How can screenwriters control pace? Any thoughts on unintentional slowness?

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: How can screenwriters control pace? Any thoughts on unintentional slowness?

    Originally posted by Yaso View Post
    It's not a template, it's the pattern of story, whether you know it consciously or subconsciously.
    That's what I meant by obvious and a "A story has to be a story to be a story."

    If, as a story teller, you don't have innate sense of what a story is, I don't really know how much good a laundry list is going to do for you.

    It's sort of like trying to give instructions for walking, or breathing in and breathing out.

    How many of the great story tellers, throughout history looked at that list before they told their story? I guess the real challenge would be to try to tell a story without all that obvious stuff.

    "Once upon a time"
    <a story gets told>
    "And they lived happily ever after"
    Last edited by StoryWriter; 11-16-2015, 08:57 AM.
    "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

    Comment


    • Re: How can screenwriters control pace? Any thoughts on unintentional slowness?

      Originally posted by Yaso View Post
      If there's no epiphany, that's the point of the story.
      The "point of the story" and an "epiphany" are not the same thing.

      You don't have to have an epiphany to reveal the point of the story.

      Unless there's some other definition of epiphany that I don't know about.
      "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

      Comment


      • Re: How can screenwriters control pace? Any thoughts on unintentional slowness?

        Originally posted by Yaso View Post
        • If there's no need/weakness in your story, it has no reason for existence. If one character is perfect, the story is driven by at least one other character's need/weakness.
        • If there's no goal, the scenes won't connect to each other.
        • If there are no antagonists, there's no conflict.
        • If there's no strategy, the characters won't do anything, just stand around waiting.
        • If there's no finale, we won't know whether the main character reached his goal or not.
        • If there's no epiphany, that's the point of the story.
        • If there's no ending (Happy, Bittersweet, Uplifting, Downer), we won't know whether the main character overcame his weakness and fulfilled his need or not.
        Well, here's the thing:

        In order for these things to be true, you need to define them so broadly as to be useless.

        For example, let's talk about antagonists. Notice how compared to the discussion earlier, you've already pluralized it. But what if the hero is his or her own primary obstacle? There are a lot of stories where that's the case. Or what if nature is? I mean, is "physics" the antagonist of Gravity?

        And yeah, sure, you can expand the definition of antagonist so that it's not necessarily a person, but a thing, or even a concept, but when you've done that, you've gotten to the point where the term itself becomes meaningless.

        Similarly, you talk about if there's no ending, we won't know etc etc - but lots of films have intentionally ambiguous endings. So you can expand the definition of ending so that any time the movie stops it's "an ending" - but again, you've just defined the term so broadly that it's not useful in any way. It's become a tautology: well, the DVD ends, so the movie has an ending. That is not useful for a writer in any way, shape, or form.

        Comment


        • Re: How can screenwriters control pace? Any thoughts on unintentional slowness?

          Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
          I think the point that is not being stated here is that at some point any principles or theory you have learned goes away and the process is a lot less technical and a lot more inspirational/creative.

          The problem is that a vast majority of the active posters are not ready by any means to let the so called rules go. They don't know them well enough and don't have the execution experience of them. And they shouldn't at this point.

          It's like love making, what ever positions or locations in end up in is not technical at all, it just flows and happens naturally.
          I would say it's 50/50.

          Some writers are afraid of letting their analytical tools go. Some writers are afraid of stifling their creativity. What all writers have in common is that they are afraid.

          In any case, there's little sense to withdraw into the homoeopathy of screenwriting, a.k.a. the "LOL, just write" school of thought.

          There's a video by John Cleese, one of the Monty Python's, where he talks about the open and closed mode ... It helped me a lot:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qby0ed4aVpo

          That's what I meant by obvious and a "A story has to be a story to be a story."

          If, as a story teller, you don't have innate sense of what a story is, I don't really know how much good a laundry list is going to do for you.

          It's sort of like trying to give instructions for walking, or breathing in and breathing out.
          It might be obvious to you, but most scripts I read don't have a good story. It's either not original, or it doesn't work. The truth is, most writers are not the greatest storytellers in the world. Especially those in training. So consider this just a tool in the tool box. You don't need to use it.

          For example, let's talk about antagonists. Notice how compared to the discussion earlier, you've already pluralized it. But what if the hero is his or her own primary obstacle? There are a lot of stories where that's the case. Or what if nature is? I mean, is "physics" the antagonist of Gravity?

          And yeah, sure, you can expand the definition of antagonist so that it's not necessarily a person, but a thing, or even a concept, but when you've done that, you've gotten to the point where the term itself becomes meaningless.

          Similarly, you talk about if there's no ending, we won't know etc etc - but lots of films have intentionally ambiguous endings. So you can expand the definition of ending so that any time the movie stops it's "an ending" - but again, you've just defined the term so broadly that it's not useful in any way. It's become a tautology: well, the DVD ends, so the movie has an ending. That is not useful for a writer in any way, shape, or form.
          If the hero is his own obstacle, that's an internal conflict, not an antagonist. The antagonist is always external.

          In GRAVITY nature is the antagonist ("who wants to stop the main character from reaching his goal?"), but that doesn't give you a deep conflict. It's a very simple story, designed to bring out the best of the 3D-effect.

          About the ending. There are four basic versions:
          1. Happy Ending (MC reaches goal and overcomes weakness)
          2. Bittersweet ending (MC reaches goal, but doesn't overcome weakness)
          3. Uplifting Ending (MC doesn't reach goal, but overcomes weakness)
          4. Downer Ending (MC doesn't reach goal and doesn't overcome weakness)

          Take a movie like THE WRESTLER. While the ending might seem ambiguous, the audience knows what's going to happen. For an "open ending" to work, the audience always needs to have a clue. If they really don't know, the audience will be pissed.

          Comment


          • Re: How can screenwriters control pace? Any thoughts on unintentional slowness?

            I think part of the problem is that people jump into screenwriting with the idea that it doesn't require the skills one would need to write a novel. No long descriptive passages with metaphors and similes, no inner monologues, no worries about first, second and third person narratives.

            They develop the misconception that screenwriting stands outside the realm and required skills of other fiction writing because the end user (the movie audience) doesn't read what they've written:

            Gee, look at this, I can be a writer without actually being a writer!

            Then someone like Snyder (or whoever Yaso got that list from) comes along with a template or formula and the misconception gets further entrenched:

            Gee, look at this, all I have to do to be successful is follow this formula that all those other films followed! I'm well on my way to winning an Oscar!

            Alas, the misconception then becomes further entrenched to the exclusion of common sense. Even when pros tell them otherwise, they cling to this false idea because to believe otherwise they would have to concede they don't know what the hell they're doing. Why else would Yaso and Save The Cat devotees cling so tightly and defensively to their formulas?

            The truth is, not only do screenwriters require all the storytelling skills of a good novelist (character development, dialogue, plot and theme) they have the added ability to crystallize and craft stories for a visual medium.

            This became brutally clear to me with my first screenplay which was an adaptation of my own unfinished novel. Huge swaths of narrative had to be thrown out. Others had to be boiled down to, at times, a single image, or line of dialogue. And new scenes and one new character had to be created to boil down and transform inner dialogue and narrative for the screen.

            As an exercise, try to adapt an exiting novel or short story for the screen and you'll see how much you've been misled by gurus selling formulas, formats and templates.
            Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

            Comment


            • Re: How can screenwriters control pace? Any thoughts on unintentional slowness?

              Just to be clear, sc111: Your misconception is that people use this as some kind of a "magic bullet". That's simply not true.

              These elements are a tool. You can break down your story when you found it, so you can immediately see what works. As with any tool, you don't have to use it. It's a great tool though and it helps me a lot.

              Comment


              • Re: How can screenwriters control pace? Any thoughts on unintentional slowness?

                Originally posted by Yaso View Post
                I would say it's 50/50.

                Some writers are afraid of letting their analytical tools go. Some writers are afraid of stifling their creativity. What all writers have in common is that they are afraid.

                In any case, there's little sense to withdraw into the homoeopathy of screenwriting, a.k.a. the "LOL, just write" school of thought.

                There's a video by John Cleese, one of the Monty Python's, where he talks about the open and closed mode ... It helped me a lot:
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qby0ed4aVpo

                Partial transcript from that video/ John Cleese:


                Closed Mode (6:27)


                Let me explain a little. By the "closed mode" I mean the mode that we are in most of the time when {we are} at work.

                We have inside us a feeling that there's lots to be done and we have to get on with it if we're going to get through it all.

                It's an active (probably slightly anxious) mode, although the anxiety can be exiting and pleasurable.

                It's a mode which we're probably a little impatient, if only with ourselves.

                It has a little tension in it, not much humor.

                It's a mode in which we're very purposeful, and it's a mode in which we can get very stressed and even a bit manic, but not creative.

                Open Mode (7:10)


                By contrast, the open mode, is relaxed... expansive... less purposeful mode... in which we're probably more contemplative, more inclined to humor (which always accompanies a wider perspective) and, consequently, more playful.

                It's a mood in which curiosity for its own sake can operate because we're not under pressure to get a specific thing done quickly.

                We can play, and that is what allows our natural creativity to surface.


                Example of Open vs Closed Mode: Alexander Fleming (7:48)

                Let me give you and example of what I mean.

                When Alexander Fleming5 had the thought that led to the discovery of penicillin, he must have been in the open mode.

                The previous day, he'd arranged a number of dishes to that culture would grow upon them.

                On the day in question, he glanced at the dishes, and he discovered that on one of them no culture had appeared.

                Now, if he'd been in the closed mode he would have been so focused upon his need for "dishes with cultures grown upon them" that when he saw that one dish was of no use to him for that purpose he would quite simply have thrown it away.

                Thank goodness, he was in the open mode so he became curious about why the culture had not grown on this particular dish. And that curiosity, as the world knows, led him to the lightbulb --- I'm sorry, to penicillin.

                Now in the closed mode an uncultured dish is an irrelevance. In the open mode, it's a clue.

                ----

                Comment


                • Re: How can screenwriters control pace? Any thoughts on unintentional slowness?

                  This thread seems to have divided itself into two staunch camps. Which is not so great, because taking a black-and-white stance on anything is rarely the answer.

                  Storytelling ability is required to be a screenwriter. Of course. But there's also a technical element that can't be ignored. Maybe this element becomes easier, more instinctual, over time, but it's still there. Acting like learning how to write a script is something you can just absorb from watching movies without putting in some serious time and study is just fooling yourself. And frankly, disrespecting the craft. If it was that easy, there'd be a lot more working screenwriters out there.

                  Smart people know how to use tools like STC as just what they are -- tools, not rules. Just because there are some people who don't know how to use them properly, and are slavish to them, and treat them like a magic bullet, doesn't mean that all people who use the tools are clueless. Or that the tools themselves should be discounted out of hand.
                  Last edited by UpandComing; 11-16-2015, 12:46 PM.
                  "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

                  Comment


                  • Re: How can screenwriters control pace? Any thoughts on unintentional slowness?

                    Originally posted by Yaso View Post
                    In GRAVITY nature is the antagonist ("who wants to stop the main character from reaching his goal?"), but that doesn't give you a deep conflict. It's a very simple story, designed to bring out the best of the 3D-effect.
                    But nature doesn't want anything. It is 100% indifferent to her plight.

                    All that's happening is that a simple idea ("screenplays should have conflict") is being gussied up with a bunch of other terms that don't actually make it any clearer - and, in fact, obfuscate.

                    And heck, even "screenplays should have conflict" falls apart when if you look at "My Dinner With Andre."

                    And which of those four endings is "Nelle et Mr. Arnoud?"

                    I don't disagree that the four endings you describe are common endings, but it's still an over-restrictive model.

                    Comment


                    • Re: How can screenwriters control pace? Any thoughts on unintentional slowness?

                      Originally posted by Ronaldinho View Post
                      But nature doesn't want anything. It is 100% indifferent to her plight.

                      All that's happening is that a simple idea ("screenplays should have conflict") is being gussied up with a bunch of other terms that don't actually make it any clearer - and, in fact, obfuscate.

                      And heck, even "screenplays should have conflict" falls apart when if you look at "My Dinner With Andre."

                      And which of those four endings is "Nelle et Mr. Arnoud?"

                      I don't disagree that the four endings you describe are common endings, but it's still an over-restrictive model.
                      In the real world nature doesn't want anything, but in stories it sometimes does.

                      I don't know the movies you mentioned, but does the MC reach his goal in those or not? Does he overcome his weakness or not? Those are the questions you should be asking to know what feeling the audience will leave the theatre with. And that's what counts.

                      Comment


                      • Re: How can screenwriters control pace? Any thoughts on unintentional slowness?

                        Originally posted by Yaso View Post
                        Just to be clear, sc111: Your misconception is that people use this as some kind of a "magic bullet". That's simply not true.

                        These elements are a tool. You can break down your story when you found it, so you can immediately see what works. As with any tool, you don't have to use it. It's a great tool though and it helps me a lot.
                        Two questions:

                        1) What is this tool helping you do?

                        2) How much writing had you done (short stories, poems, or even essays) before you tried your hand at screenwriting?

                        And I'm not asking to be a biotch. I'm asking because I do respect everyone's desire to write. Even a fledgling desire to write comes from a deep place. What I object to is instruction (because all these lists, formulas and templates are really instructions) that sends people down blind alleys with a false sense of confidence only to stifle or kill any budding talent they may actually have and set them up for failure.
                        Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                        Comment


                        • Re: How can screenwriters control pace? Any thoughts on unintentional slowness?

                          Originally posted by sc111 View Post
                          What I object to is instruction (because all these lists, formulas and templates are really instructions) that sends people down blind alleys with a false sense of confidence only to stifle or kill any budding talent they may actually have and set them up for failure.
                          I understand your aversion to the screenwriting cottage industry. There are a lot of useful resources. But there are also a lot of charlatans.

                          That said -- instruction of some kind is necessary for any kind of craft. That's why we have school for various trades. And books. That's what separates a craft from a hobby. Screenwriting is no different. It's how people use the instruction that matters.
                          "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

                          Comment


                          • Re: How can screenwriters control pace? Any thoughts on unintentional slowness?

                            Originally posted by Yaso View Post
                            In the real world nature doesn't want anything, but in stories it sometimes does.
                            In Gravity, it does not. And to claim it is, you have to stretch the concept of "want" to the breaking point. You've just made THAT word mean nothing in an attempt to force Gravity to fit your model.

                            It feels like you're building a church to the concept that the antagonist has to want something, which first had you stretching the definition of "antagonist" and now has you breaking the definition of "want" to try to fix your definition of antagonist; facts inconsistent with theology must be discarded.

                            Discard the theology. The idea of an antagonist who wants something is a useful concept. Thinking in those terms can help you write a lot of stories. But when confronted with a story which works but doesn't easily fit the model, recognize that as a failure of the model, not the story.

                            And that's ok. Maps are - tautologically - less complicated than the territory represent. But if you're looking at the map of where you are and it says there's a mountain there, and you're standing there where there's clearly no mountain, don't go looking to redefine mountain. Accept that maps are sometimes wrong.

                            I don't know the movies you mentioned, but does the MC reach his goal in those or not? Does he overcome his weakness or not? Those are the questions you should be asking to know what feeling the audience will leave the theatre with. And that's what counts.
                            Those questions are not easy to answer in either of those films. Heck, I would argue that they are completely irrelevant to "My Dinner With Andre," and misleading to try to apply to "Nelly et Mr Arnoud" (in a manner which is totally consistent to that style of storytelling; it misses the point entirely about why and how that film works).

                            Trying to hammer those stories into a simple four-quadrant mold discards what is compelling about them. You're sitting here, not having seen them, saying "it must fit!" but the reality is much more complex and interesting.

                            Which is not to say that I think your four categories aren't useful descriptors; the problem arises only when you start acting like those are the only four choices you can have.

                            Comment


                            • Re: How can screenwriters control pace? Any thoughts on unintentional slowness?

                              Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
                              To pick a huge commercial and critical success, Forrest Gump:

                              Aside from the fact that it begins and ends, it has none of the elements listed. Best picture, best adapted screenplay.
                              Does it make a difference (I'm being serious) that Forrest Gump was an adaptation from a novel? I say that, because I'm imagining the Development He!l that that script might have gone through, had the execs involved not had the book as a guide.

                              The book was not a bestseller until after the movie, but the author (Duncan Groom, I think?) had been previously nominated for a Pulitzer.

                              Also, you mentioned you only talk in terms of acts when you and other working writers talk about scripts or writing -- if you are talking about acts, aren't you automatically talking about what's going in each act or if some information would be better served to be plugged into act two rather than act one, or to happen earlier in act one, rather than later, etc.? Isn't that the same thing as people are discussing here, albeit in looser terms?

                              Comment


                              • Re: How can screenwriters control pace? Any thoughts on unintentional slowness?

                                Originally posted by figment View Post
                                Does it make a difference (I'm being serious) that Forrest Gump was an adaptation from a novel? I say that, because I'm imagining the Development He!l that that script might have gone through, had the execs involved not had the book as a guide.

                                The book was not a bestseller until after the movie, but the author (Duncan Groom, I think?) had been previously nominated for a Pulitzer.
                                http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xrd...ump_shortfilms

                                I never read the book but I did read some stuff comparing the choices made awhile back.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X