19 Responses to “Screenwriting structure Part 3”

1. wcdixon on Thursday: 30 August 2007|2336

   All good stuff, but I’d still advocate mastering the rules first before breaking them. Most great writers would concur.

2. Clive on Friday: 31 August 2007|0344

   I wrote too many screenplays before I even knew that there was a structure to work with and paid a fairly heavy price for my ignorance.
   At the same time, I’m definitely with Unk when he says it’s form not formula. There isn’t a magic formula that will automatically term out a great film, because if there was, someone in Hollywood would have hired a computer programmer to automate the process by now.

   “Bob, get out there and make me a Blockbuster-o-matic 2000 script machine, so I don’t have to read anymore of these damn specs anymore.”

   My experience of working with various theories of structure is some seem to make the process easier and some seem to make it harder. So, for instance, when I was working with three act structure I always got snagged on that vast second act. For me, sixty pages is just too large a lump of story to work in one section. Which is the reason I pretty much exclusively work with a four act structure now.

   Maybe I’m a bit slow, or perhaps mentally impaired, because I find it almost impossible to hold an entire story in my head, in one lump. I can’t manipulate the entire script, except in a rough overview sort of a way.

   The idea that you break a script into distinct sections and each section has a particular function, if nothing else allows me to think clearly about that section. I can just about deal with the parameters of one twenty-five page act.

   Not only that, for some reason one hundred pages feels unachieveable, yet twenty-five pages feels like a breeze.

   What structure does, beyond giving a shape to your movie, is it breaks the process down into manageable sized pieces.

   The other thing I wanted to share, was that I generally find that regardless of how I structure prior to writing, the script always changes when I get to the typewriter.

   Just because you’ve expended all those hours pushing your plot into a particular shape, doesn’t mean that you have to then write exactly what you’ve planned. The planning is part of the creative process, not the whole thing.

   It is at the end of the day, supposed to be a device to help construct a story, rather than a set of immutable rules.

   So, I guess for me structure and plotting are like rough sketches that lead me to the eventual painting, which may or may not resemble the development work.

   I think if you feel structure is hemming you in and preventing you from telling the story you want to tell, you’ve either not found the structure that works for you, or you’re not confident enough in your writing to see structure as tool, rather than as a rule.

3. Joshua James on Friday: 31 August 2007|0517

   Unk is back and he’s as badass as ever!

   Wooheee! Ah shit, missed ya man!

   Yeah, I like playing with different structures or just writing the story first and finding the structure of it after I get to the end (which means sometimes it takes longer, heh) . . . but I love that part of rules (hey, you probably know this, but James Dickey plays the Sherifff at the end of Deliverance, the one interrogating them about the missing guy, who he was related to . . . he’s a big man, too).

   I just watched DISTURBIA the other night, enjoyed it more than I thought I might, it was fun and engaging (very minor spoiler) . . . what was interesting was the antagosnist (bad guy) ain’t even introduced until 30 minutes in, if not longer, and even then he doesn’t say anything, we just see him mowing his freaking lawn.

   He does’t speak until 45 minutes or so into it, and has three or four nice sinister scenes until the climax.

   And it works, it really works . . . They spend at least a half hour setting up our hero’s history and situation before we see the guy, and lets all these other elements breathe into it rather than making it mano a mano from the get-go . . . it totally worked for me.

   Anyway Unk, missed ya dude . . . .

4. Moviequill on Friday: 31 August 2007|0808

   drinking hot liquids (ie: coffee) in hot weather is the best way to cool down actually… it creates sweat on the forehead which then evaporates and cools us off faster

5. Nick on Friday: 31 August 2007|1159

   Welcome back, Unk.

   Hope everything is a little less interrupted from her on out — but I have a feeling you’re gonna be getting more and more “interrupted” in the near future. ;)

   I’ve been having this internal dilemma recently — while I would never be so blasphemous as to suggest that structure is irrelevant, it seems to me (from the outside looking in) that it is more important to have a great concept and be the best of what the genre demands (if comedy, be friggin’ hilarious — if drama, have the most dramatic characters and toss ‘em into the most dramatic situations — if horror, be scary as hell — etc.). So, is it more important to have a solid structure or a HIGH CONCEPT and be the best of what the genre demands?

6. Unk on Friday: 31 August 2007|1841

   Will,

   You said, “All good stuff, but I’d still advocate mastering the rules first before breaking them. Most great writers would concur.”

   I thought I said that too. LOL.

   Clive,

   As YOU know, I work from what I call, a MASTER structure list i.e., I’ve studied great movies AND of course movies that I personally LOVE and wish to emulate somewhat. In other words, I’ve tinkered and tinkered and tinkered and came up with my own master structure. Then, from that master structure, I can easily build my story, drawing from some or all of those elements that I FEEL make for a great movie.

   My point being…

   That once you find the structure that WORKS for you, get to know it intimately. Tweak it. Compare IT to your favorite films and the kinds of films you want to make.

   My master structure list is worth millions to ME personally and it’s always a work in progress.

   Josh,

   I also watched DISTURBIA at the theater since it was hyped as a modern remake of REAR WINDOW. And while REAR WINDOW will always be a CLASSIC near and dear to my heart and overall, a better movie than DISTURBIA (my opinion), DISTURBIA WORKS.

   The structure is very REAR WINDOWish i.e., the story elements that are brought in to the mix.

   In other words. Structure works.

   Moviequill,

   Ah… I can trust my body then… LOL.

   Nick,

   You GOTS to have a toolbox, just like the carpenter I mention in the post.

   Inside that toolbox are all your story tools of which, a great concept is definitely one of.

   I do not believe that a comedy or drama can have a lot of impact if you don’t use some kind of structure to present it to us… Just one comedic moment after another that does not unravel a STORY would be MONOTONOUS to me personally hence, take those comedic or dramatic moments and rearrange them according to the structure you’re using to make the MAXIMUM IMPACT ON YOUR AUDIENCE.

   I would never go so far to tell you or anyone WHICH TOOL in your toolbox is the MOST IMPORTANT. I know writers that swear by a title and a logline being the most important.

   We all have our favorite tools, right?

   If I was a carpenter, I’d love my ball-peen hammer the best… Only one problem… What the FUCK is a carpenter gonna do with a ball-peen hammer? Most carpenters would never use one but I sure as hell would have one in my toolbox because quite frankly, I love the look of a good ball-peen hammer. LOL.

   Structure is my ball-peen hammer.

   Unk

7. S. A. Petrich on Friday: 31 August 2007|1853

   I’m the greatest writer of all time.

   That is why I type all my scripts in Times New Roman.

   And they sell like diamond-flavoured solid-gold hotcakes.

   Seriously now, this site is the shiz. Diamond-flavoured, solid-gold shiz. You’re the man, Unk.

8. Joshua James on Friday: 31 August 2007|1938

   Hey Unk,

   No argument from me that structure works, I just found it interesting that the antangonist in Disturbia came in so late (these days you get many folks who say the antangonist needs to be introduced in the first ten, fifteen minutes or so, very close to the protag, and their conflict set up immediately . . . this didn’t happen with Disturbia, and I liked that) – and I have to say, it was one of the things I really liked about the movie . . . and it kept me on my toes, too . . .

   It’s been so long since I’ve seen REAR WINDOW I don’t remember much of it (I also watched the Chris Reeve remake about nine years ago, and don’t remember that, except that Reuben had to use an accent, but I digresss) so Disturbia was able to keep me into it, plus the actors were all very good, which helps.

   No argument a good story has its own good structure . . .

   It just ain’t my hammer, character is probably my ball-peen hammer . . .

   Damn it, Unk, welcome back!

9. wcdixon on Friday: 31 August 2007|2308

   You did, Unk…you did. But it just seemed it was kinda buried amongst some of the rhetoric and all the CAPS that it mighta lost out to “rules were meant to be broken.”

10. Tom on Sunday: 2 September 2007|1049

    Unk, you said something that I think is the essential element of a good script/film. And that’s whether it “works” or not. I think that’s what writers should shoot for. Bringing the viewer or reader along for a ride that’s entertaining and has a satisfying conclusion. All great films at least achieve this. All good films acheive this. All bad films don’t.

    In terms of scructure, I’m always afraid I’m missing something. I’m inherently an anti-structure person. It’s not how my mind works. So I basically just use a loose 3-act structure when writing. First act = normalcy, game changing incident. Act 2 = protagonists struggle to acheive goal. End of Act 2 = darkest before dawn. Act 3 = climax/resolution.

    Act 1 and 3 are easy. Act 2 is the hard part. And I think that where deeper components of structure come into play (ie the 5 act structure). I kind of just feel it out.

    And I think I also use past movies as a loose guide. Kind of play the script in my head to see if it works as a film. I don’t know, I think that works for me. Time will tell.

11. Unk on Sunday: 2 September 2007|1647

    S. A. Petrich,

    I think I can speak for EVERYONE and tell you that we are in fact very honored to have the greatest writer of all time pop in for a visit… LOL.

    Josh,

    I wasn’t arguing with you… I am in agreement. They brought in the antagonist later than usual and it still works. Good to know!

    Will,

    You said, “You did, Unk…you did. But it just seemed it was kinda buried amongst some of the rhetoric and all the CAPS that it mighta lost out to “rules were meant to be broken.”

    Hmmm. You’re really not one of those people are you? LOL.

    Rules ARE meant to be broken. You just gotta know ‘em before you can break ‘em.

    My point being…

    It’s okay if you want to break the rules. I LOVE that kind of thinking. I promote that kind of thinking! Just don’t try to break the rules until you are intimately familiar with the rules. Until you know the rules, there are no rules and if there are no rules, you can’t really break them… Which usually equates to writing hogwash.

    Tom,

    Are you anti-structure or are you anti-someone else’s structure?

    If you kind of loosely follow 3 Act Structure, you could certainly add to it and form your own OVERALL structure and then as you’re writing, keep referring to your list… The only problem is building the list and worrying that your list is missing something… LOL.

    I use my own 4 Act Structure and to me, Act 1 is the hard part because I want to set up SO MANY STORY ELEMENTS within that 1st act so that as I write acts 2, 3, and 4, the story makes sense. When I used 3 Act Structure many many moons ago, Act 2 was ferocious because to my thinking, it was just too much of a bridge to Act 3. My brain doesn’t work THAT WAY.

    Breaking the proverbial Act 2 in half and turning it into 2 Acts, is easier on my brain.

    Unk

12. Thomas on Sunday: 2 September 2007|1648

    The ending of a story or script should be satisfying to an audience. It should be great, conclusive, true to the rest of the story.

    The audience remembers the ending more then the rest of the movie.

    For example “Limbo” has an ending that fits perfectly to the story, even though it might not be as satisfying to an audience, it creates concludes the mood perfectly into even the title “Limbo”.

13. Clive on Monday: 3 September 2007|0505

    There are two interesting points here, I’d like to pick up on.

    Firstly, Tom, I so identify with your description of working the a loose three act structure, the second act as described by most proponents is a nightmare. I’ve never found anything better than “Act Two: stuff happens, at the mid-point the stakes go up dramatically and at the end is the darkest hour.”

    I once sat in a seminar with a three act guru and I asked her what she though the difference was in the protagonist between the first and the second half of the second act… and, she didn’t have an answer. Which is fair enough.

    The thing I’ve always wondered is this: if the stakes are knocked up considerably at the mid-point, surely that alone is going to change the protagonist and how they react. Isn’t that a given? The whole point of a plot is it shows how the characters react and change when presented with circumstances. By definition a story is the alchemical reaction of individual character to circumstance. If you change the circumstances, you change the character.

    The second thing I wanted to touch on is what Unk said about “this is how my brain works”

    I think this is key — We all function slightly differently. So a set of tools that work perfectly for one person, don’t work as for someone else.

    So, for instance — when it comes to structure, my approach to screenwriting is similar to Unk’s, in that we agree pretty much right down the line about his “master structure.” However, when it comes to character development I’ve never found the “Personality Types” that useful, simply because I’ve got a different model that I use, which works for me.

    I guess to use Unk’s analogy, it’s possible to hammer in a nail with a ball peen hammer, a mallet or half a brick. For character development Unk uses a ball peen hammer and I’m more of a “half brick” kind of a guy. Same process, different tool.

    With any of these techniques it’s definitely a case of “tools, not rules.” I personally don’t think there are rules to be broken, because I don’t actually believe there are any rules.

    I also think that screenwriters who claim not to follow a formal structure pretty much always end up unconsciously writing to a formal structure; simply because we absorb the conventions of story telling through consumption of stories.

    I’ve seen hundreds of screenplays by writers who are “anti-structure,” where you can see from what they’ve written, which movies they’ve seen in the last couple of months.

    They’re not consciously ripping people off, but on an unconscious level they’re structuring their stories based on what they’ve seen. We all do it (I’m surely not the only person who has ever been working on a script they thought was original, only to have late night DVD binge of their favorite movies, only to discover that key themes, ideas and even whole characters have been lifted from those very films!)

    The irony of this is, by placing a formal structure at the heart of my writing, rather than restricting myself by a set of rules, I’m more than often freeing myself to do something completely original, because I’m taking conscious control of the structuring. A process that allows me to challenge conventions or to use them in surprising ways.

14. Tom on Monday: 3 September 2007|0754

    Clive,

    It’s funny you mention the different tool analogy. I always have it in my mind that I’m trying to put a square peg into a round hole, and if I bang long enough and hard enough with a big enough mallet, eventually it’ll fit in. At least that’s what it feels like sometimes.

    And you’re right, any good script is going to have a structure. Whether you consciously sit down and map out that structure or not is up to the writer. As Unk referred to, some writers have film so engrained in their head that they can just kind of feel their way through a script AND have it work. they “use the force,” if you will.

15. Unk on Monday: 3 September 2007|0928

    Great comments… Really!

    I guess I just wanted to reiterate what’s been touched upon above… That even those screenwriters who don’t necessarily subscribe to a particular kind of structure almost always (as Clive pointed out) write as though they had.

    I would not presume to go on to say that any of these writers are in fact following a particular structure but what I would say instead is that STORYTELLING in and of itself is more or less hardwired into our DNA. It’s been passed down through the generations and as one person told another person a story, and that person observed the immediate reaction to his or her story, he or she either consciously or subconsciously tweaked and adjusted that story for the next time he or she told it.

    In other words… Trial and error and then substantial tweaking to get the BEST reaction from an audience. After generations of storytelling, these storytellers knew what story elements got an audience’s attention.

    I believe that has been carried down to US. Remember, books on any kind of structure were written AFTER many stories were told, many plays were performed, and of course many many movies were created.

    All the above were observed and then deconstructed into many different forms of structure which is why nobody can really watch a movie and say with absolute certainty that SO & SO wrote that movie according to SO & SO structure. There’s really no way to know unless you ask the writer and EVEN THEN, many do not want to admit using any kind of structure… LOL.

    Which is why I recommend that you simply find a structure that seems workable to YOU. A structure that seems to more or less follow the kinds of movies you enjoy and hopefully want to write yourself.

    They all work… But they don’t all work for EVERYONE.

    Unk

16. Kellene on Monday: 3 September 2007|2137

    Unk,

    I have not responded to you before, but I have been reading your posts and I just want to say thank you for giving out such helpful information and advice.

    I really try to use all the information I learn towards my first ever screenplay. Yes, it is daunting to create, but I want to finish it (one of my life goals!).

    You seem down to earth and really smart at what you do.

    I also like that you share your daily routines – makes you more real and three dimensional, instead of just some flat computer screen!

    Anyway, just wanted to say thanks and keep up the great work!

    I might reply to future posts!

17. spatula on Tuesday: 4 September 2007|0834

    Yay! Unk is back! I’m too tired to debate, but I did absorb and I’m a happy tired sponge.

18. Unk on Tuesday: 4 September 2007|1928

    Kellene,

    Kind words are always appreciated… Thanks!

    spat,

    It’s always good to absorb… Then debate. LOL.

    Unk

19. Clive on Wednesday: 5 September 2007|1003

    So, just when I thought I’d exhausted the reasons for having a worked out, written structure to your screenplay, I get presented with one final one.

    Recently, I’ve applied for a couple of screenwriting bursaries in the UK and they all judge your worthiness (or not) on the quality of the treatments you submit.

    Not only that, when they feedback to you, they’ve automatically broken down your script into a three act structure.

    When you think about it, this isn’t an uncommon event. Readers, whether they are reading treatments or scripts, tend to look for various structural elements. Usually of the three act McKee variety.

    Whether we apply structure to our scripts or not, chances are that we’re going to be judged off the most widely accepted structure tools.

    of course, there is a flip side to all of this when, as happened to me recently, the reader mistakes the inciting incident (page 10ish) for the first act break (page 25ish)…

    Oh my, then you’re in a world of pain.

    My take on all this, is people only really notice the structure, when they’re not absorbed in the story. It’s used to explain why screenplays aren’t picked up, rather than why they are.

Leave a Reply