SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is March 28th, 2024, 10:01am
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
One Week Challenge - Who Wrote What and Writers' Choice.


Scripts studios are posting for award consideration

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
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.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Screenwriting Discussion    Screenwriting Class  ›  Ackerman on Theme Moderators: George Willson
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 5 Guests

 Pages: 1, 2 : All
Recommend Print
  Author    Ackerman on Theme  (currently 2773 views)
leitskev
Posted: April 25th, 2012, 3:06pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
From the book "Write Screeenplays that Sell" Hal Ackerman 2003

"I believe that writing from theme is the writer's enemy."

"Most of the teachers who taught us about literature were not writers themselves."

"An essay is meant to be predictable. Story is not. (Writing from) theme leads to predictability"

"The meaning of a story is not the essence of a story"

"Generally the symptom of a theme driven story is that it very soon becomes predictable."

"Writing from theme disables the writer's ability to create complex, multidimensional characters and correspondingly cripples, maims, amputates and otherwise diminishes the characters themselves."

I don't have time to write the whole chapter. He is not saying that theme is not important. What he IS saying is don't write from theme as your guiding creative principle. And this is consistent with what I found this summer when I researched famous writers when they spoke of theme. Steven King, for example, said theme emerged from the story, some time after the first draft.

I think the distinction Ackerman makes between those who analyze work and those who create is really important. He begins his lectures by writing theme on the chalkboard, then putting a big X through it. He suggests that while theme is important, it is not the essence of the story. Capturing that essence is the writer's real task.
Logged
Private Message
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: April 25th, 2012, 3:47pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63
Can see his point.

I'm not sure if it's true or not. As ever it depends on what you're trying to do.

I think you can write a "movie" from theme quite comfortably. "Cinema"...maybe not.

Really though, it comes down to the skill of the writer imo.

A skilful writer can probably start with a theme and then make it not predictable (introducing red herrings, twists etc)...just as another skilful writer can take a looser structured story and not make it too meandering and meaningless.

Part of the problem may be that a lot of films are written from theme and then combined with a formulaic structure...so it's literally obvious from 6 minutes on EXACTLY what's going to happen.

Give me a theme, Kev, and let me see if I can come up with a predictable trad. story, a non predictable trad. story and a looser one.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 1 - 20
leitskev
Posted: April 25th, 2012, 4:34pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
I suspect what often happens is a little in between, though there is room for a variety of approaches. For example, if you do a war movie, perhaps your themes will center around courage. You know that going into the script. As the story evolves, takes form, at some point maybe you seize on the theme "courage to stick to one's principles". So you had a general idea of the theme at the outset, and from the story emerged a more specific theme.

So you can try one of those Rick. Courage to stick to one's principles.

Ackerman compares to writing an essay. In an essay, you begin by presenting your premise, and then you build a case, after which you conclude how the case supports the premise.

You don't, he warns, want to do that in a film. And writers who write from theme risk that. A film is supposed to be about surprise. The theme should not emerge until the end.

The theory that I like: the protag's flaw is the reverse of the theme, and correcting that flaw in order to achieve the goal reveals the story's theme. I think that theme can be somewhat vague and elusive while you are creating the story. But it emerges by the end. And then you can go back to tighten the script to show how the theme develops.

So go with that: courage to stick to principle.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 2 - 20
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: April 25th, 2012, 5:14pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63
I can see his point, but it's why I drew the differentiation between movies and cinema.

Most "movies"...for instance...Die Hard, Superman (any "Hero type story) etc.

You know before you go in how it's going to end.

Nothing surprising happens at any point. McLane is going to survive. His wife is going to survive. The baddie is going to get it.

The strength of its story lies outside of its predictability.

Those aren't the best examples when talking about theme (they're not exactly theme rich) but they reveal a point about story in general.

A lot of people watch their favourite movies over and over again. Kids in particular. They will often ask you to read their favourite story to them again...even right after you just read it.

There's no surprise left, but there's still something in excellent stories that makes you want to watch them again...and that's the emotion that they create in you no matter how many times you watch it.

So surprise is good...but it's not exactly necessary.

Before I have a go at the theme myself, I'll point out a couple of films that to me MUST have been written from theme (because it's so overriding in all scenes) that weren't predictable.

A Serious Man by the Coen Brothers. The whole thing is written round the Schrödinger's cat paradox. It's about how the same situation can be interpreted in different ways..the central character is someone who can't grasp the concept and is looking for the right answer.

One thing with that...the theme itself is so complex that it's almost impossible to write a predictable story based on it. Something to think about.

Red Belt by David Mamet. A Rocky type story about a man who has the courage to stick to his principles and how his values conflict with the reality of the real world. One of the best fighting films ever made, yet a flop. Hate when that happens.

Although you could guess how it would turn out (all fighting films end the same way), the way it gets there is unpredictable, but there's not a scene in it that doesn't directly deal with the theme.

Spike Lee is probably a good person to look at from both sides of the argument. He seems to write from theme (usually to do with conflict between races and cultures). Sometimes it works "Do the Right Thing" (it's manipulative and beats you over the head with theme, but it works) and sometimes (especially recently) it doesn't...it's just like your man here says...it's just too obvious and predictable and you're being lectured to.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 3 - 20
leitskev
Posted: April 25th, 2012, 6:12pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
Another thing that I think Ackerman would agree with is that in the end, the process of creating story is not something that can be broken down in the way that film teachers would like to hope. There are certain common elements you can identify, but the sum is greater than the parts and the creative forces are a little bit mysterious. Forcing the development of characters too tightly around a theme will stunt their growth.

That was what I was trying to say before about Good Fellas, or Casino. If we take "thematic" to mean exploring a variety of themes, then those movies qualify. But if we take it in the sense usually applied, where a film is wrapped tightly around a core theme, then I think those films are anti-thematic...and that this is essential to their story. That's why the Joe Pesci characters are so compelling. For instance, in Casino, we see he plays the traditional father with his kids, and even turns the pictures around in homes he robs so they can't "watch" him in his crime. His character is clearly bad, a merciless guy who steals his friend's wife, and whose actions ruin things for everyone. But he is a complicated character, which gives him depth. I think if this were written around a core theme, there would be a tendency for his character to grow more simple and less interesting.

Same thing with Henry in Good Fellas. At then end, he has learned some things, but his only real regrets are not being able to live the glorious life of a gangster any more. A more thematic film would have had a more sharply moralistic conclusion.

I have to check out the films you mentioned. I am familiar with the writers, of course, but not the films. I think that Ackerman is not just talking about the predictability of how the story ends. It's the very evolution of the characters if they are written with a theme to squarely in focus. For example, Hannibal Lectre almost emerges into a kind of unlikely hero. It's hard to imagine that happening if things were tightly wound around a theme.

Can we put Snyder's cat in that box of Schrodinger's? Maybe then we can kill it once and for all. Or at least consign him to another universe.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 4 - 20
Sandra Elstree.
Posted: April 25th, 2012, 6:33pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


What if the Hokey Pokey, IS what it's all about?

Location
Bowden, Alberta
Posts
3664
Posts Per Day
0.60

Quoted from leitskev

Can we put Snyder's cat in that box of Schrodinger's? Maybe then we can kill it once and for all. Or at least consign him to another universe.


I love cats, but I really appreciate what you're saying here and even more so the actual depth that comes with this analogy because:

Truly, "the cat" is both dead and alive until the observer observes and who's to say what the observer observes. In other words: both observations would be true. If however, we're only writing according to a blanket observation that one formula is the correct one, we rule out all other possibilities. I guess that's when writing feels/looks hackneyed to many observer. They sense innately that it's not real (even though art isn't real  ) but lacks the quality that touches the human in all of us.

Sandra




A known mistake is better than an unknown truth.
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 5 - 20
leitskev
Posted: April 25th, 2012, 7:06pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
Sandra! I missed you.

I love it how so many people know about that most famous of cats.

Here's one for you: if you could eliminate everything from the universe except for two planets. So the only particles in the universe are those two worlds. And then you took one more step, and eliminated one of the planets. So all that is left is one planet.

What happens to the space?

By definition, it too disappears.

Which has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Sorry. Maybe no one will notice but you, Sandra!
Logged
Private Message Reply: 6 - 20
Sandra Elstree.
Posted: April 25th, 2012, 8:19pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


What if the Hokey Pokey, IS what it's all about?

Location
Bowden, Alberta
Posts
3664
Posts Per Day
0.60

Quoted from leitskev
Sandra! I missed you.

I love it how so many people know about that most famous of cats.

Here's one for you: if you could eliminate everything from the universe except for two planets. So the only particles in the universe are those two worlds. And then you took one more step, and eliminated one of the planets. So all that is left is one planet.

What happens to the space?

By definition, it too disappears.

Which has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Sorry. Maybe no one will notice but you, Sandra!


I'm only a life student; not a scientist, but the question of elimination/creation of any "thing" is purely a kind of "hoax" of the mind. Everything we observe in this reality is through our senses or perhaps with the help of instruments to amplify our senses such as the use of telescopes or hearing aids.

It seems to me that existence itself is a phenomenon of a relationship between some kind of Projector and the creature called Man that is  projected upon and thus witnesses "stuff", be it a planet, an exploding planet or a cat. But if we imagine that the brain, where all this stuff takes place explodes, then what?

We always return to a kind of paradox. I guess my answer to the question "What happens to the space?" is:

That's all there is is space. Everything else is just illusion and we are all great dreamers and part of a great play in order to fill the void. We fulfill our own needs by creating them and being part of the perpetual and never ending drama.

...but back to theme...

I enjoyed this thread and greatly appreciate it because it personally means something to me. I do believe that theme somehow presents itself if one continues to work hard enough. If all we're thinking is "I gotta have a theme! Oh, let's google... That's a good one!" Well, that might work, but I think the hard way might be the better way.  

Sandra



A known mistake is better than an unknown truth.
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 7 - 20
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: April 26th, 2012, 5:18am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63
I think the problem comes when you are trying to PROVE a theme, rather than exploring it.

That seems to me what we're really talking about here.

Where what you are doing is making a STATEMENT.

For instance rather than exploring the theme of "courage to stick to your principles"...where you might look at what courage really is, morality, at what point you need to let those principles go from multiple angles etc....you are rigidly trying to tell people to stick to their principles no matter what.

Saying that, I still maintain that there's no right or wrong...it's all about what kind of story you're trying to write.

Ackerman seems to be arguing from a more modernist perspective.

The advantages are that it's less predictable, more philospophical, perhaps more true to life. It enables you to deal with more shades of grey and look at issues from more angles.

The downside is that it tends to offer less answers and provide less emotion. Emotion tends to be the big seller...particularly positive emotion....hence structures and story types that accentuate it tend to be more in demand.


As regards Casino, the family part to me is an organic part of the theme. He's looking at the changing nature of the crime world. The traditional "Family" model of the Mafia who have rules, respect for tradition is being replaced by a new breed of capitalist criminal who are amoral and respect nothing. For me, as long as you're asking what else I can show about the characters to illuminate the theme and to make them more rounded characters, I don't see why writing from theme would necessarily make your characters thin or predictable. That seems due to bad writing rather than writing to theme.

The important thing is to be aware of the different systems in order to be able to tell whichever type of story you're trying to tell.

Anyway: Writing to theme. Predictable.

Martyr.

Passion of the Christ style, Faith based story, based on the life of St George:

Show his Early life as a Christian. The his life as a soldier. No holds barred. Show a kind of religious awakening as he starts to question what he's doing based on his interactions during War time building up to:

From wiki:

George decided to go to Nicomedia, the imperial city of that time, and present himself to Emperor Diocletian to apply for a career as a soldier. Diocletian welcomed him with open arms, as he had known his father, Gerontius — one of his finest soldiers. By his late 20s, George was promoted to the rank of Tribunus and stationed as an imperial guard of the Emperor at Nicomedia.[15]

In the year AD 302, Diocletian (influenced by Galerius) issued an edict that every Christian soldier in the army should be arrested and every other soldier should offer a sacrifice to the Roman gods of the time. However George objected and with the courage of his faith approached the Emperor and ruler. Diocletian was upset, not wanting to lose his best tribune and the son of his best official, Gerontius. George loudly renounced the Emperor's edict, and in front of his fellow soldiers and Tribunes he claimed himself to be a Christian and declared his worship of Jesus Christ. Diocletian attempted to convert George, even offering gifts of land, money and slaves if he made a sacrifice to the Roman gods. The Emperor made many offers, but George never accepted.[16]

Recognizing the futility of his efforts, Diocletian was left with no choice but to have him executed for his refusal. Before the execution George gave his wealth to the poor and prepared himself. After various torture sessions, including laceration on a wheel of swords in which he was resuscitated three times, George was executed by decapitation before Nicomedia's city wall, on April 23, 303. A witness of his suffering convinced Empress Alexandra and Athanasius, a pagan priest, to become Christians as well, and so they joined George in martyrdom. His body was returned to Lydda in Palestine for burial, where Christians soon came to honour him as a martyr"

Brutal torture sequence leading up to the Pagan Priset and the Empress herself converting to Christianity.


Ends with Epic, sweeping scenes of the Pilgrims visiting his tomb as a huge Cross is raised and the Light of God from the Sun shines down.

3 Act structure. Manipulative filmmaking. Predictable in theme and story. Huge emotion.


Writing to theme non predictable.

Crooked.

Cop story. A tough, family man Cop who sticks to the principle that Justice must be done, becomes aware of a huge conspiracy involving the Police Department that goes all the way up to the top levels of Government. He resists attempts to buy him off. . They could kill him, but the Cops don't want to kill one of their own. Is set up for crimes he didn't commit. Goes to prison where he is treated brutally by both inmates and jailers trying to break him. His wife and kids have left him because they believe the crimes against him, but he still loves them with all his heart.

Eventually breaks out/gets out. Speaks to his family, but they're scared.

Sticks to his principles, goes after the bad guys. Starts to take them out. Nationwide hunt for him, but he manages to infiltrate to the top level and we engineer a confronatation between the head guy of the conspiracy. Our Cop can kill him, he has his gun pointed right at him.

But there's a catch, they've prepared for this eventuality and have men with his wife and kids right now. He even shows them footage on his latop.

He shoots and his wife and kids will be killed.

The alternative is that he lowers his gun and dies himself as a notorious, psychopathic criminal.

The film ends with the gun wavering in his hands.


Non traditional story. Something like Robert Altman's Short Cuts, where we examine vignettes of people's lifes. Maybe it's in a very deprived area and we look at a woman struggling to riase kids on her own by working three jobs whilst her neighbours are claiming benefits and selling drugs, turning to prostitution, a Cop trying to stick to his principles when there's no money left to put criminals behind bars, the young kid being targetted by a gang to join, local social leader who has battedl for years to improve his town...and then the other side of the story from the others points of view..the prostitute and the criminals.

Explore the nature of courage...is the young hoodlum who faces up the Cop brave, or just the Cop? How far do principles count in a world of economic hardship? All those kind of things.

The stories intertwine...some principled people do OK, some sink, some "bad" guys do OK, some don't.


Doesn't really prove owt, but it is what it is.

Rick.

Revision History (1 edits)
Scar Tissue Films  -  April 26th, 2012, 6:05am
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 8 - 20
leitskev
Posted: April 26th, 2012, 7:47am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
A very good point about the idea of exploration. I think Ackerman mentioned something about exploration too. I would bet that he agrees with you on most or all of this. He teaches writing, and other teaches in have taught that theme is the beginning of story. This is what he rebels against and objects to. He argues it leads the writer astray.

But that doesn't mean in the hands of certain writers it doesn't or can't work that way. I am sure many great films begin this way. I suspect that most films do not, but I can't prove that. I suspect most films began as a premise or plot that allows for exploration of characters and a variety of themes. After a certain amount of exploration, at some point characters and themes come together. But they are not perfectly formed at the outset.

In a way, that makes the creative process of a screenplay more interesting, and for the writer, more fun. I would guess that many of the famous characters of film history, maybe most of them, were not quite what they were originally conceived to be.

I'm not so sure that you have isolated the theme of Casino. I'll think about it. My opinion is that this, like a lot of Scorcese's work, is consciously ani-thematic. Yes, it explores themes, but it avoids the unifying theme. For example, is what you have suggested, the idea of the family model of the mafia, really the theme? I don't think so at all. True, he does say that the Casinos themselves were better under the old model. But even that is really not supported by the story. That's merely the opinion of the Deniro character. Is it really ever shown that the Casino's were better?

Assuming the Casinos were in fact better under the old mafia management, with its more personal style. Would that be the theme of the film? About casinos? Of course not. Now, you will reply that such a theme will suggest that the mafia itself was better that way, gangs with traditions and rules.

However, is that supported by the film? The actions of Nicky(reckless crime, stealing Denirpo's wife) and the Deniro character(stirring up bad publicity, firing the Nevada connected kid, having public troubles with his wife) are what lead to the downfall, not some invasion of a new breed of capitalist criminal. In fact this new breed of capitalist criminal or even modern corporate management makes no appearance in the film. All we have are the character's VO words saying it's not the same nowadays because the casinos are less personal, don't know their customers. We don't see that in the film, so we don't know if it's even really argued for by the story.

I would say that Scorsese is free to explore his characters and portray them in depth precisely because he is not hindered by theme. That was actually what I tried to say last summer.

And I LIKE theme. I certainly like the exploration of themes. I do think there are different ways to do a story, In some cases a theme is a guiding hand, but more often it is likely secondary, and in other cases, the work might be consciously avoiding a theme.

Finally, to touch on your last example, yes, a good point that a theme could be debated in a film. Those are often the best films. I think that's what I liked best about A Few Good Men. There is a theme there, to be sure, but at least the alternative sides of the argument are explored. "Deep down you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall." And Jessup is right that his actions, though seemingly barbarian, were intended to save lives and probably do save lives.

Thanks Rick
Logged
Private Message Reply: 9 - 20
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: April 26th, 2012, 9:17am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63
You might be right about Casino.

I've only seen it once and it's not a film I'll revisit.

Felt old hat to me even in 1995.

If it is "anti-thematic", that's probably a reason why it did nothing for me.

Scorcese in general hasn't done much for me in the last couple of decades.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 10 - 20
leitskev
Posted: April 26th, 2012, 9:33am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
It is kind of interesting, now that I think about it, that the lack of a unifying theme is both what weakens and at the same time strengthens Casino. It's not a great film. But the character portrayals are brilliant. And I wonder if there is something to that. Theme tends to stifle the development of interesting and complex characters, and interesting an complex characters tend to weaken theme. So if the goal of a film is to convey or explore a theme, it will sacrifice complex characters. And vice versa. So it really just depends on the goal.

That's not to say there are not films where you have both. But I think there still might be a general inverse relationship between theme and complex character. I think it's illustrated in many of Scorcese's films, which seem more interested in character.

A word on complexity: look at the mob boss in A Bronx Tale. That character is complex in that he is not purely evil or good. And that's a great character.

But while I love that movie, there is something about that character which is not real. He's very "movieish". Yeah, he's a good guy who does bad things because that's what he had to do to survive. That's very Hollywood.

Reality is much more complex. Real people are much more logically inconsistent. Sometimes good people do bad things just because they do. There's no real explanation. It doesn't have to be justified with the "that's what he needed to do to survive" explanation.

I think that's what's special about Scorcese's characters. They are more real because they are not completely explained. No more than you or I could be completely explained. Yes, some of our personality characteristics can be explained, but not all. Something to consider, anyway.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 11 - 20
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: April 26th, 2012, 10:43am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63
I'm not sure if the relationship is between theme and characters (perhaps that would depend on the theme? Not sure.).

Similar to what I mentioned above certain approaches have pros and cons.

There's obviously a danger in spending so much time with complex characters that the story starts to drag or meander.

If you look at the characters that people vote for as their favourites of all time...you'll be hard pressed to find many complex charactersl.

This was the first list that came up on Google.

http://www.empireonline.com/100-greatest-movie-characters/default.asp?c=17

All of the favourite ones are archetypes. Brad Pitt Fight Club, Darth Vader, The Joker etc

They all tend to be extremes of something..confidence, evil etc and they all tend to have a very distinctive look. There's almost no complexity in them whatsoever. They entertain by being bigger than real life....and that's of course what you lose with more realistic characetrs, as you say.

But it's all by the by...you write the type of story that you want to at end end of the day....
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 12 - 20
leitskev
Posted: April 26th, 2012, 11:14am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
I am not advocating one way or the other. Just considering the merits if different ways. I think in general the bigger than life is the way to go. Who wants to see a story about Joe the Mailman?

Look at Presidents(and candidates): who would want to see a movie about Obama or Romney. BORING. But Nixon or Clinton...serial manipulator, rapist, paranoid delusional, narcissistic phony. Those guys are interesting.

There's room for different approaches. I think you are right about the danger of losing focus with having characters that are too complex, or in portraying too many such characters. Maybe the right blend of theme and character complexities, two opposing forces(maybe) is an ideal to strive for.

It's all just conversation, Rick. I am not advocating one approach.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 13 - 20
James McClung
Posted: April 26th, 2012, 3:21pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Washington, D.C.
Posts
3293
Posts Per Day
0.49
You guys already seem to have picked up on this but it seems to me that Ackerman's talking more along the lines of a statement or a moral than actual theme. Themes, to me, generally feel open-ended unless you try to organize them into some kind of definitive thesis.

So if that's what we're talking about, I'll say I agree with Ackerman. If you write intent on delivering a particular message then indeed, the characters and plot will need to conform to it. That could lead to predictability, indeed, but worse to me is black and white morality. You're at risk of both writing with a message that takes precedence over story. I'm not against a message though I do feel story should take precedence.

I don't think writing with particular themes in mind is an issue though, at least not themes as I interpret them. Obviously, your plot and characters have to address your themes to a certain extent, if you want them to hold any sort of prominence in your story at least. But if you're not picking any sides, I think you're still free to take your script pretty much any place you want it to go.

I think Casino is a decent example of this, though I feel its themes are considerably less defined than one would expect. I think the objective of that film is more to show a world and all of its idiosyncrasies without any particular context. Goodfellas felt much more grounded in that sense. Probably why most people like it better.

Speaking of which, very lackluster enthusiasm for Casino coming from you guys. Are you crazy? I've probably seen it over a hundred times. Always entertaining.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 14 - 20
leitskev
Posted: April 26th, 2012, 3:40pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
Agreed on all points...except my lackluster enthusiasm for Casino. While I don't think it's as good as Good Fellas, and Sharon Stone is annoying in it, I love the film, especially the first half. It's worth watching just to see how perfect the dialogue is formulated.

The second half of the film, perhaps because it's more Sharon Stone drama, does wear on me. I tend to switch channels at that point.

I don't find Good Fellas to be thematic in the sense that there is one unifying theme, whether that them be an argument or a debate. Several themes are powerfully explored, so in that sense it's thematic.

The ultimate anti-thematic statement for me is at the end, when Henry is in the witness protection program. If he had to do it all over, it's clear he would live the same life, except hopefully make it last longer.

Thanks James.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 15 - 20
James McClung
Posted: April 26th, 2012, 4:12pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Washington, D.C.
Posts
3293
Posts Per Day
0.49
I gotcha, man. I guess the "not a great film" threw me off.

I don't know about Goodfellas not having a theme nor the ending being anti-thematic. I thought it was a decent exploration of the American Dream and why people want it. I don't think the film really boiled it down to anything specific but you do get a lot out of it.

I think this goes back to what I was saying about a theme being a statement. I see them more as topics, honestly, and tend to get a lot more out of films that do the same.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 16 - 20
leitskev
Posted: April 26th, 2012, 5:11pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
I think the script people that teach theme as being critical to film are saying that a theme should be used to unify a script. There were people that said last summer that film IS theme. I definitely prefer the notion that is emerging in this conversation, where story is an exploration of many things, among them characters, and ideally themes. I always preferred thematic films, or thought I did, but I am really kind of just learning about film, and appreciating various parts of the experience.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 17 - 20
Baltis.
Posted: April 26th, 2012, 5:32pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



I don't think any of these screenwriting books teach you anything about writting a script you can actually sell... They teach you snippets of information that "they" have used to sell "their" scripts to "hollywood".   Only catch, most of the authors have never sold a script and if they did they were born into the industry already... Blake Snyder comes to mind here.

A good screenplay can't possibly sell to hollywood cos'  they dictate what's good enough.  Adam Levenberg said it best:  

"the worst produced hollywood movie still had a better script than an unsigned writer could ever produce."

Says it all...  He's telling you, in a rather blunt way, you have little chance at selling to Hollywood.   So, my advice, after countless sessions with consultants "levenberg was one of them" write modest, write clear, write what you beleive in and target independent filmmakers.  

At the end of the day, another term hollywood uses to tell you no way, your work in motion is better than the payout.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 18 - 20
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: April 26th, 2012, 6:10pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63

Quoted from leitskev
I think the script people that teach theme as being critical to film are saying that a theme should be used to unify a script. There were people that said last summer that film IS theme. I definitely prefer the notion that is emerging in this conversation, where story is an exploration of many things, among them characters, and ideally themes. I always preferred thematic films, or thought I did, but I am really kind of just learning about film, and appreciating various parts of the experience.


I don't want to retread old ground, but theme is not (just?) something that unifies the script. Theme is the unifying idea that is presented by the whole script/movie/art form entire...which includes all the minor themes dealt with within.

It's a subtle difference.

It's also confusing because a piece can deal with many themes, but there's only one unifying theme...which is THE theme.

When you take all the individual pieces...the viewpoints of all the characters as a whole, how the story turns out, look at all the Directorial evidence...what's he trying to say about life, society or human nature?

What's the overall unifying lesson that Goodfellas teaches us about life, society or human nature?

Something like "Crime is bad, and you'll always get caught in the end, but FUCK ME it's fun and there'll always be criminals/mobsters as long as there is society".

You say it yourself, but call it an "anti-theme". A theme doesn't have to be a positive moral that you teach to children.

Sometimes you think I'm being argumentative, but I'm not, I'm just discussing...so don't take this the wrong way...but I feel compelled to point out that there's no such thing as an anti-theme:

https://www.google.co.uk/searc.....ll0&aqi=g-v2g-b3

The way you use it, seems to me at least, to fit perfectly under the umbrella of theme.

With lover, Rick.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 19 - 20
leitskev
Posted: April 26th, 2012, 6:10pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
I don't think anyone should read a book or any number of books and think that is going to enable them to sell a screenplay. I only checked this book out because it was a nice day for a walk downtown and I found it in the library. Normally that kind of title is a turn off to me, but the selection was limited.

But when I opened the book, I found it intriguing and useful. If one can't write a good story, no book in the world will help. But if one has some talent for it, it makes perfect sense to sharpen your skills by sampling the wisdom of others.

You didn't refer to theme in your post, so I suppose you only saw the title of the book and that was enough.

I have not been doing this long, so I can't speak authoritatively on what the odds are of breaking in in this industry. But I've read numerous interviews with writers who've made it in recent years with little of no connections. One thing I have taken from these interviews is that if you can produce high quality scripts, there is work for you.

The problem is producing really good scripts. If I've learned anything in this past year it's how hard that is. I have yet to read a feature on this website that I thought had what it takes. That's not a knock on people, either. That just shows how really hard it is. And it has nothing to do with writing styles either. I am simply talking the ability to produce a feature length story that someone is going to pour a lot of time and money into.

From the interviews, it is consistently said that you need to write about 15 or 16 features before you really start writing what is needed. And it takes years. For anyone interested, every Thursday Scriptshadow does an interview. Obviously there are others available online. They also say it takes years of writing 4 or 5 scripts a year.

So I think the key is to keep writing, and keep learning. Learn from a variety of sources. You are using consultants, fine. Books on screenwriting, books on story, books on film; watching film; opinion of other writers, reviews. It all helps. None of it should be discounted.

A consultant is no more reliable than a book. If the consultant knows the keys to writing a successful story, why is he consulting instead of writing? I'm not knocking you. I used a high priced consultant this past fall. I did not come away feeling the advice was any better than what I get from people here for free. Your experience could be different. I can respect any effort to improve one's work.

I agree writing just with big studios in mind is not the best strategy. If one writes 4 or 5 scripts a year, best to target a variety of type projects, big and small. Show your diversity.

The topic here was theme, and I think Ackerman's thoughts on theme in the writing process are worth considering. For more, people will have to check out the book.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 20 - 20
 Pages: 1, 2 : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    Screenwriting Class  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006