We all know the traditional structure of screenplays, how a protag needs a goal, acts, structure, and conflict.

I've been writing a feature for sometime which subverts almost all of this. It's a passion piece that Id like to one day produce myself, so I'm aware of how unsellable it is.

I'm asking if anyone has any links to scripts (spec or otherwise) that similarly ignore the rules of structure, characerisation, plot, etc? How is it handled? I don't really mean in a Lynchian sense; more along the lines of Pink Flamingoes and Gummo.

This post was kind of inspired by some really insightful comments on a work of mine on SS, so I;d love to disucss the issue further :)

Love your approach, Ben.

I've seen plenty of scripts and films like this, and at least to some degree all of them break from the paradigm. I'll keep your question in mind and post if some example comes into my head.

Oh...one just did: Rocky.

In Rocky, the end of act one is also the inciting incident, and it comes late, around 33 min I think. A prominent guru explains that what people don't understand is that Rocky is not the story of a boxing underdog. It's a love story.

Which is wrong. And it shows how gurus always try to force the square peg into their round hole. It's very easy to understand why it's not a love story. Ask yourself this: once Rocky's romance with Adrienne is formed, is their ever any challenge to that relationship? Nope. By the end of act one, they are a couple, and there are no further obstacles in the way of their coupling. They even soon move in together.

But the structure of the story is smart. The story centers, as these kind do, on the fact that Rocky is an underdog fighter getting a once in a lifetime chance. And this chance is not just for the fight, but to redeem his respect, to make a worthwhile place for himself in a down and out world.

But before that can happen, Stallone wants us to care about Rocky. That means he has to take care to show him beaten down...while at the same time show him as a nice guy at heart. There are lots of scenes for this. He pulls the teenage girl out of the crowd of thugs and walks her home. Working as a leg breaker for a bookie, he cuts a debtor some slack. He loses his locker at the gym and is called a bum. In the opening fight, he wins and makes practically no money. The bookie's driver always insults him. And he lives all alone with his fish.

This is A LOT TO SHOW.

The problem with having a lot to show is that now you have too long of an opening act, a set up, before you get to the central drama, which is Rocky getting his big shot. So what does Stallone do? He writes in a mini-drama about the love story. Brilliant! This holds our attention while he introduces us at length to the character of Rocky, shows us how big hearted and yet down and out he is.

A lesson I would take from this: there needs to be some dramatic element holding our attention at all times, except maybe at the very beginning, when the audience grants us a short rope to set up the story. Dramatic elements usually involve stakes. Mystery can be a huge engine too.

As for goals: IMO, goals are usually just a way to set up stakes. Luke wants to rescue the princess before she dies. Indiana Jones wants the lost ark, and while on the hunt, his lover gets taken by the Nazis. Goals have a value, but like anything, mostly only in this sense: does the audience care to keep watching to see if the character achieves the goal. And sometimes the hero has a goal that we don't want him to achieve. Let's say he's a hitman hired to kill his own father. Maybe what we want is for them to reunite and heal their wounds.

It's all about creating anticipation with the audience. Goals, stakes, mystery, ticking time bombs....those are means to that end.

IMO, the most important things:

1) creating anticipation
2) building anticipation.

Building anticipation is really hard. If I could master it, I'd be too busy getting paid to comment here! It takes real instinctive craftsmanship. Creating anticipation is not so hard. That's setting up the story. But building means you have to not only continue to renew that anticipation, but you have to ESCALATE it.

Goals, stakes, structure...those are all just tools that help you create and build.

The important thing is the WHY...if you have a narrative reason for breaking structure, it's the right choice.

I'd also suggest Room, which if it followed a traditional structure would finish with the escape, but it has a lot more to say and a lot more depth to it.

I think unusual structures are a difficult sell BUT a worthwhile and help avoid the proliferation of cookie cutter films we're sold.

At http://www.simplyscripts.com/genre/drama-scripts.html I see links to:

Bamboozled, Days of Heaven, Eyes Wide Shut, Happiness, Kids, Shadow of the Vampire, and Solaris.

Those are all examples that flout traditional structures, I think, though I guess other than Kids they're more on the "high art" end than Korine and Waters.

Leitskeiv, I'll respond to your tremendously insightful  thoughts more fully when I'm more free.

Heretic, I'm definitely not looking for high art here (although Korine wrote the script for Kids and I used his film Gummo as an example in my OP haha).

Todd Solondz with Happiness is more along the spectrum I was thinking. Huge fan, Welcome To The Dollhouse is one of the best films of all time. Thanks for the links man.

EDIT: I watched Android Night Punch a few months ago and thought it was delightful, haha.

Anthony, I agree. It's unfortunate screenwriting is more trade than art but whatcha gonna do, I guess?

The kind of films you are talking about have as many rules as traditional structure, tbh. They just have a different emphasis on things. Usually the emphasis is on character, rather than plot and they are structured more around theme than plot. The goals tend to be internalised rather than externalised.

There are also clearly defined goals in Happiness and conflicts and a lot of plot.

It's a story about people, often deviant people, seeking Happiness. About the different layers of life, the mask we all put on and the real selves on the inside and how they conflict.

The writer uses multiple protagonists and intersecting story lines to show that this is what society as a whole is like...it's not just a story about one person...it's about all of us.

There's a list of non trad films here: Worth watching a few.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nonlinear_narrative_films


Google non traditional structure and you'll find some good links, such as:

https://gideonsway.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/how-to-be-a-21st-century-screenwriter/

Ingrid Sundberg has some nice ideas.


There are only a few, non traditional structures, really. Most films you probably think are less structured, probably aren't. They'll be based around:

Non-linear structure
Episodic structure with an arc
Wheel structure
Meandering structure
Branching structure
Spiral structure
Multiple point-of-view structure
Parallel structure
Cumulative structure

Or similar.

You pick a structure that suits the story. Each structure helps tell the story in a certain way and emphasises different aspects of the story.

Whichever one suits your theme best, pick that one. (Although, of course, they are non-exclusive...you can borrow elements from different ones if you can make it work).

Looking at other scripts may be unhelpful, because they will be structured around their specific concerns and themes.

There's a good chat in there from the film's creator mentioning some of the things I've just mentioned and a really excellent breakdown of the plot/structure.

http://www.jjmurphyfilm.com/blog/2009/05/07/happiness/

"Looking at other scripts may be unhelpful, because they will be structured around their specific concerns and themes."

I think this is good advice. Unless you have a structure in mind that is comparable in some way to a successful film.

Tarantino says he follows the structure of a novel in his screenplays.  

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films There's a good chat in there from the film's creator mentioning some of the things I've just mentioned and a really excellent breakdown of the plot/structure. http://www.jjmurphyfilm.com/blog/2009/05/07/happiness/

Excellent article on one of my favorite, albeit hard-to-watch films. Murphy distills a lot of the film's complex elements into easily understood language without resorting to an overly simplistic reading of those elements. Even as a fan, I feel I understand the film better, especially the ending and the role of sadomasochism within relationships between characters.

I wish I saw more discussions about structure and the technical aspects of screenwriting centered around films like these. Usually the films cited are either huge blockbuster classics that are so prevalent in society that even people with no remote interest in film are enamored by them (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Back to the Future, etc) or mainstream indie flicks with the most obvious, superficial diversions from screenwriting norms (Pulp Fiction, The Usual Suspects, Memento, etc.). Not that those films don't make (or shouldn't make) good case studies, but at this point, I've seen the same names dropped so many times, it's gotten boring. Nowadays, I tend to tune out when I see it happen.

Thanks for the resources everyone.

I guess I'm talking about things like (and this is a hypothetical) --

We have a protagonist who has a goal and obstacles. What if we just had him achieve the goal early in the film, and the next two acts are just the protagonist "being"?

That's what I mean about confounding the very core understanding of how fiction works. That goal/obstacle/resolution paradigm is hundreds of years old and I can't think of examples where it's not used in some way, even tangentially.

Watch some Jim Jarmusch or Richard Linklater, I suppose. Both of them basically make hang-out movies, for the most part, with small stakes, if any. Both still around, still have a following, still able to get films made.

Haven't heard of Jarmusch and (shamefully) I've only seen Boyjood and the Before trilogy for Linklayer. Will do.

There is the character goal, and there are story goals, often different, sometimes the same.

You need engines driving a story. Without them, people only watch it/read it/listen to it out of obligation. You have to pay THEM.

At any point in a story, with one exception, there must be essential questions keeping the reader turning the page/sitting in his seat. Such as: will the hero succeed? Who killed the butler? Will these two characters who are meant for each other end up together? The exception is at the beginning. The audience will grant a certain amount of rope to set up the story.

There are all kinds of creative ways to structure a story with engines...but this notion of a character just "being" for 2 thirds of the film...ouch. That would have to be one hell of a character to hold our interest, and even then...just, no. Don't do it that way. Why would you? Just to be different?

I love different, but you still need story engines. Memento is told nonchronologically, but it has mystery driving every scene, not to mention a powerful goal, plenty of conflict.

If your character succeeds in achieving his goal at the end of act one...you need to reboot the story in act 2. Bring in a new character with a new problem, create a compelling mystery, whatever. I don't care how many acts you have or what you call them...but a story about just "being" is only going to be one thing: without an audience.

Your man James has given you the two best examples of filmmakers to check out, imo.

Slacker and Dazed and Confused from Linklater, in particular.

Stranger than Paradise, Coffee and Cigarettes and Broken Flowers from Jim Jarmusch.

Maybe Clerks by Kevin Smith is another, more light-hearted, example. Not much really happens there. People just talk. I think he was ultimately inspired by Slacker, from what I remember.

Alarm bells ring slightly when you say there will be a recognisable goal in the first act, and then none later. You're the writer, it's your gig, so if that's what you want, that's what you want...but Kevin's right to warn you. For many (most?) it may seem like you simply don't know how to structure a film and there's a high degree of probability that the end of the first act will be the emotional climax of the film..the point where he's realised his goal. In retrospect it MAY seem that that is where the film finished and the rest is just filler.

All the above films start loosely structured and stay consistent to the same structure. They don't change tack after one act. Does that mean YOU can't, No. But there should be a very strong, pressing reason WHY you are doing it.

In terms of "being". Does anyone really just "be"? Whatever you are, from high powered individual, to slacker, to Monk...you're always doing something, you're always conflicted by something. Even the Monk, alone on top of a mountain, self sufficient, has the past to contend with, his human desires, the infirmity of human flesh. There might be a lot of goals, even subtle ones that you can bring out to examine, and maintain drive.

Some things to consider: Uniqueness.

These types of films that work are often about a person or groups of people that we haven't seen before. They are kind of alien to the audience. So watching them is kind of like staring at Goldfish in a bowl. We get to peer in voyeuristically at other people's lives and the extreme things they do.

Normality/Humanness

They tend to be quite realistic and human portrayals of people, allowing us to connect and examine our own lives/foibles. This is key to connecting to the material imo.

Variety.

Slacker, Coffee and Cigarettes etc show different people. They move from character to character, loose story to loose story which mixes things up, keeps things interesting by essentially pressing the reset button and starting again with each new character/interlude.  

Theme/Designing Principle:

These types of films often have a very strong and discernible theme, something they are trying to say about society and people. I'm tempted to say that without the theme to stiffen it, films of this kind don't work. They will become a meaningless, structureless blob, like a carcass with the bones taken out.

Good luck. You're in the territory of pure art, essentially. So you just have to write and re-write till it works.

And I shouldn't leave out the absolute killer necessity: Genius level dialogue.

If people are saying interesting things, the film is interesting.

Kelly Reichardt might be a director you might want to check out, AlsoBen.

She usually makes movies with very little dialogue, where not much happens.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0716980/

Damn, she looks interesting. How have I not heard of her?