Okay, McKee does like to talk and he has literally loads of videos on Youtube. Go look them up.
But here, for your perusal is his ten common problems when writing screenplays, many of which are applicable to your short screenplays.
OTHER MISTAKES WRITERS MAKE
There are loads of resources on the web linked to the lovely CHRIS JONES, who wrote the Guerilla Film Makers Handbook. (read it, its in the library).
Here's some nice advice.
THE VALUE OF RESEARCH
You may not like all these guys films, I don't. But he makes some valuable remarks about beginners mistakes and things to DO, and NOT DO.
Thursday, 8 December 2011
Robert McKee: Story
Few people entering script writing haven't heard of Robert McKee. He lectures, talks, write books and breathes one thing: STORY.
That is, STORY in SCREENWRITING.
He is a fascinating character and although I can't make you read his book, STORY, you should.
What can we learn from him for scripting our short filmic screenplays?
STORY VALUES AND SCENE TURNING
One element we can look at is McKee's theory on how scenes SHOULD work.
He says that for a scene to have any impact, or in fact, to be judged worthy of even being in your screenplay at all, it should have a movement in its STORY VALUES.
What are they?
A story value is a negative or positively charged emotion/feeling which thematically indicates what is going on in the scene.
The most basic is this:
At the start of the scene, John McLane is alive and well. By the end of the scene he is nearly dead.
The story values have moved from LIFE to DEATH. From positive, in this case, to NEGATIVE. McKee argues this shift in values is what holds our attention and moves the story on for the audience.
OHHH, BIT CRASS
I know, it is. There are much subtely versions of story values moving from + to -.
OUR SHORTS
Now, certainly some of this scene story value chat should work within our short films. You can look at your scenes and ask yourself - are they moving from a postive to negative or vice versa, in terms of the story value.
HOW DO I KNOW WHAT THE STORY VALUE IS?
Look at the scene and ask yourself, what is the major concern of the HERO. Is it staying alive, finding love, being encouraging, looking for redemption, whatever. Most likely the story value will come from the character.
RESOURCES
A condensed version of everything McKee talks about in his book: http://www.kennykemp.com/pdf/story%20structure.pdf
That is, STORY in SCREENWRITING.
He is a fascinating character and although I can't make you read his book, STORY, you should.
What can we learn from him for scripting our short filmic screenplays?
STORY VALUES AND SCENE TURNING
One element we can look at is McKee's theory on how scenes SHOULD work.
He says that for a scene to have any impact, or in fact, to be judged worthy of even being in your screenplay at all, it should have a movement in its STORY VALUES.
What are they?
A story value is a negative or positively charged emotion/feeling which thematically indicates what is going on in the scene.
The most basic is this:
At the start of the scene, John McLane is alive and well. By the end of the scene he is nearly dead.
The story values have moved from LIFE to DEATH. From positive, in this case, to NEGATIVE. McKee argues this shift in values is what holds our attention and moves the story on for the audience.
OHHH, BIT CRASS
I know, it is. There are much subtely versions of story values moving from + to -.
OUR SHORTS
Now, certainly some of this scene story value chat should work within our short films. You can look at your scenes and ask yourself - are they moving from a postive to negative or vice versa, in terms of the story value.
HOW DO I KNOW WHAT THE STORY VALUE IS?
Look at the scene and ask yourself, what is the major concern of the HERO. Is it staying alive, finding love, being encouraging, looking for redemption, whatever. Most likely the story value will come from the character.
RESOURCES
A condensed version of everything McKee talks about in his book: http://www.kennykemp.com/pdf/story%20structure.pdf
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Script Writing Theory
So, where to begin?
Let's start with the old master - Joesph Campbell - the man George Lucas turned to when he was putting together his space opera and deeply mythological series stroke money making device, Star Wars.
Campbell's theory is called the Monomyth. He basically takes a look at all the world cultures, from Christianity to Buddhism to Taoism, to cultures now long distinct like the Mayans and disects each of their myth making (or you could call it, story telling) techniques.
What he finds out is that a lot of the stories, are, at their heart, the same. At least in principal.
He organises, if you can call it that, these stories under one banner - the Journey of the Hero.
Unlike writing theorists since him, he didn't say - 'this is what you must do to write a story', Campbell is way to subtle for that. No, what he is suggesting is that there is fabric underpinning all human history and it is represented by our shared stories and culture and here, look at the lovely pattern I've found.
What was so stunning about his work was the BREADTH of study. He took in everything from modern psychology to ancient history to physics to theories of being to philosophies of existence. He leaves no stone unturned and therefore he is invaluable.
You will, however, find him difficult to read!
However, here he is speaking!
Down at the bottom are resources.
SO WHAT, PAUL?
Well, if he's too much, and he was for Hollywood, you could go and look at the man who distilled his work - Christopher Vogler - into something much easier to read.
He keeps the essence of Campbell's book but makes it easy reading and uses movies to make it clear how it all works. Essentially, the Hero's Journey takes place in 12 Steps, using Feature Films
And here he is!
And for the popcorn eates, here it is again, without any big words!
And, for a tanget, think now about the hero's journey and then watch one of Aesop's Fables. You'll notice good old fashioned story telling has a lot in common with Fables, Parables and other such things from our childhoods.
SO WHAT WHAT, PAUL?
Well, fair to you if you're thinking - what has this got to do with short films? You'd be right, so quick pat on the back and lets get solving this problem.
The hero's journey, in all its 12 steps is a bit too long for a short film, but we can use bits of it in thinking about story structure, and we can certainly learn a lot about storytelling in general, and how people react through the ages to story, by looking at Campbell's work.
THE PROBLEM OF THE SHORT
The most basic structure we've used is CONFLICT AND RESOLUTION. That's only two steps. Could we make it more complicated? Probably.
But if we can get just two steps right, and weave an interesting story with some of the mythical characters from Campbell's Monomyth, we could be really onto something.
In many ways, the hero's journey still exists in a short, but in a much shortened version. There is, for a start, a hero (or antihero) and he or she has something to struggle with (usually the conflict) and must overcome it (the Road Back) and be changed, forever (the last step in Campbell's journey).
Look at your short and see if you can chart the journey.
HOW DOES THIS WORK WITH NOIR AND TRADEGY
Well, in noir, and all tragedy, there is still a hero, except the hero instead of OVERCOMING THE MONSTER (i.e. the different problems put in his/her path) he is defeated by them and ends up being destroyed.
In noir, the MONSTER is inside the PERSON. It is their own personality that destroys them. They are unable to change and become a victim of their own circumstance.
Because its an interior, and therefore personal journey, they are AWARE of their own habits, which makes it much more gripping for us, the viewers.
Below is a bit of video about TRADEGY. He uses different terminology (something called the state of imperfection, but actually there are a couple of golden nuggets in this and its worth watching to show you how a story can be represented in a diagram - like a circle.)
RESOURCES
Joesph Campbell Foundation: http://www.jcf.org/new/index.php
Really good fun - Campbell's own life turned into his own theorectical mythic journey: http://www.folkstory.com/campbell/campbell.html
See if you can do the same with your own journey! It's easy. Think about you're journey through Teck. Who are the gatekeepers? Who are the shadow characters? The jokers? (all me)
Let's start with the old master - Joesph Campbell - the man George Lucas turned to when he was putting together his space opera and deeply mythological series stroke money making device, Star Wars.
Campbell's theory is called the Monomyth. He basically takes a look at all the world cultures, from Christianity to Buddhism to Taoism, to cultures now long distinct like the Mayans and disects each of their myth making (or you could call it, story telling) techniques.
What he finds out is that a lot of the stories, are, at their heart, the same. At least in principal.
He organises, if you can call it that, these stories under one banner - the Journey of the Hero.
Unlike writing theorists since him, he didn't say - 'this is what you must do to write a story', Campbell is way to subtle for that. No, what he is suggesting is that there is fabric underpinning all human history and it is represented by our shared stories and culture and here, look at the lovely pattern I've found.
What was so stunning about his work was the BREADTH of study. He took in everything from modern psychology to ancient history to physics to theories of being to philosophies of existence. He leaves no stone unturned and therefore he is invaluable.
You will, however, find him difficult to read!
However, here he is speaking!
Down at the bottom are resources.
SO WHAT, PAUL?
Well, if he's too much, and he was for Hollywood, you could go and look at the man who distilled his work - Christopher Vogler - into something much easier to read.
He keeps the essence of Campbell's book but makes it easy reading and uses movies to make it clear how it all works. Essentially, the Hero's Journey takes place in 12 Steps, using Feature Films
And here he is!
And for the popcorn eates, here it is again, without any big words!
And, for a tanget, think now about the hero's journey and then watch one of Aesop's Fables. You'll notice good old fashioned story telling has a lot in common with Fables, Parables and other such things from our childhoods.
SO WHAT WHAT, PAUL?
Well, fair to you if you're thinking - what has this got to do with short films? You'd be right, so quick pat on the back and lets get solving this problem.
The hero's journey, in all its 12 steps is a bit too long for a short film, but we can use bits of it in thinking about story structure, and we can certainly learn a lot about storytelling in general, and how people react through the ages to story, by looking at Campbell's work.
THE PROBLEM OF THE SHORT
The most basic structure we've used is CONFLICT AND RESOLUTION. That's only two steps. Could we make it more complicated? Probably.
But if we can get just two steps right, and weave an interesting story with some of the mythical characters from Campbell's Monomyth, we could be really onto something.
In many ways, the hero's journey still exists in a short, but in a much shortened version. There is, for a start, a hero (or antihero) and he or she has something to struggle with (usually the conflict) and must overcome it (the Road Back) and be changed, forever (the last step in Campbell's journey).
Look at your short and see if you can chart the journey.
HOW DOES THIS WORK WITH NOIR AND TRADEGY
Well, in noir, and all tragedy, there is still a hero, except the hero instead of OVERCOMING THE MONSTER (i.e. the different problems put in his/her path) he is defeated by them and ends up being destroyed.
In noir, the MONSTER is inside the PERSON. It is their own personality that destroys them. They are unable to change and become a victim of their own circumstance.
Because its an interior, and therefore personal journey, they are AWARE of their own habits, which makes it much more gripping for us, the viewers.
Below is a bit of video about TRADEGY. He uses different terminology (something called the state of imperfection, but actually there are a couple of golden nuggets in this and its worth watching to show you how a story can be represented in a diagram - like a circle.)
RESOURCES
Joesph Campbell Foundation: http://www.jcf.org/new/index.php
Really good fun - Campbell's own life turned into his own theorectical mythic journey: http://www.folkstory.com/campbell/campbell.html
See if you can do the same with your own journey! It's easy. Think about you're journey through Teck. Who are the gatekeepers? Who are the shadow characters? The jokers? (all me)
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
The genre of film noir
Haha. Film noir. The favourite starting point for so many directors, Preminger to Nolan. Why 'noir' has established such a solid reputation and its codes and conventions still exist today is a mystery. Ha.
I don't think it is. Noir is, in essence, tradegy. Noir films do not, if they are following strictly the suggested codes of noir, (some argue its not a genre but a list of suggested catagories), anyway, to finish my point, noir ends badly. Which makes it a TRADEGY.
The conflict and resolution result in the hero NOT succeeding and usually dying, or being left in a much diminished state.
However, and this might point to why people keep coming back to it, noir characters were the first tragic characters in the development of popular cinema to be seen SYMPATHETICALLY.
In other words, here is a human being, failing in something badly, as a result of their own actions, in some cases they know what they've done and yet aren't able to stop it and everything will not go well at the end for them but still they go through it.
SCARLETT STREET
In Scarlett Street, the brilliant Edward G. Robinson plays a socially and romantically inept character who happens to meet, and save, a lovely girl one night. They start a relationship but from the outset it is one sided and we, then he, finds out he's being played for a fool and that the girl is keeping up with her boyfriend and doesn't care for poor Edward G at all. That is until he goes biccys and slices her seven ways till Sunday and spends the rest of the film in a horrible slide towards madness.
And yet. Do we hate this murderer? He has the most annoying wife on the planet and works hard and is actually a genius painter who is totally undiscovered.
We don't. We feel for him. He's a man trapped in a crappy situation who wants more, who wants to break free, but goes out of his depth, loses the plot for a moment and commits a horrible crime.
You could argue noirs are films made by social workers who have an eye for murder.
You can't go wrong with the Big Heat either.
I don't think it is. Noir is, in essence, tradegy. Noir films do not, if they are following strictly the suggested codes of noir, (some argue its not a genre but a list of suggested catagories), anyway, to finish my point, noir ends badly. Which makes it a TRADEGY.
The conflict and resolution result in the hero NOT succeeding and usually dying, or being left in a much diminished state.
However, and this might point to why people keep coming back to it, noir characters were the first tragic characters in the development of popular cinema to be seen SYMPATHETICALLY.
In other words, here is a human being, failing in something badly, as a result of their own actions, in some cases they know what they've done and yet aren't able to stop it and everything will not go well at the end for them but still they go through it.
SCARLETT STREET
In Scarlett Street, the brilliant Edward G. Robinson plays a socially and romantically inept character who happens to meet, and save, a lovely girl one night. They start a relationship but from the outset it is one sided and we, then he, finds out he's being played for a fool and that the girl is keeping up with her boyfriend and doesn't care for poor Edward G at all. That is until he goes biccys and slices her seven ways till Sunday and spends the rest of the film in a horrible slide towards madness.
And yet. Do we hate this murderer? He has the most annoying wife on the planet and works hard and is actually a genius painter who is totally undiscovered.
We don't. We feel for him. He's a man trapped in a crappy situation who wants more, who wants to break free, but goes out of his depth, loses the plot for a moment and commits a horrible crime.
You could argue noirs are films made by social workers who have an eye for murder.
You can't go wrong with the Big Heat either.
Thursday, 6 October 2011
Short Film vs Feature
There are major differences between writing a short and a feature, in regards to structure is the first one. Most features have a three or maybe four act structure, a short doesn't. It has maybe five minutes, how many acts is that? None, I'd argue, or maybe one.
Read this article, it contains some good notes on what you can and can't do in a screenplay and the difference between it and a prose story.
It also has a good background into the writing of their short film. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~shortflm/drafting/writing_short.html
Some more lovely stuff here, which I agree with, in terms of actually writing scenes.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~shortflm/drafting/scenes.html
This is a very challenging article, not all of which I agree with, but it is an interesting take on the value of short films in today's media saturated environment, when it seems like everyone is making shorts. The bit I disagree with is I DO think you can show narrative arc within a short, albeit a very condensed one.
http://nofilmschool.com/2010/07/the-short-film-is-dead-time-for-the-emerging-filmmaker-to-get-a-new-calling-card/
If its a really good short, however, someone might want to come along and make a feature out of it. Which is as good a reason as any to make a short. http://www.slashfilm.com/carl-erik-rinschs-short-film-the-gift-spawns-bidding-war-for-feature-film-adaptation/
Read this article, it contains some good notes on what you can and can't do in a screenplay and the difference between it and a prose story.
It also has a good background into the writing of their short film. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~shortflm/drafting/writing_short.html
Some more lovely stuff here, which I agree with, in terms of actually writing scenes.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~shortflm/drafting/scenes.html
This is a very challenging article, not all of which I agree with, but it is an interesting take on the value of short films in today's media saturated environment, when it seems like everyone is making shorts. The bit I disagree with is I DO think you can show narrative arc within a short, albeit a very condensed one.
http://nofilmschool.com/2010/07/the-short-film-is-dead-time-for-the-emerging-filmmaker-to-get-a-new-calling-card/
If its a really good short, however, someone might want to come along and make a feature out of it. Which is as good a reason as any to make a short. http://www.slashfilm.com/carl-erik-rinschs-short-film-the-gift-spawns-bidding-war-for-feature-film-adaptation/
Action Writing and Inferences
There's a number of different goals set for you as a script writer. We've outlined some of the basics. First of all, conflict and resolution as the beating heart of the story.
The story itself is the next aspect to wonder about. That brings in things like who are the characters, what are their motivations, what do they like, dislike, how do they relate to one another.
Answering even half these questions will guide how your story goes because your characters, if you know them, will tell you where they want to go.
For example, if someone is greedy, and they discover, say, a bag of money, they'll take it. Maybe they'll even kill someone for it. If someone has a strong moral backbone and is presented with money, they might take it, or they might not, or they might hand in it.
It's a good scenario to play with and we're going to pair it up with another important factor in characterisation, which is YOU.
You should, at this stage, try and put yourself in your stories. You can only write what you know, so it makes sense that you're writing someone and you DON'T know them, then your story will be FALSE or PHONEY.
Make yourself the lead. Place yourself in a world, at a time. Pick one more character and make yourself discover a bag of MONEY. What do you do? Do you keep it? Do you kill the other person? Do they kill you?
ACTION WRITING
When you're describing something in a piece of script, the key to making it work for the reader is to tell whatever important fact you have through ACTION, or MOVEMENT.
You could say, for example,
Henry puts on his shoes and goes out the door.
But that's boring. It doesn't tell you anything about the CHARACTER and it doesn't, crucially, MOVE the story on in any way. It's EXPOSITION, which is boring.
So how about,
Henry wrestles with his laces, too angry to do them, he storms out the door.
I'm inventing here, but it serves the purpose of the point, Henry is angry, the tying of the laces is really a way to describe his INNER STATE of MIND through ACTION.
We haven't said,
He's angry as he tied his laces,
We said,
Henry wrestles with his laces, too angry to do them, he storms out the door.
We could make this even better I think.
Henry make a clumsy, angry attempt to do up his laces, giving up, he storms out the door.
ACTION WRITING. Analyse everything you write in terms of how it relates to the STORY and the CHARACTER.
Remember, we are still writing, even in the brutally short vocabulary of screenplay, for a reader, we have to use the few words we have to propel the story forward and stimulate the imagination of the reader to want to know more.
THEY'RE IMAGINATION IS THE WRITER'S TOOL.
Analyse your script and see how you can make every sentence count.
WRITING RESOURCES
- I found this on writing action scenes, as opposed to action writing, which is what I was getting at above. However, there is some great stuff in it, applicable to our work on these films, albeit from literary sources and one quote to stick out is from Hemmingway:
Never confuse movement with action
It's only action if we care. http://www.dargonzine.org/dpww/docs/actionwritingdoc.pdf
- This one disagrees with me slightly, never a bad thing, and what he's suggesting about writing is TOO bare bones and results in the dreaded LIST of THINGS SCREENPLAY. However, at the top is a writing example that is spot on. http://www.ibiblio.org/cdeemer/cfs0601.htm
INFERENCES: DON'T WRITE THE OBVIOUS, SUGGEST
This is a hint for actual writing script and it couldn't be more important. Often in screenplays the following occurs:
Jim gets up. He stands by the door. He's listening to something. There is a conversation going on. It's hard for him to hear. He listens hard by squeezing his eyes closed. He moves closer. He rubs his eyes. He is tired. He moves even closer. His nose is touching the door. Just then, the door shoots open and he falls through it.
Now, on one level, this might do. It does tell us something about the ACTION of the scene, the MOTIVATION of the character and a little of what is going on. However, it does this through LISTS. The screenplay reads like a shopping list and if you write enough shopping lists you will eventually bore yourself, and the reader.
What this piece of screenplay has forgotten is that THE IMAGINATION of the READER is the writer's greatest tool. Next to his own creativity that is.
So, question is, how do you make a piece of screenplay work for a reader. Instead of telling them every single detail and not allowing their mind to interact with the screenplay. Tell them a little, but INFER a lot. In other words, leave out lots of stuff, but get their imagination to work for it anyway. It's more rewarding for the reader, but more importantly, more rewarding for you because you've created STRONGER MENTAL PICTURES in the mind of your reader.
Jim's listening to a muffled conversation going on next door and in a moment he's found his way to the door to try and hear what's going on. A man couldn't get any more personal with a door, so when it opens suddenly and with force, he falls right through.
This is something better I think. For a start having one long sentence instead of the shopping list orientated twelve sentences it makes the piece of screenplay read a lot better. There's also a little light work with a jokey edge in the sentence, a man couldn't get any more personal with a door, (and it's also suggestive as to what he might be listening to and his motivation for doing so). It could of course be better. Since I've just made it up and don't know the story yet, it gets a little hard to go on, but we could have another go.
A conversation sparks up next door and like a man possessed Jim has his ear stuck to the door in a second, drinking in every word, but so engrossed is he, he doesn't react quick enough when the door pops open and falls like a hopeless case into the room.
Bit more getting into it. And the whole thing flows better now that it's one sentence. The action of him listening and the consequence of being caught are now INFERRED to be linked together simply by the sentence construction.
For some screenplay writers this might be considered a little flowery, but not me.
Anyway, the point is about INFERENCES. Well, you infer from Jim's ''possessed' movement that he really wants to find out what is going on. This is backed up by him 'sticking' his ear to the door and 'drinking' in every word. It's all suggestion to the mind that there is a lot more going on here that just a man listening to a conversation.
Falling like a ''hopeless case' suggests he didn't want to be caught and is now at the mercy of whomever is in the room. Again, another inference on the part of the reader, but it keeps the story shooting forward and keeps the imaginative part of the reader's mind (even in simple screenplay format) clued in and working for the story.
The story itself is the next aspect to wonder about. That brings in things like who are the characters, what are their motivations, what do they like, dislike, how do they relate to one another.
Answering even half these questions will guide how your story goes because your characters, if you know them, will tell you where they want to go.
For example, if someone is greedy, and they discover, say, a bag of money, they'll take it. Maybe they'll even kill someone for it. If someone has a strong moral backbone and is presented with money, they might take it, or they might not, or they might hand in it.
It's a good scenario to play with and we're going to pair it up with another important factor in characterisation, which is YOU.
You should, at this stage, try and put yourself in your stories. You can only write what you know, so it makes sense that you're writing someone and you DON'T know them, then your story will be FALSE or PHONEY.
Make yourself the lead. Place yourself in a world, at a time. Pick one more character and make yourself discover a bag of MONEY. What do you do? Do you keep it? Do you kill the other person? Do they kill you?
ACTION WRITING
When you're describing something in a piece of script, the key to making it work for the reader is to tell whatever important fact you have through ACTION, or MOVEMENT.
You could say, for example,
Henry puts on his shoes and goes out the door.
But that's boring. It doesn't tell you anything about the CHARACTER and it doesn't, crucially, MOVE the story on in any way. It's EXPOSITION, which is boring.
So how about,
Henry wrestles with his laces, too angry to do them, he storms out the door.
I'm inventing here, but it serves the purpose of the point, Henry is angry, the tying of the laces is really a way to describe his INNER STATE of MIND through ACTION.
We haven't said,
He's angry as he tied his laces,
We said,
Henry wrestles with his laces, too angry to do them, he storms out the door.
We could make this even better I think.
Henry make a clumsy, angry attempt to do up his laces, giving up, he storms out the door.
ACTION WRITING. Analyse everything you write in terms of how it relates to the STORY and the CHARACTER.
Remember, we are still writing, even in the brutally short vocabulary of screenplay, for a reader, we have to use the few words we have to propel the story forward and stimulate the imagination of the reader to want to know more.
THEY'RE IMAGINATION IS THE WRITER'S TOOL.
Analyse your script and see how you can make every sentence count.
WRITING RESOURCES
- I found this on writing action scenes, as opposed to action writing, which is what I was getting at above. However, there is some great stuff in it, applicable to our work on these films, albeit from literary sources and one quote to stick out is from Hemmingway:
Never confuse movement with action
It's only action if we care. http://www.dargonzine.org/dpww/docs/actionwritingdoc.pdf
- This one disagrees with me slightly, never a bad thing, and what he's suggesting about writing is TOO bare bones and results in the dreaded LIST of THINGS SCREENPLAY. However, at the top is a writing example that is spot on. http://www.ibiblio.org/cdeemer/cfs0601.htm
INFERENCES: DON'T WRITE THE OBVIOUS, SUGGEST
This is a hint for actual writing script and it couldn't be more important. Often in screenplays the following occurs:
Jim gets up. He stands by the door. He's listening to something. There is a conversation going on. It's hard for him to hear. He listens hard by squeezing his eyes closed. He moves closer. He rubs his eyes. He is tired. He moves even closer. His nose is touching the door. Just then, the door shoots open and he falls through it.
Now, on one level, this might do. It does tell us something about the ACTION of the scene, the MOTIVATION of the character and a little of what is going on. However, it does this through LISTS. The screenplay reads like a shopping list and if you write enough shopping lists you will eventually bore yourself, and the reader.
What this piece of screenplay has forgotten is that THE IMAGINATION of the READER is the writer's greatest tool. Next to his own creativity that is.
So, question is, how do you make a piece of screenplay work for a reader. Instead of telling them every single detail and not allowing their mind to interact with the screenplay. Tell them a little, but INFER a lot. In other words, leave out lots of stuff, but get their imagination to work for it anyway. It's more rewarding for the reader, but more importantly, more rewarding for you because you've created STRONGER MENTAL PICTURES in the mind of your reader.
Jim's listening to a muffled conversation going on next door and in a moment he's found his way to the door to try and hear what's going on. A man couldn't get any more personal with a door, so when it opens suddenly and with force, he falls right through.
This is something better I think. For a start having one long sentence instead of the shopping list orientated twelve sentences it makes the piece of screenplay read a lot better. There's also a little light work with a jokey edge in the sentence, a man couldn't get any more personal with a door, (and it's also suggestive as to what he might be listening to and his motivation for doing so). It could of course be better. Since I've just made it up and don't know the story yet, it gets a little hard to go on, but we could have another go.
A conversation sparks up next door and like a man possessed Jim has his ear stuck to the door in a second, drinking in every word, but so engrossed is he, he doesn't react quick enough when the door pops open and falls like a hopeless case into the room.
Bit more getting into it. And the whole thing flows better now that it's one sentence. The action of him listening and the consequence of being caught are now INFERRED to be linked together simply by the sentence construction.
For some screenplay writers this might be considered a little flowery, but not me.
Anyway, the point is about INFERENCES. Well, you infer from Jim's ''possessed' movement that he really wants to find out what is going on. This is backed up by him 'sticking' his ear to the door and 'drinking' in every word. It's all suggestion to the mind that there is a lot more going on here that just a man listening to a conversation.
Falling like a ''hopeless case' suggests he didn't want to be caught and is now at the mercy of whomever is in the room. Again, another inference on the part of the reader, but it keeps the story shooting forward and keeps the imaginative part of the reader's mind (even in simple screenplay format) clued in and working for the story.
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
A structure for storytelling
Conflict and Resolution is the basic structure of nearly all stories and a good guide for writing your short screenplays.
An ending that ends happily for the main protagonist is a upbeat ending and a HERO'S story.
An ending that results in the demise of the main protagonist is a downbeat ending and a TRADEGY.
Take any film you know and apply the formula. It works.
There are more complex formulas out there, but they are all versions of the same thing, and often they are written for features. This simple formula works well for shorts.
Check out how conflict resolution work in the Black Hole.
Or in Reach.
CREATIVITY
It takes real brains, hard work and determination, plus a spark of something like individual personality to turn such a simple, almost dumb structure like conflict and resolution into a viable SHORT FILMIC STORY.
It can be done very badly. If the conflict is not real enough, too cliche, someone else's idea but dressed up as one's own, too confusing, badly thought through, not part of a whole story, your filmic idea will sink.
Luckily though, the one thing that saves us from sinking is ourselves. That's why we PITCH everything to one another (looking at them in the eye) with our simple filmic ideas to see whether or not it gets a reaction. If it dies, or more likely, you can't actually explain it in a couple of basic sentences, then you probably don't know what the story or idea really is.
Often, in pitching, it can be easy to think that its everyone else who doesn't get it, but it isn't usually the case.
NOT A BAD STARTING POINT FOR THINKING IDEAS
Sir Arthur Quiller stated there are seven basic CONFLICTS.
Man against Man
Man against Nature
Man against Himself
Man against God
Man against Society
Man caught in the Middle
Man & Woman
Not a bad starting point for thinking about film ideas.
THE BEST WAY TO WRITE A SHORT FILM, IS TO WATCH LOADS OF THEM
This site used to be okay, but it has improved vastly and now has a store of fantastic shorts, many of which are award winners.
An ending that ends happily for the main protagonist is a upbeat ending and a HERO'S story.
An ending that results in the demise of the main protagonist is a downbeat ending and a TRADEGY.
Take any film you know and apply the formula. It works.
There are more complex formulas out there, but they are all versions of the same thing, and often they are written for features. This simple formula works well for shorts.
Check out how conflict resolution work in the Black Hole.
Or in Reach.
CREATIVITY
It takes real brains, hard work and determination, plus a spark of something like individual personality to turn such a simple, almost dumb structure like conflict and resolution into a viable SHORT FILMIC STORY.
It can be done very badly. If the conflict is not real enough, too cliche, someone else's idea but dressed up as one's own, too confusing, badly thought through, not part of a whole story, your filmic idea will sink.
Luckily though, the one thing that saves us from sinking is ourselves. That's why we PITCH everything to one another (looking at them in the eye) with our simple filmic ideas to see whether or not it gets a reaction. If it dies, or more likely, you can't actually explain it in a couple of basic sentences, then you probably don't know what the story or idea really is.
Often, in pitching, it can be easy to think that its everyone else who doesn't get it, but it isn't usually the case.
NOT A BAD STARTING POINT FOR THINKING IDEAS
Sir Arthur Quiller stated there are seven basic CONFLICTS.
Man against Man
Man against Nature
Man against Himself
Man against God
Man against Society
Man caught in the Middle
Man & Woman
Not a bad starting point for thinking about film ideas.
THE BEST WAY TO WRITE A SHORT FILM, IS TO WATCH LOADS OF THEM
This site used to be okay, but it has improved vastly and now has a store of fantastic shorts, many of which are award winners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)