Screenwriting : Getting away with coincidence and contrivance by Chas Franko Fisher

I think the "impossible" factor in your script should be a scene that the audience will enjoy and remember, but might not be too plausible. Like the entire scene in Minority Report with the jet packs in the alley. It was ridiculous, but extremely entertaining. And in Mad Max when... well.... EVERYTHING. Like CJ mentioned, I think you should use coincidence to get your characters into trouble, but logic to get them out. Breaking Bad was great at that.

In writing classes in college, we were taught about "contrivances", and how it's a no-no for us writers. It's, like, the ultimate bailout for bad writing and lazy writing. One of my professors in a creative writing class would give out mini-dunce caps to students who used a "Deus ex Machina" device in any our short story assignments. Deus es Machina was literally invented thousands of years ago by the Greek dramatists, and continues to this day. It's too bad Greece doesn't get royalties for its usage - they probably wouldn't have any national debt. In scriptwriting, we're also told not to employ such methods - and especially for us writers who are trying to get established. In the established world of filmmaking, contrivances are pretty standard in many action movies and horror movies - and even in other genres, too. It's like the filmmakers think "okay...I know it isn't quite what we're supposed to do...but we're doing it anyway to keep things entertaining and rolling." In some of those movies, the reasons are pretty clear: in a thrill-a-minute movie, even if people notice it, it's probably not going to affect their overall opinion of the movie. They're there to be entertained, after all, and not to perform a critical analysis of the logic of the movie. And maybe...do most people really care, anyway, since it's all about the action, or all about the fantasy? I can understand, then, how contrivances can be utilized in some movies. After all, in movies, belief is sometimes suspended, and in other times, BELIEF IS REALLY REALLY SUSPENDED. In some of the other usages, it's pretty clear, too: because it's quite simply a bad script. You can pretty much name any action movie ever made, and you will can probably come up with a list of effective (or ineffective) contrivances utilized in that movie.

@CJ. Hear ya. Still waiting for a refund on my brain cells. Wish I hadn't been me who did seen Now You See Me. See?

If your story uses more than 2 coincidences to drive plot or bring characters together, then your story has major plot holes and will not feel plausible.

@CJ Thanks so much for the cinema sins link. That will provide me with ample negative fodder :) But I am still looking for positive examples. Car accidents would often seem to be a writer/the plot intruding on what the characters are doing but is often accepted as part and parcel of the world without much trouble. Speaking of which, a big one for me is the car exploding in MICHAEL CLAYTON. That sequence is full of illogical contrivances (what the hell is Clayton doing with the fucking horses!?!) BUT it just works in that film.

@Danny, I disagree. FINDING NEMO has about 8 coincidences that drive plot and it feels completely plausible.

RE: FURY ROAD - I think there are a lot of contrivances in the world (Doof Doof Man forever!) but these contrivances build the world. They do not - overall - impact on the story. For example, the scene where Max ends up with the women and Nux on the truck is all character motivated and arises as a clear logical result from the conflict. The plot does not intervene. There is no conflict or coincidence that does not belong in that world (which raises the question as to whether it is contrived at all in that context).

I often forgive coincidences if they take me to an emotional or thematically resonant place where I really want to go. CRASH is the best example I can think of.

@Richard: Great example. And one that is perhaps pulled off with assistance from the very name of the film. The audience almost leans forward waiting to find out how all the threads tie together, willing the coincidences into existence and happily accepting them.

@Jim: Fantastic example!

All stories are coincidences and contrivances. The good ones make you forget that.

I agree with this Cherie. The point of this thread is to try and discover if there is any underlying craft to make the audience forget or not notice the coincidence/contrivance.

Also agree with Cherie. Saw a film in which a character (unknowingly) carried a head in a leather bag for over a week. When he found out at the end I thought "how the frik did it not stink and have maggots?" But I let it go because I enjoyed the film.

They say that Cs & Cs are fine for getting a protag into trouble (or the villain out of trouble), but such are rage-inducing cheats aka deus ex machina to get the hero out of trouble. As for getting a villain into trouble, that's what the hero is for.

Thanks for all the input guys! But I'd really like to steer the thread away from what people think or feel and just reference examples. Stick to the facts ma'am. For example, people are saying that you can't use coincidences to get characters out of trouble. But what about OUT OF SIGHT when White Boy accidentally shoots himself in the head? I cheered and hooted at that extremely coincidental and contrived moment. BUT IT WORKED. The more examples we find, the closer we will be to figuring out how to make our own coincidences and contrivances work :)

What's coincidental about shooting yourself in the head accidentally? And anyway people do that more often than you know. A car accident isn't much of a contrivance. It happens too much. I mean it still is, but because it's so common a thing to happen it doesn't feel that way.

More of a contrivance than coincidence. A moment where there is a villain who is threatening the protagonist who suddenly dies through no action of the protagonist whatsoever - obstacle removed - is a contrivance of the writer. It is convenient for the writer and the plot and the protagonist. But it works.

I literally hate coincidences... contrivance... ESPECIALLY irony... which for me has been far overused. Basically, IT'S TOO OBVIOUS.

Ultimately it's what keeps the audience engaged... or not. When a writer puts in any thing without breaking the spell, that thing was successful. Sometimes tropes are useful, other times they earn the movie a Sin or two on Everything Wrong With.

Examples, people! Examples!

Hey gang: thanks so much for your input in this thread. Here is the result - the latest Draft Zero podcast! http://draft-zero.com/2015/dz-25/