Screenwriting : Universally acceptable by Nkanya Nkwai

This is far too complicated and long of an answer to post. There are dozens of great books on the topic as well as articles, websites, webinars, etc. You don't have to go to school for it - but you do need to read some books and educate yourself much more than a message board can do. Check out Save the Cat to start and go from there.

Thank you Danny. Interestingly I have gone through Save The Cat twice. These specific questions are not answered but I must admit STC is a great piece.

Save The Cat is a great resource to use as a reference.

Okay. I guess I will make it a semi screenwriting Bible ;). Thank you Paul.

Hello Nkaya, I think you'll find all the responses you need by going through Save The Cat once more (catalyst = inciting incident = the event that triggers the action of your story). 1) -- What basically takes place before the inciting incident is the set-up, in which you introduce the characters, the settings... everything you want the audience knows before your story really begins. This is the "standard model". There are lots of good reasons why you might do something else. E.G.: -- You may want the audience doesn't know anything about your story before the action begins... and put the inciting incident at the very beginning of your movie (suspense, mystery...). -- You may want the audience doesn't understand the "why" of your story before the end, and put the inciting incident as the climax revelation (mystery...) ... 2) -- The three act structure is Hollywood's conventional model for feature movies, in combination with characterization (flawed hero, very bad antagonist, hero's arc...). Based on this simple cutting : Before action (act I), Action (Act II), resolution (Act III). According to Save the Cat: -- In Act I, you introduce your hero and you give them some problem to solve ("Openning image", "Setup", "Theme Stated", "Catalyst"). They hesitate ("Debate"), then choose to solve the problem. This decision is the point of no return, and the "Break into II". -- In Act II, your hero must struggle to solve the problem. They first explore this new world of adventure and seem to make some wins, but actually nothing needed to solve the problem (Act II-1 = "Fun and Games"). This is the time for the ("Midpoint"). Then things become harder and your hero must overcome obstacles higher than what they can do (Act II-2 = "Bad Guys Close in", "All is Lost", "The Dark Night of the Soul")... until something special occurs (inspiration, a new hazard for a love one...) which gives your hero the strength to try again... This event is the "Break into III". -- In Act III, your hero confronts and overcome their real antagonist forces in order to solve the initial problem ("Finale", "Final image"). Obviously, there are also lots of good reasons why you might do something else. But there is ONE better reason why you don't: as a non established spec writer, you have no chance your screenplay sells if you do so. Hope to be helpful.

Peter Corey, Laura Scheiner and Jean-Marie Mazaleyrat your inputs are of great value and aids, definitely they will go a long way modify my little screenwriting knowledge. Peter thank you for the analysis of "Cassablanca" it has given me a new dimension into the structure/framework of that story. Such examples bring invaluable assistance in understanding the art of writing. I don't know if you can make time to help me analize "Mr Morgan's Last Love" I like the movie but because it is not a high concept method and not an orthodox format, I have a little doubt in situating the main plot, subplots and the overarching nature of that screenplay. I hope I am not asking for too much sir. Jean - Marie, thank you for taking you time to carefully analyse the various acts and stating other options... I don't know if I could ask for a little tip concerning the various sequences and how they come to play. Thank you all once again.

I like what Peter says. It's wise to remember that Joseph Campbell is the (recent) Hollywood's god, Syd Field his messiah, and Snyder, Truby and others their apostles. It's just faith. And either mystical or ideological, faith is just an intellectual crutch for people who can't grasp the world in its whole diversity and complexity. So you don't need to believe. Only pretending. On the other side, Hollywood religion is an efficient way to make things that work. So it's a good way to learn.

Hello Nkanya, I didn't say anything about sequences link because we were talking about the "standard model" and fortunately, this is a too complex matter to make a consensus possible => Everything is allowed. IMHO, the only "natural" rules are: 1-- This should make your story going forward. 2-- Excepted for some transitions, a sequence or a scene which is not related to a thread (plot, subplot...) by a previous or a later one is unnecessary (unless you sold advertising breaks of course). You can use a linear or non linear linking (flashbacks, parallel stories, breaks, ellipses...), depending on what you whant the audience feel. I think that the best way to make one's experience is to watch as many movies as possible. My way of writing is currently the following: 1-- I outline my story and I make a beat sheet, then I plan every sequences on a timeline chart and on index cards, then I write my story. 2-- During the planning and the writing proccesses, I drop each sequence (or scene) and I wonder if it is better or not like that, or if it would be better different, or somewhere else... And I make the changes. 3-- I do something else for a few days, then I start again from step 2. If I don't find anything to change, I conclude that either I 'm lucky or I lost big opportunities to improve my work. This can last for months or years.

Please read "Pretty Woman" ( http://www.awesomefilm.com/script/prettywoman.html ) and "$3000" which was its earliest version ( http://screenplayexplorer.com/wp-content/scripts/Pretty-Woman.pdf ). It's amazing how the same sequences (and the same plot) can serve to make a funny romcom and a dark art house drama.

Mr. Corey, this is splendid... I am sure a lot more than just me are benefitting from this simplified form of the screenply complex whole. Is THANK YOU enough wage for these tips or do I start talking to my beautiful sister about a fantastic Newyorker? Jean-Marie, thank you, I will read Pretty Woman now.

Read loads and loads of screenplays. This should also be part of your screenwriting education.

Thank you Monique

Somebody has been reading Ye Olde Tyme screenwriting books. Can anyone tell me what film Syd Field or Art Mckee ever wrote? (And you listen to these guys?) Story telling => story showing => screenwriting. It’s an art form at which many try but few succeed. Creativity is one of those touchy-feely things that cannot be taught by book learning. It’s learned by doing. If I see anyone use the term “inciting incident” again, just imagine my hand coming out of your computer screen giving you a dope slap.

Doug Nelson, my girlfriend and I can't stop laughing at your write up. Okay to avoid any imaginary slaps popping from my lappy I won't use such as inciting incident no more ;) and yes I have been doing a couple crazy movies. I guess I have been learning. Many thanks for your input.

Here's what I've always been taught- 1) Introduce your characters and their normal situation, then set up the inciting incident. 2) 15 minutes/pages, then 90 or 105 depending on the length of the script, and act 3 at the end of the script. Any beat sheet merely serves as a checklist to make sure all the basic elements that a producer is looking for are in your script. If 90% of a beat sheet is in your script, then good. If not readily apparent, then it's time to rewrite. I just finished a script where my timing was off. By comparing what I wrote to a beat sheet, and the 15 minute/page timing, I knew exactly where I had to cut and where I needed to add. When it was all said and done, my script went exactly 105 pages.

John, one dope slap is on its way. The underlying concept is to weave a compelling story in a bullet proof format. An exactly 105 page script is not the objective. If you use a formula (theme pg 5, catalyst pg 12, Act II break pg 25…), I’ll guarantee that your script sucks and I’m pretty sure that’s not what you want. If you tell me that this beat sheet is just a guideline – I’ll slap you again. Go sit in a dark room, relax, and let your right brain run free to create an interesting and compelling story. Come back out and write it and you’ll be amazed to find that certain story elements just happen to fall into the right places; regardless of page count. Screenwriting is a creative process that you cannot force fit into some tidy little formula.

I've seen this question so many times... The answer is that YOU decide. If you're writing a drama or slasher, you may want to build the characters up a bit more so that the audience remotely gives a crap. If you're doing an action film, it's normally safer to start with a bang and have those events come back to haunt the lead after he's been introduced a bit more, so in effect, the inciting incident starts with the first sentence (rather than just a BOOM to start off the film). In the excellent Crank, the inciting incident has already taken place before we even join the film - the same can be said for thrillers such as Saw (the first one - I've not seen the others). A lot of new writers get themselves confused because they've all read Save the Cat and want to adopt this god-awful dot-to-do method of screenwriting. Too many Hollywood films follow a distinct pattern... it's hardly surprising that independent films have become so popular! To nutshell: write YOUR story, YOUR way; someone else would write the same idea differently, so why try to follow rules which effectively pen you all in together when you can be unique, be entertaining and SHINE? Carl

Basically, there are only one unique reason and three unique ways you may write a screenplay: The reason is to share something yours with an audience. The ways are: 1 -- tell a story 2 -- make a show 3 -- both. According to the way you chose, Hollywood clergy will sent you as follow: -- make a show => Heaven (subject to available places) -- both => Purgatory -- tell a story => Hell If a real storyteller, your own way is necessarily "tell a story". The only other thing you need to keep in mind is the reason why you write: share something with other people. This means that to success, you must catch and keep the interest of audience. If you don't care, why bore yourself with terrible things like formatting rules? Just write prose. So your story must be good and well written. I know only one way to do so: make it read by as many people as you can and rewrite it until most of people read it entirely at once, and you can read on their face the scene they are currently reading. IMHO, when this occurs, whatever its structure, characters, hero's journey... comply with or not, you take the right draft.

Jean-Marie, “only one unique reason and [only] three unique ways to write your screenplay”. I don’t think you can even imagine how much I disagree with you on that point. If you truly believe that; then every script you write is predictable, dull, boring and sucks. Please tell me you’re playing the Devil’s advocate to just ignite an interesting conversation.

Hello Doug, Nice to meet someone as grumpy as I am! Disney offers me to double Statler and Waldorf in the Muppets if I find a partner. Share this fame with me? About reasons and ways, I apologize, you're wright of course... I was just talking about one (particular) reason and three (particular) ways among an infinity, [only] because they were related to my topic. But I might have forgotten something. Feel free to enrich these lists. I may write a script just for my own pleasure... at pants... or on an exercice book with all sort of colors and lot of drawings, as well as for various other reasons and in various other ways... I did it. I just thought this info was of no interest for what I was talking about. I can also write lots of dull, boring and sucking things. I did it too. And I keep going with. That's why I make my work read and I rewrite, until I can read on the face of my reader the scene they are curruntly reading. I would be glad you predict what will be my next script. ;-)

Peter, some of your points are well taken, but mostly not. Please offer my apologies to Mr. McKee for me – I just forgot his name was Robert, but you knew who I was referencing. We do know that creativity blooms from the right brain where things tend to be a little less logical and ordered than in the left brain. It plays within the confines of a rather nebulous environment where touchy-feely runs free. Relying on some formulaic writing plan is more of a left brain exercise that leads toward a more structured and predictable outcome – i.e. boring. Fortunately, we’ve evolved well beyond the hard line soviet-era brow beating teaching techniques – for which I’m grateful. My most influential instructors have all been those with practical, hands-on knowledge and skills. I doubt you’ll learn much from a Mocking bird.

Hey guys, you can get help from our pros once you have something ready and get a full review by an industry pro if you wish..https://filmfreeway.com/festival/INDYSTOCKSCREENPLAYCOMPETITION

https://filmfreeway.com/festival/INDYSTOCKSCREENPLAYCOMPETITION

... And the world was created either by God or by the Big Bang (the priest of my parish preaches that God created the Big Bang. Maybe it's OK... but What created God?) I'm sorry to tell you that Dysney doesn't offer me to double Statler and Waldorf anymore. They think that Peter and Doug would be better together. @Doug: IMHO, it seems like your firmly opinion about the brain function repartition comes from your left hemisphere. @Laura: Is an inciting incident really ever needed? What is the inciting incident of Mulholland Drive? And that of "There Were Days... and Moons" (1990 by Claude Lelouch: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099827/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 )? About the greek source, That's Aristotle's Poetics. Have you read it? -- we know it only by translations from the arab versions by two arab philosophers (Al-Farabi and Averroes) and we use Averroes version because it's closer to our humanist occidental philosopy, -- it seems that several chapters about Comedy are missing, -- this is just a well designed analysis of litterary and theatrical codes of his own culture and time with definite value judgements (Tragedy is higher than Epic...), -- Definitively simplistic and out of date, Using this as a reference is just like trying to elaborate Quantum Mechanics using only Pythagore's Mathematics! Campbell just dropped the Epic, as well as some interesting considerations, then he mixed what was remaining with some Freudian considerations, raised the result to a universal rule, and accumulate about 600 pages of what he found complying with into other cultures, ignoring everything different. And that's exactly what his messiahs and apostles carry on with. This is not reverse engineering at all. They just accumulate screenplay analysis complying with the Hero's Journey and the three acts structure, ignoring anything different. How many analysis did you find in screenwriting bibles about The Longest Day, 2001 a Space Odissey, The Birds, Psycho, Mulholland Drive, Amarcord, The Pianist, Everyone Says I Love You, Valentine's day...? @Nkanya: Hope this part of the discussion can be helpful to you. @Andrew: Thanks for the link. Can the ISC readers give us their views about screenwriting and storytelling before we submit please?

Please read it, that's quick and easy: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Poetics_translated_by_S._H._Butcher

Mr. Mazaleyrat, it is definitely helpful though most of the time I am either lost or enjoying some great american literature blended with sarcasm and idiomatics from Mr. Doug and Mr. Corey. The bottom line is I am blessed to have everyone's participation and contribution in this forum, I am sure my writing ability would take a new turn from here. Thank you, Merci, Danke. Spasiba, aču, Esoko you all.

Thanks for asking this Nkanya, I learned from it too...

Hey, Doctors and readers, Where are you? We need your science to go forward!

The one thing I’ll leave you with here is that a compelling story takes precedence over its technical structure – a well presented story will automatically align itself to a suitable structure. Mr. Cory and I seem to hold different points of view to which I suggest that we agreeably agree to disagree. Hopefully it will never become necessary for us be on the same set at the same time.

I leave you all with this amateur nonsense: Creativity is a free-flowing organic process that relies more heavily on passion, perspicacity and intuition than structure, rules and outlines. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

I have been teaching writing, screenwriting and storytelling now for a decade, but I learn more every day. The term inciting incident is essential Robert McKee and his structure is less confining than the three act structure. Essentially act one would encompass from the first moment of what McKee would refer to as the Ordinary World, up until the Inciting incident. The Extraordinary world would encompass the second act and might include the climax or the reversal. The third act might contain the climax and would also contain the resolution. All 'systems' for naming the structure of a story can be broken down into the beginning, the middle and the end. Within those you can find the three act structure, the five act structure...and all others. My not so humble opinion.

@ Doug and Peter: -- First, I most agree with Doug. A compelling story necessary align with or hide a suitable structure. By cons, 1- A suitable structure doesn't make a story good. 2- "suitable structure" doesn't mean "three act structure". -- Second, I don't like"amateur", "non professional"... These are just hurtful words too often used by "Readers of the Lost Arc" to destabilize writers when they have no credible argument to respond to a criticism. @ Laura: You're right : 1 -- Syd Field, Robert McKee and some other people have (some knowledge), alas very simplistic, and that, alas, led them to seeing a specific story (paradigm) that they, alas, chose to teach to aspiring writers. 2 -- I see them in a very negative light. They sent chills up my spine, because (SOME knowledge) CANNOT match with (PARADIGM). I use this knowledge, because it's efficient. But I also transgress it , because 1- it's poor and simplistic, 2- there are lot of other efficient ways to tell a story, 3- there are many other models of hero than Campbell's monomyth, and 4. maybe many other artistic an technical reasons I don't think about at the moment. I have taken note that an inciting incident is necessary to a story. So I presume you might answer easely to my previous questions: -- What's the inciting incident in Mulholland Drive? -- What's the inciting incident in There Were Days... and Moons? Some more questions about some very bad movies please : -- What's James Bond flaw in Quantum of Solace? In Skyfall? Simple isn't it? -- What's James Bond flaw in Goldfinger? in We Only Live Twice? -- What's James Bond arc in Goldfinger? in We Only Live Twice? -- What's Austin Power flaw in Goldmember? Why? What's his arc? -- Who are the heros in The Birds? Why? What are their flaws? What are their arcs? -- Who's the hero in Psycho? Why? What's their arc? -- Who's the hero in Mulholland Drive? Why? What's at stake? What's their arc? -- Who're the heros in The Longest Day? Why? What're their flaws? What're their arcs? -- Who's the hero in No Country For Old Men? Why? What's their flaw? What's their arc? -- Who's the hero in Everybody Says I Love You? Why? What's their arc? -- Who's the Hero in The Pianist? Why? What's his flaw?, what's his arc? -- Who's the Hero in 2001 a Space Odyssey? Why? What's their flaw?, what's their arc? -- Who's the hero in There Were Days... and Moons? What's their flaw? What's their arc? -- Describe the three acts structure in Mulholland Drive. -- Describe the three acts structure in 2001 a Space Odyssey. -- Describe the three acts structure in Amarcord. -- Where is the climax in Amarcord? -- Where is the climax in Mulholland Drive? -- Where is the climax in 2001 A SPace Odyssey? -- Where are the midpoint, the plot point two and the climax in The Pianist? -- Where are the midpoint and the plot point two in The Longest day? Easy: -- What's the inciting incident in The Birds? Why? -- Do you know any movie in witch the protagonist become the antagonist at the end? What ones? -- + 1 point by right response, -1 point by false response.

Could not agree more, I also find it interesting how few people realize that Edgar Allen Poe was one of America's leading writer of not fiction and the premier literary critic of his time who, sadly, had his character assassinated by Rufus Wilmot Griswold.

Peter, Scott, Doug, Jean-Marie and Laura, and of course others whose names I have not mentioned. Would you please ask the CEO of Stage32 to issue me a writing Diploma? I sincerely think I have had very rich screenwriting elements through the various arguments and exchanges which have been going on. F.Y.I, I come from a culture where they value papers more than the substance it represents. So I really need some prove that I have gone through this class.

@Laura: First, Cheers and respect. It seems that you’re the only script doctor to join in with this feud. Yes! Despite the pressure of the flock, a lot of good “non-conventional” movies were made these last years, thanks to David Lynch, Tim Burton, Terry Gilliam, Ethan and Joel Cohen, Woody Allen, Quentin Tarantino... I say “these last years” because What you call "classic" structure paradigm is not classic at all: Campbell, Field and Co’s extremism began only in the late 70s, only 35 years ago, -- allowing most of great moviemakers like Disney, Cecil B. DeMille, Orson Welles, John Ford, Hitchcock, David Lean, Cornelius Ryan, Stanley Kubrick… to make great “non-conventional” movies that were perfectly “conventional” at the time!... -- allowing many actors like John Wayne to nearly never play a flawed hero! -- And allowing millions of spectators to enjoy non-flawed super-heroes, spies, cowboys, soldiers, fairies, toons… Great time when Robin Wood, Snow White, Mickey, James Bond, Mary Poppins, Buffalo-Bill… were perfectly sane people, instead of ridiculous Prince Charming wearing sexy underwear (Mirror Mirror), neurasthenic hung up Robin Wood or James Bond, Greatest US President hunting vampires… in perfect three act structure… (O.S.): Superman fearing Parkinson disease, Bugs Bunny quaking for its future - the last non-flawed toon was Wall-E (2008)... Pffff…! So these “paradigm” you make yours are nothing but shit! I’m sorry you won’t “waste some time” to answer my quiz. Are you afraid of something? What to be scared of in front of an amateur aspiring screenwriter? I’m not the kind of people who will deny this or that just because you say it. Do you think so? All the answers to these questions are already written. Or is reality elsewhere: - Did you ever watched most of these movies? - Can you analyze a movie without Campbell and Co’s crutches? I offer you and all the Stage 32 members a challenge: ask R.B. to post a quiz of 50 questions about “non-conventional movies, giving him all the answers in a locked file before the beginning. Just three answers for now: -- What's James Bond flaw in Quantum of Solace? (The remembrance of Vesper) - - In Skyfall? (See below) -- What's James Bond flaw in Goldfinger (1964)?-- in We Only Live Twice (1967)? … NONE!! -- Describe the three acts structure in 2001 a Space Odissey. (See below) @ Scott: uh, uh… So what’s the inciting incident in Mulholland Drive? -- And the extraordinary world of the GIs in The Longest Day, most of them having already fought in Africa or disembarked in Sicilia? @ Peter: IMNSHO, "A compelling story necessary align with or hide a suitable structure." means only that "A compelling story necessary align-with or hide a suitable structure", this structure being more or less voluntary and visible, and identical or more or less close to the ones of other stories. No more, no less. As I’m nor cruel, nor lying, I never told or thought that “one cannot either learn to write compelling stories or teach the writing of compelling stories — that one either "has it" or "doesn't have it —“. But I think and tell that too many people who were taught hokurn then teach the same, making the art decline and students waste their time and money. And I think that someone who “doesn’t have it” but learn do a better work than the one who “has it” but learn nothing… provided they do not learn nonsense. About my quiz, thanks for your answers. Actually, it is simple. You seem to have limited experience going to the movies. Here is your score: -- Skyfall: +1/2. Into the JB movies, the opening sequence before credits presents the inciting incident, often the main antagonist, etc… In drama and action franchise, that’s difficult to have a hero with a remaining flaw all along the series. So, since Campbell, Field and Co raised the flawed hero as a paradigm, the opening sequence reveals James Bond flaw for the current movie. This flaw is often a need of revenge against his current antagonist who beaten him into the intro and caused him some worries (jail, dismissal, wound…). In Skyfall, these are the after effects of his wounds and his anger against Patrice and his employer. -- 2001 A Space Odyssey: -1. Actually, 2001 A Space Odyssey is a series of three complete three acts movies, each telling a complete story with its own hero: 1- The dawn of mankind (Hero = Moonwatcher): I. the tribe of pithecanthropus, II.1- the territory battle, II.2 - the monolith and the empowerment, III. - The invention of weapon and the reconquest of the territory. -- 2. Journey to the Moon (Hero = Floyd): I. Arrival to the orbital station and discussion with soviet scientists, II.1 Journey to the Moon, II.2 Conference about the discovery, III. The monolith and the radio beacon. -- 3- Bowman’s journey (Hero = Bowman): I. the routine journey, II.1 The crisis of HAL 9000 and the kill of the crew, II.2: Bowman reentering and disconnecting HAL, end of Discovery journey and the monolith near Jupiter, III. - Beyond the infinite. Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, Cowboys and Aliens... Even Ed Wood wouldn't have dared to do!

Hello Peter, I wrote “nearly never”. Non misrepresenting words is the basis of truthfulness and objectivity. In the Campbell & Co’s Mechanics “flaw” means -- a particular trait of the hero that lower their ability to overcome obstacles in order to pursue their goal and-or to accomplish their arc -- John Wayne played in about 135 movies as the hero, and was flawed in: -- Texas Terror (1935, filling guilty for the death of his best friend), -- The Lonely Trail (1936, ex Yankee soldier of the Secession War working for the Governor of Texas) -- A Man Betrayed (1941, he falls in love with the daughter of the killer he tries to arrest) -- El Dorado (1966, he’s occasionally paralyzed by a bullet in his back) -- Rooster Cogburn (1969, the hero of True Grit, who’s always alcoholic and just lost his badge because of that) -- The Shootist (1976, he’s dying due to a cancer, just as in the real life) -- In The Searchers, racism might be his flaw, though I remember nothing that indicates he has any anger against Indians prior to these are identified as the killers of his brother’s family and the kidnappers of his two nieces. Moreover, this question only takes place at the end of the movie, between the first time they find Debby and he tries to kill her or seems so, and the second time when he pulls her on his horse… which seems to be a very quick hero’s journey (IMNSHO). -- in True Grit, alcoholism is not his flaw as that doesn’t lower his ability to pursue his goal. Above all, he has “true grit” which in my poor flawed English means he’s brave and strong. In Mac Lintock he’s also alcoholic, plus he’s misogynistic, and both are not flaws. So with The Searchers, John Wayne's character is: -- flawed in 7 movies, -- and non-flawed in about 128 movies! But I can forget something. Feel free to add it if it is.

Plus except for "The Searchers" in which his flaw is very doubtful, these are not among his best movies.

Careful where you’re going Peter. My interest in film was sparked by John Wayne back in the 60’s when he invited me to be a Gofor (not a Grip) on the Ouray Colorado shoot for True Grit – I spent many an evening at the Gerome in Aspen (lots of interesting anecdotes) with him and the crew/cast. Basically, John Wayne was a friend of mine (not a close personal friend.)

Well Nkanya – I hope you’ve been able to garner something from this thread. Personally I’m outta here. All this “I’m smarter than you are babble” is of no value.

Hello Peter, 1-- About "Nearly Never", it seems very strange to me that the combination of two words as clear as “nearly” and “never” could have a so unclear signification. In French this means "presque jamais" which is not what you call "weasel word" at all. This means exactly "a very few occurrences among a big series", and that’s exactly what I wanted to say. Please verify. 2-- About movies’ qualities, I just wanted to refer to consensus (IMDB rate, BO…)… because “criteria that I have found useful” seems to me a greater “weasel word” than “nearly never”… 3-- About flaws, sorry but this debate is not about “criteria that you find useful”. That’s about screenwriting paradigms, and in this particular section about the character’s arc (aka/or the hero’s journey). 4-- “If a "flaw" were merely some sort of hindrance to the hero's pursuit of a goal, then suffering a broken leg along the story's development would constitute a flaw”… Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes… definitively Yes! … As long as it gets in the way -- Just as in “Rear Window”: No broken leg = no story! 5-- “A person can be cool, calm, collected, charming, well educated, recite love poems, sing with a beautiful voice . . . and still be racist.”… Something related to The Searchers? 6-- About The Searchers (kicking Martin’s squaw), my remembrance is that it’s because he’s furious that Martin accidentally bought her and that she’s following them like a dog. I admit this sequence is rather ignominious and according to your arguments I admit that his racism is a flaw… because that enlightens his character’s arc. It's obvious that Frank Nugent would not have included this subplot without reason. 7-- “True Grit”, about alcoholism: I still don’t agree: no redemption, not an obstacle for him (only for Mattie) = not a flaw. 8-- “It's not so much your English that's flawed but, rather, your insightfulness.” Thanks for the compliment. 9-- “True grit” again: Due to my flawed insightfulness, I seem to remember that somewhere in the story, Mattie tells to Cogburn: “I'd like to talk with you a minute. They say you're a man with true grit.” Maybe you could find that somewhere there: http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/t/true-grit-script-transcript... 10-- So John Wayne current score is still: Flawed 7, non-flawed 128. 11-- OK for the two films, as far as your judgment is not based on “criteria that you find useful”. So I subject you to review: -- True Grit -- Rio Bravo Please add any other movie you’d like.

@Peter "while some vile aspect of his character such as rabid racism, which might actually drive him with unswerving determination toward a goal would, according to your lights and those of your mentors, be a "virtue." One more time, Peter, due to “criteria that you find useful”, you permit you to make up reality. And this time, I take it as an insult and slander.

Hello Nkanya, I'm sorry for the direction it goes. I feel myself in a very strange situation, having first explained Hollywood paradigms while expressing reserves to answer your questions, then explained and illustrated why I don't like these paradigms and their inventors... To finish being accused to be one of their followers, PLUS considering rabid racism as a virtue. Are these two last points what you understood from my words? I hope that's not the case. Weasel words vs personal useful criteria... In my mind, it's more like explanations and examples vs hot air and fabrication but for now I'm not at the good place to judge. So I intend not to pursue this quarrel. You'll find your way in what precedes. Review everything that was written by everybody since the beginning, keep the right and drop the wrong. If my opinion can be of use, it'll be my pleasure.

Read Zinnser's On Writing Well. It's THE book on craft. Period. After reading your post ~ you need to read it.

Hello Nkanya, Just something important: avoid to be a "Standard Model" as well as an "Anti-Standard-Model" servant. Avoid shallow rules and just defend freedom and creativity, and the audience right to choice among the largest range. Best.

Thank you Jean-Marie, I have truly learned a lot in this forum.

I revise with a blowtorch.

Yeah, Jim - a little radical, but I assume it works for you (I use a hammer.)

Happy New Year!

Bonne année à vous Monsieur Mazaleyrat. Happy New Year everyone. Thank you for creating a super writing class through this debate. It was amazing.

May the new year be Joyous and an improvement on 2014 in every way.

Same to you Mr. Sawnson