" scene. It's interesting to watch and it does raise valid questions, but when you are essentially being bullied by the filmmaker into thinking something and then admonished for it, you just tend to think the Director's a cunt. That's my educated opinion anyway.

Ultimately filmmaking and writing are just about pyschological guidance. You make the audience think and feel whatever you want. That's your power. You control their whole experience for a certain time.

Hanneke clearly understands the horror/thriller structure inside out and uses it against us. However he built up the film to make you want the characters to prevail and escape. It's only natural really, so when he then turns on you, it's a bit "shameless" for want of a better word.

Do the right thing by Spike Lee did something similar. I remember him saying that people were all concerned for Sally (the pizza shop owner) and were upset people turned against him, but no-one was concerned that the black guy got killed by the Police. He tried to make some point about race about it. But it was only because that's the film he made, he deliberately underplayed the death by making the violence comedic and then ignored the aftermath.

The filmmaker controls the audience's mood and opinion. He manipulated them to NOT care about a character, just so he could make a point about it. Very underhand.

That's not to say it wasn't a great film, because it was, but you can't expect the audience to judge a film by real life values.


That's a good point you make about the suspense in Funny Games though. I suppose it's about subverting "normal" behaviour. Building tension by having people subtly behave outside of our comfort zone.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films The audience must know something ("bad") that the characters don't. It's that simple. Good recent examples:

Or another one, rather:

I'm sure most of us have seen or know of I Know What You Did Last Summer. It wasn't the most brilliant film ever written, but it did a few things that were absolutely ingenius, which is likely why it got some sequels out of the deal. If only they hadn't tossed all their eggs in the first basket... Anyway...

The scene I'm thinking of most vividly is one of the best in the film, even though from a horror-movie perspective, nothing happens. It's pure suspense, and it doesn't do what you expect.

The killer is in the house. We saw him go in. We saw him walk into the beauty queen's bedroom and walk into her closet. It's a fact. We saw it happen. And then she comes home, yadda-yadda-yadda and this whole time, knowing the killer is in the room, we think she's toast and we're in for a gory death scene...but nothing happens. She turns off the lights and goes to bed. It just fades out. Strange, we think.

Then, the next morning, she wakes up, and we find out what happened. She's alive, but she's wearing a crown and her hair has been cut while she slept. Sometimes even mediocre films can have scenes that knock your socks off. That one was downright creepy. Instead of killing her, he teased her in a scene ripe with suspense just because we knew he was there and capable of doing great harm. This girl was in mortal danger, but instead, it gave us a twist that made it all that much creepier.

It showed us that the killer doesn't have to kill every time...but he could have.