Screenwriting structure Part 5 Balance
Posted on October 17, 2007
Filed Under Structure
I’ve had many a discussion with many a screenwriter and more importantly — MANY A PRODUCER only to find that approximately half of these entities look at screenwriting more as craft than art and that’s only because most screenwriters I know feel that they are in fact creating art. Many a producer on the other hand, prefer to look at screenwriting more as a craft…
Like hiring a guy to do your lawn.
But even those guys can be artists… I too look at screenwriting more as an art form than a craft. To me, the craft part has more to do with formatting, writing a scene, knowing where your acts break, plot points, etc. Just as a painter has to have an idea for a painting, the paint, the brushes, the media on which he or she paints on, so does the screenwriter possess his or own myriad of tools to write a screenplay.
Structure is one of those tools.
Structure is like your roadmap… You know you’re going on a trip. You know you want to go through several areas along the way and hit specific landmarks but until you sit down and pull out your roadmap, you’re not really sure what route or routes to take to give you the best trip possible and get all those landmarks into your trip. Imagine taking a trip from point A to point B. You already know that the freeway near your home will get you to point B in a few days but it won’t be a particularly pleasing trip. Sure, you’ll get off for some fast food along the way. Stop for some gas and tinkle at the convenience store gas stations but will it be memorable?
Uh… Probably not.
On the other hand, one can, with just a little planning and preparation, pull out a roadmap and start plotting out a much more memorable trip. Sure, it might take a little longer to get there but it’ll be so much more fun and memorable! You can stop along the way and see those cool landmarks you’ve always wanted to see. You can stop and eat at some of those famous little diners and restaurants. Drive through those small Americana towns that you’ve always wanted to cruise through.
Makes me want to plan a road trip right now…
And while one size might not fit all, you’d be surprised how close it can actually come but rest assured it’s no formula. Screenwriting becomes formula when, in my own humble opinion, we start ripping each other off so much that what we’re reading or looking at on the screen is derivative. Of course DERIVATIVE is in the eye of the beholder as so many things are… Going back to the previous post where I talked about 8MM being derivative of HARDCORE — sure, I enjoyed 8MM. I like Nicolas Cage and Joaquin Phoenix… They’re always worth watching but there’s still something inside me that says 8MM is just TOO DERIVATIVE of HARDCORE but that’s what happens when you’re a successful screenwriter — you can do this kind of derivative stuff and sell it.
Make no mistake… There are those professional screenwriters out there that excel at writing derivative stuff and make a decent living doing so but hey, that’s their pigeonhole. That’s what a lot of them are known for. That’s what a lot of producers GO TO THEM FOR.
Sure it’s easier to sell derivative stuff these days because the ticket-buying demographic has never even heard of movies like HARDCORE so who gives a shit, RIGHT? Well I do and I always try NOT to be derivative because pretty much:
DERIVATIVE = FORMULA
Again, that’s just the way I see it — you may see it differently and that’s cool… It’s a free country — at least that’s what they keep telling me.
If you recall when PULP FICTION came out, quite a few movies attempted to re-bottle the non-linear formula and do what Quentin Tarantino did and most of them failed miserably… One that didn’t however, was MEMENTO.
Why?
Both screenplays tell their stories in a non-linear fashion but they’re certainly not derivative. Lots of reviewers have compared MEMENTO to PULP FICTION because of its non-linear storytelling but Christopher Nolan didn’t didn’t rip PF off… Rather, he went down a similar road that Tarantino did i.e., both created their structure from what they’d seen done in novels and as he got further into the script, he realized that he wanted the audience to more or less share Lenny’s point of view, so he tweaked his structure to reflect that by weaving in more voice-over as well as utilizing camera angles that enabled US to see things through Lenny’s (the Protagonist) eyes.
I point both of these films out because let’s be honest… They both PUSH the boundaries of screenwriting structure and both will certainly go down in screenwriting history as having done so. From the interview above, Christopher Nolan totally NAILS screenwriting stucture with the following quote:
“It really is a question of finding the most suitable order for releasing information to the audience and not feeling any responsibility to do it chronologically, just like we don’t in life.” –Christopher Nolan
In other words, there are no rules… Sure, some ways of telling a story work better than others and when in doubt, certainly go back to the rules or guidelines to get your head back on straight if that’s what you need to progress… Especially if and when you get lost.
Structure however, can be (I might even go so far as to say, SHOULD BE) continuously tweaked to have the story perform the way you want it to perform because after all, the real definition of a good story is that it is a WELL TOLD STORY. Well told meaning that the story elicits the emotion that YOU want it to elicit.
Which brings me to yet another interesting debacle I consistently see when reading screenplays… I often ask the screenwriter what emotion he or she wanted a particular scene to elicit from me, the reader — and all I get is the standard pregnant pause…
Not good.
You’ve gotta have some kind of idea of the kind of emotion you want from every scene you write even if it’s just neutrality.
Structure helps you with that.
Without the thread that strings your story along with actual purpose that elicits emotion and causes dramatic tension, you just end up with (hopefully) a lot of cool little scenes that really don’t make a whole hell of a lot of sense.
You don’t want that do you?
Of course not.
So you’ve got to sit down and create your roadmap but not before you decide what landmarks you want to catch on the way to your destination… Destination being the key element here because in order to actually GET SOMEWHERE YOU WANT TO BE, you gots to have a DESTINATION.
-
Where is my DESTINATION? In other words, what is the ending to my story?
Figure this one out before sitting down to write and you’ll be light years ahead of your competition. The wonderful thing about knowing the ending to your story is that you do not actually have to know every detail. The details grow and change as you hit your landmarks on the way to your destination so that by the time you are at your ending, you KNOW WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN even though you may not know how it has to happen — YET. As you learn more and more about your characters and plot, the ending will very likely begin to manifest itself in many different ways so be prepared to somehow record all those different ways should they appear to you.
- What is the beginning of my story?
Also very important and a story element that I see muffed up way too often… Figure out how you can get into your story with a BANG to hook your reader and your eventual audience. Get them interested in your Protagonist as soon as possible so that they WANT to go on your road trip.
Once you know these two story elements, it’s time to plan your screenwriting structure OR maybe a better way to put it so it has even more impact on YOU is like this:
A delicate balance of story elements whose overall purpose is to elicit the consummate emotional effect from an audience.
Of course that’s just my definition but I created that definition to help propel ME through the screenwriting process. If it works for you — outstanding. If not, I highly recommend defining screenwriting structure for yourself in such a way that the definition means something to YOU and propels YOU through your story.
So once you know the ending and the beginning, how the hell do you get from the beginning to the end?
Ah… That’s structure and it’s coming up.
Unk
Comments
29 Responses to “Screenwriting structure Part 5 Balance”
Leave a Reply
Hah!
First to comment . . .
I don’t have much to add.
Unk rocks most righteous . . .
You know me. If I learn something, I like to pass it on. Because I figure if I can see the incredible value of it, so will everyone else.
But, the truth is when it comes to screen writing people either see the value of structure or they don’t. Those that do, will nod quietly in agreement, whilst those that don’t will scream, FORMULA BAD… ME ORIGINAL, regardless of what you say to them.
So, I’ve given up on trying to persuade people that you’re better off with structure than without.
It’s one of those debates where everyone feels like they are holding the moral high ground and like most arguments it produces more heat than light.
However, with that said… I really agree with you that far too little attention is paid to the emotional impact of each scene. Structure is largely about organising your story emtional set-ups and payoffs.
All in all, a great post. (for those who are nodding quietly in agreement)
UNK FTW. Structure FTW.
Clive, I noticed that also about new writers. They think of this like a well-paying hobby rather than one of the - if not THE - hardest JOBS in the world. If you’re an engineer you pick up engineering books and go to seminars and talk with people in the field.
I’ve been serious about this for around 8 months and have read so much my head almost exploded.
UNK,
Your comments on scenes is right on the money. You have to know what you want from the scene or the director can’t do his job (even if your the director), actors can’t do their job as they will have no motivation.
That is the definition of a 3-dimensional character. They go from happy to sad to angry to unfeeling. By using those three emotions to good effect will produce a movie that takes you on that “beat-sheet rollercoaster.”
BTW, for all interested I came up with a new pitch method. It’s … wait for it… a laptop with PowerPoint. I’m using it for the FadeIn pitch fest this weekend. That way I can talk about the story while execs can look at the main topics.
Anyway, I look forward to your next post. Great stuff.
I have that same VW pic as my icon in the Beetle Club I belong to, I captioned it How To Make A Beetle Baby…
After reading this entry, I do have a question. I am writing a comedy right now and have wondered about emotion.
Yes, I want viewers and the script reader to laugh, but should there be more depth emotionally wise? Like as an undertone? Does that make sense?
Can a comedy be anything more than funny? Having a hard time explaining this, I hope you get my point.
Otherwise, I enjoyed reading this post - as always, thanks.
Roadmap, you say? Some of my best experiences have come from meandering about without a roadmap, lost in the Terra Cotta. I don’t even know what that is…
Moviequill,
I’ve had that photo for so long… Never thought I would be able to use it. LOL.
Kellene,
My answer to your question would be YES! Comedies can be a lot more than funny… Just look at some of the great comedies and you’ll see but it also depends on the kind of comedy you’re writing…
But MOST do have some kind of theme that comes through by the end.
spat,
I totally agree with you… Some of my best experiences have come from meandering and getting lost. The keyword here being EXPERIENCES… LOL.
Not my best roadtrips.
Unk
I’d like to pick up on the comedy question.
For me, the best comedies have the richest emotional journey’s of any genre. In particular, I’m thinking of film’s like “Little Miss Sunshine” and “Sideways.”
Where I’ve seen a lot of comedies fall flat, is when they make the decision that unrealistic, two dimensional “comedy” characters will automatically be funny. When, by and large they aren’t.
What seems to work best, is when you’ve got a deeply flawed, but believable character, who is put in the worse situation you can imagine for them… and then, the decisions they make to solve the problem, compound it.
More than not, the decisions are made when the character is dealing with either incredible sadness, fear or anger.
So, in “Little Miss Sunshine” Granddad dies of a drugs overdose, they’re heart broken. At the same time, it’ll also mean they miss the pageant. By this point the only thing holding the father’s bruised ego together is getting to the pageant. So, they steal the body and hide it in the trunk of the van. Both comic in itself and the set-up for future scene (in particular when they get pulled over by the cop).
Later in the film, we see the Son (whose only ambition is become a pilot) have his entire life destroyed, by an eye-test. Again, it’s heart breaking.
For me there is definitely a structure to comedy. And, ironically, it’s the same structure as drama. Flawed characters who struggle against conflict, who are presented with their worst nightmares and whose reactions to those nightmares increase both the stakes and the severity of the situation.
Where I think the difference between comedy and action or thrillers is, is the stakes are less about physical harm and more about emotional or social harm.
So, in a thriller the protagonist is fighting for their life… in a comedy they’re fighting to hide the fact they’re a failure from their mother.
Clive,
Outstanding and I agree wholeheartedly. I can use the same structure I personally use to write anything… A thriller, a comedy, horrow, etc.
What it comes down to is knowing how to write those scenes to elicit the emotion you’re going for… Humor and laughter for instance.
Great comment!
Unk
Alright, last time i posted on here I had a few too many… and, by chance, I’ve had the same tonight, but I could not resist posting now because I watched Max Dugan Returns this morning.
And, I was going to say that is a comedy, but looking back on the film, there are not LOL moments. That film is made by the emotional moments is creates. But it’s still a comedy. Still has great dialogue. And I was thinking… is there a modern day equivalent of that film? I don’t think that movie could be made today. And I think that’s a tradegy.
Personally, I think “Horrow” is my favorite genre… LOL… presumably it’s the kind of horror you watch whilst tied to a chair and gagged?
Sorry Unk, my comments are always littered with typos and I’ve NEVER caught one of yours… until now
Can you teach me screenwriting?
Tom,
Haven’t seen Max Dugan for many years but from what I remember, it was a decent little film.
I think it could be made today as long as the structure was updated so that the ticket-buying demographic could stand to watch it.
Although I still think it’s fine.
Clive,
I actually caught the typo and was too damn tired to fix it. LOL.
But now that you’ve been so kind to point it out to me, I’m going to use it to overcome my fear of typos… You know what they say…
FACE YOUR FEARS!
Unk
Nick,
Is that really your name?
Nick?
Nick Draken?
Sure, I can teach you screenwriting, Nick. Not a problem. Just send a recurring PayPal payment to my email address for $7,777.00 a month.
We should be finished in about 7 years.
Does that work for you?
Nick?
Unk
I’m sorry can’t afford that. But if you give $14,444 a month, I can afford to pay you.
Nick,
I think that pretty much cancels us out.
Did you learn anything?
Unk
You’re mean. You won’t teach me screenwriting.
Nick,
You got me. I’m a big bad meanie.
Ya know… Every time I see your name, I want to shout out loud:
“Nick Draken, Beverly Hills!”
Don’t ask me why…
Unk
That’s right I live in Beverly Hills. My best friend is Will Smith, Prince of BelAir
Nick,
Hey Kool-Aid!
Why do you always tell me things I already know?
Unk
Oh you know?
Unk and Nick,
I guess your exchange is an example of sarcastically structured comedy and perhaps Nick’s first lesson.
“I think it could be made today as long as the structure was updated so that the ticket-buying demographic could stand to watch it.”
Hmmm, this is an interesting statement. Has the screenplay structure changed since 1983? I think the basic story is basically timeless (you know, it’s about family and all), and I think the script masterfully tells the story. Updating the setting to present day would seem more cosmetic than structural.
I’m curious to know what you mean by updating the structure. There are some very convenient plot conventions (like Donald Sutherland’s kid pitching against Matthew Broderick in the climatic scene) that today’s audience may not as easily accept as the one 25 years ago, but overall it’s a solid story with solid structure. Is it that audiences expect more from big screen features these days?
Christian,
I know who Nick is and the last thing he wants to learn is screenwriting… LOL.
But you would be surprised at how many emails like that I get every week.
But hey… All the information is out there… Books, magazines, web sites… It’s all there. Some free — some not.
I guess what bothers me MOST is how so many screenwriters don’t seem to think screenwriting IN AND OF ITSELF is an ONGOING learning experience.
Sure, at some point, you can and SHOULD just say to yourself, “Hey, I know how to write a screenplay.” –Then sit down and get to writing.
But never refuse to learn more about the art and craft… It just makes YOUR writing better.
The MAIN reason I created this site was simply so I could have a place to write down my thoughts about screenwriting since just about everyone I know DOESN’T ever want to talk about screenwriting…
Not even screenwriters!
I don’t just like the subject… I love it!
Unk
Tom,
Again, I haven’t seen the movie for a really long time but what I can say is that when I compare older films to films today that make $100 Million plus, the structure is different. Sometimes it’s simply a very small tweak like giving the Protagonist some undeserved misfortune. Sometimes it’s where the inciting incident comes in.
If I remember correctly, the movie DOES have a solid structure — I wouldn’t argue that at all but I’m almost positive if I sat down and tore it apart and rebuilt it with some structural elements that the ticket-buying demographic seems to go more for today, we’d definitely end up with a slightly different film.
That’s NOT to say that different shooting techniques, editing techniques, and dialogue couldn’t be updated as well — I take it for granted that they would be but there are some very subtle structural elements that one can change throughout an old script to update it for today’s audience so that it hits a little harder today.
Of course when you do that, you must also go back in and weave in (write) updated dialogue and action but way before “I” would ever attempt to simply update and rewrite and old script so that it plays TODAY, I would analyze the hell out of it’s structure FIRST.
Does that mean all old scripts would need it? Certainly not. Does that mean MAX DUGAN needs it? Maybe — maybe not. Again, I’d have to make that determination after analyzing the original structure.
If you take a look at TODAY’S 3:10 TO YUMA for instance… The structure is decidedly different from the original movie with Glenn Ford. Hell, even a lot of the dialogue is different but what really gives the new movie more impact TO ME, is the tweaking of the structural elements — all things being equal.
Just my opinion.
Unk
Thanks for the answer, UNK.
I’m admittedly not a scructure scholar (which is why I’ve been writing screenplays for 10 years without an attempt to sell), so I may ask some questions that may seem obvious to most. After reading your answer and thinking about it, it seems that if you don’t update the structure, you’re almost going to do a shot-by-shot remake, with updated dialogue, sets and editing techniques.
When you update a story to take place in today’s world (literally and cinematically) little changes will extrapolate to bigger changes that will necessitate a change of structure…. or something like that. If Neil Simon wrote Max Dugan Returns today, he’d probably have a different structure.
Tom,
YOU NAILED IT.
Great comment — seriously.
Unk
Unk -”Sure, at some point, you can and SHOULD just say to yourself, “Hey, I know how to write a screenplay.” –Then sit down and get to writing.”
I think there is a natural ebb and flow to the learning process.
Write a script… get notes, see where the script’s weaknesses are and then hit the web, the books and pester your mates for information… then put all of that to one side and rewrite.
If the information I pick up involves massive changes in working practice, I’ll sometimes start a new script to work up as a technique tester.
There are real advantages to this, because you’re applying the new tools to a blank canvas, without any emotional baggage connected to the old project.
Then when I’m sure I’ve got a decent working knowledge of the new techniques, then I’ll go back to the rewrite.
This sometimes means a year will pass between rewrites… but in the meantime I’ve added a new script to my slate. So, not lost time at all.
Where I’ve gone wrong in the past is continuing to hunt for new information when I’m working on a draft, because the process then becomes an endless rework in search of the perfect script… the other mistake I’ve made is using the study of screen writing as an avoidance technique.
These days I try to separate the two things… I’m either writing or I’m acquiring more technique.
But, that’s just for me… not something that should or would apply to everyone.
UNK said:
I guess what bothers me MOST is how so many screenwriters don’t seem to think screenwriting IN AND OF ITSELF is an ONGOING learning experience.
Exactly. It ticks me off to no end. This is hard. It’s not a strike against you if you keep learning. You will actually be ahead of the “new screenwriter” game.
I think that’s also why new writers get such subjective reads; people can’t believe that anyone will study until their ears bleed, so they will glance by things and miss key points for setups and payoffs.
I wrote one script that has gotten a different analysis for nearly every person who has read it. Some people may say that means it’s ambiguous but I’d say it’s because I wrote it to speak to different personality types differently.
The movie may suck but that worked.