Screenwriting : Conventional Wisdom Challenged by Kenneth Michael Daniels

Great topic, Kenneth Michael Daniels! Sometimes I write what characters are thinking in action lines. Thoughts give the action lines more flavor/makes a script more attractive to producers, directors, actors, etc., and thoughts in action lines can give a producer/etc. insight about scenes and characters.

I don't use "we see" and "we hear" in scripts, but I'm thinking about using them in a script I'm working on. "We see" and "we hear" might make it easier to understand what's going on in the script, like in some scripts that I've read.

If you're going to break a rule, best break it with brilliance and aplomb. Not many can write dialog like Sorkin.

Eric Christopherson This is a tricky stipulation. It has been my observance that those filmmakers we all know and love, or who we know and love to hate on, have followed their own path. Not all break rules exactly, Wes Anderson is visually stylistic but otherwise fairly conventional, but they are often, for lack of a better term, unconventional.

From the pulp sensibilities of Tarantino to the twisty premises of Shyamalan; from the mind-f*ck perfection of Nolan to the odd-ball sensibilities of Jarmusch, these writer/directors follow their own muse. I think most of those who aspire to do this professionally would like to join their ranks, and if following conventions and formulas by definition results in conventional and formulaic writing, how can any of us, capable of brilliance and aplomb or not, get to where we want by saving the same cat?

I think that we might see some more daring and interesting films get made if instead a few more of us were willing to bite the dog instead, but maybe that’s just me.

An interesting discussion. I don't think I agree that following conventions and formulas need result in conventional and formulaic writing anymore than unconventional and non-formulaic writing need result in comparatively better scripts. Consider the old Hollywood classics, which structurally, and in other ways, followed very rigid rules, but within those rules the screenwriters wrote so many amazing scripts, resulting in amazing films. For every Citizen Kane, which broke some molds, there was a Casablanca, which broke no molds, and many more such classics besides. I've heard it said that placing rigid limits on what an artist is allowed to do can actually be a spur to creativity. But in regard to newer writers, I think it's fair to say you'll be running a gauntlet and at least initially judged--by contest judges, readers, agents, managers, producers, etc.--on whether you're following the "rules" or conventions, and sometimes dinged when you don't. That's why I give myself the freedom to break rules, but only do it when I know I've broken them well, when there's a sizeable payoff, in other words.

Kenneth Michael Daniels I'm not aware stories had rules aside from no verbs ending in "ing" which is kind of a stupid rule and limiting ink in your screenplay because readers have to go through so many scripts and yet may not be the best at visualizing what is in your mind.

That being said, Raging Bull was based on an existing human and while I'm sure a great deal of creative license was used, Jake LaMotta was kind of an idiot. I personally like the movie even though Robert De Niro seems ready for a reboot of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. While I'm not a big Sorkin fan, he has had some screenplays that I love but more in the film world as opposed to the world of television.

I myself have a pretty wordy screenplay scattered with 6 hand to hand combat scenes and a few shootouts. The dialog scenes have to be interesting whether it's filling in the blanks or having the main character express his views.

I have one scene where the main character in The Curmudgeon tells of his 4 main types of humans on this planet so you have to go through the type name and a brief description which should be both entertaining and informative. There is also another lengthy dialog sequence of the 3 possible things that happen to us after we die which is emotional but rationally thought out and brings another perspective to dying. I also have a screenplay about a guy who loses everything but his friend thinks he's funny so he gets him a one night gig doing stand up at a local bar that's seeing how a comedy night might increase customer traffic. That is also heavy dialog and a burden to keep things funny and topical. Dialog is always a challenge.

The thing is that there are no real rules aside from censorship to protect certain audiences watching different channels with content restrictions. Just write to express the message, idea, emotion or character arc you want to tell. Once your work finds a buyer, the next stage of rewriting will come and different rules will apply. Be adaptable while remaining true to your original concept.

I use Save The Cat for the sake of the audience. They are busy. They want to be carried along. They want emotional closure. They are the Masters of Our Universe. I serve them because they are paying for the music, the visuals, the acting, etc. That said, they want a fantasy that's driven by honesty, a mystery that makes sense, something familiar that no one's ever seen before. Sheesh. Want want want, these masters want! I try to serve up a tight, frozen rope of a story that never lets them wander and ends with an 'oh man!' kind of response. An excellent example is 'Marty,' from long before STC. If you are a watcher of movies, you'll see what I mean by frozen rope but not till the absolute final scene.

The Best Picture winner with Ernest Borgnine. Yeah, not my first choice, but I put in the time to watch all the winners because you can't be a buff if you haven't. Like the Maltese Falcon, it was cool and all, but make that movie today and it doesn't make a ripple. (Yeah, I know it didn't win as it was released the same year as Citizen Kane ... which didn't win either, BTW)

And that speaks to @Eric Christopherson saying they used not to break with convention and yet still made great films. I don't disagree, though the acting is awfully stilted on balance compared to the modern era. But that is fine as they are reflective of the times. But here's the thing. Let's say there are 400 films made in a year. And of those a tenth are seen by a wide audience. Those films represent less than 1% of all the scripts REGISTERED in a single year. Now account for the fact that of those the 39,600 are still sitting there waiting to be read, and here comes another 40,000 each and every year....

And now account for the fact that most films getting made by the big studios anymore are projects of established directors who don't even bother to register their work because, well, why would they? And then account for all the hobbyists who write and submit to contests and send queries to every email they can wrangle who also haven't registered their work. Meanwhile, in 1940 you could fit every working writer into Grauman's Chinese Theatre if they sat in every other seat. It's tempting to compare the two eras, but it just isn't apples to apples.

More importantly, look at the type of movies made in the 70's. From Kramer vs. Kramer to Dog Day Afternoon to MASH and The French Connection. Or Clockwork Orange, The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Network, and All the President's Men. Notice anything about that list? Two sequels (one which happens to be the best one ever made). Now think of the bullshit we have these days. Avatar II; the second version of the second run of a three film series that only deserved two in Furiosa; 10 (!) Fast and Furious films, none of which have a car chase as compelling as the one in the aforementioned Friedkin film; 7 movies based on a bunch of toys from a cartoon.

I know the notion of giving the people what they want is the mantra when you are trying to protect your investment, but Spurlock could make a sequel (would be fitting, right?) of Super Size Me based on the premise that people will watch fast food films because it's easy, but that doesn't mean it is nourishing them.

Ultimately, the audience won't demand much of the Artist, and that's understandable, but if the Artist asks nothing of the audience, what's the point?

My current concept is that my basic scripts will attract the attention of credible producers. I'll build on that and hope to add one success upon another. Maybe I'll earn a shiny object one day.

Philip David Lee Yeah I've heard that rule, except EVERY professional, produced script I've read is littered with ING verbs. LITTERED. So I don't believe that rule

This is because the supposed rules aren't written by artists. They're written by critics.

Anyway, I'll say this; Protagonist growth isn't essential within the framework of The Hero's Journey. A lack of growth can be the story, it can be the ending, providing the consequences are shown.

I watched In The Loop again last night. Something that struck me was the lack of a clear protagonist and antagonist. In fact, some characters effectively switch between both. It works though.

Oh, and another issue is craft advice being misconstrued into something overly simplified and that becoming what seems like a rule.

"Show don't tell" has been mentioned. This doesn't mean use visuals instead of dialogue like people typically advise. It simply means to hint at what's there and let the audience figure out the rest.

One of the biggest misinterpretations used as an example of this is the back story to Carl Fredsicksen in Up, where a montage is shown of his marriage and how he became widowed. It's actually a case of pure tell and don't show, but because there's no dialogue, people think it's the opposite. Show and don't tell in that case would have been showing things like old photos of his deceased wife in the background and nothing more.

Show don't tell can be dialogue like, "I've been hurt before."

What happens is misconceptions like this become the norm, then people see successful work that counters their beliefs and their head explodes. You then get nonsense excuses like, "you have to understand the rules to break them" or "that writer paid their dues", but really it was never that way in the first place.

Plus, you also get lots of screenwriters using bad craft advise as a result. In the case above, lots of scripts that actually do way too much telling instead of showing because the writer believes, since there's no dialogue, it's okay.

I've watching writers on forums argue in support of rules for thirteen years now, and I'm resigned to the conclusion that they will take them to their grave, uncredited and unproduced.

CJ Walley Carl's story also shows how he felt about his wife instead of him saying how he felt. I cut out dialog of scripts and included flashbacks to not have characters tell what they did but show it. So that's how I understood it. But in a sense you're always telling and showing, but some ways are dramatically more effective than others and it depends on the story.

Devil's Advocate: The Exorcist III has a pretty good scene where a character tells an awful crime he witnessed and the actor, George C Scott delivers the story well and since the movie is about him investigating and how it troubles him, a flashback to some gore here would be out of place, but it would be "showing more than telling." So yeah, it all depends. Again, some ways are dramatically more effective than others and it depends on the story.

Michael Dzurak "Again, some ways are dramatically more effective than others and it depends on the story." This is the essence of the point I was attempting to make with this post.

Michael Dzurak, indeed. I think what you're essentially getting at is the most entertaining way to deliver the information to the target audience. That montage in Up is a beautiful piece of filmmaking that easily justifies its place in the story, especially when you consider who it's made for.

Love it, CJ Walley "This is because the supposed rules aren't written by artists. They're written by critics." With that in mind, what commonly held rules for you are keepers and what are dumpers?