Kenneth Lonergan on structure

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #31
    Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

    Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
    The one thing No Country For Old Men did was kill the main character earlier than usual.
    Llewelyn Moss was the MC of one of the stories and Ed Tom Bell was the MC of the other. Modern movies usually tell more than one story that's one of the main things that makes 3-Acts t*ts on a bull.
    Last edited by KitchonaSteve; 02-26-2017, 04:49 PM. Reason: didn't realize that slang for breasts was not allowed on the board.
    Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.

    -Steve Trautmann
    3rd & Fairfax: The WGAW Podcast

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

      Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
      I completely understand that Shane Black didn't consciously think of the 3 Act structure when writing Lethal Weapon. Go through the script though. How many minutes in does Det Riggs appear as Murtaugh partner? How many minutes in is Murtagh's daughter kidnapped? How many minutes in do they fake Riggs' death? How many minutes in are they captured by the Villain, tortured, and look to be defeated? How many minutes into the film does Riggs defeat Busey's character on the lawn?
      OMG!!! Cyfress, I knew you were a true believer, but page numbers?! Gone With the Wind, High Noon, Avatar, Toy Story, Rope, and Saving Private Ryan must be terrible scripts, right?
      Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
      Just because Black does not have to plot out a story using the 3 Act structure, doesn't mean his stories don't fit and function within. He naturally knows when and how to turn a story. That doesn't mean he's using some alternate structure. It just means he's a natural.
      So it's more important to follow an arbitrary structure made up by a failed screenwriter, than to understand and possibly learn to use the techniques and methods of successful professionals? Got it. I'm sure that will work out every time.
      Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
      The four Act thing is not Fields. People have been splitting ACT 2 long before him. People also use the 12 sequence method, doesn't matter. It still will fit. Good stories just seem to be best told in that fashion.
      There were filmmakers talking about a four part structure before Field, but none discussing three acts in terms of screenwriting in any meaningful way. Darryl Zannuck had a few pieces of correspondence referencing the third act, but no other contemporaneous accounts of acts and screenwriting. David Bordwell, the academic and historian, did the exhaustive work in this area. Howard Hawks was known to discuss films in four parts, but his writing contributions are under some dispute.

      As I expressed in a previous post, yes, it's easy to describe something finite and temporal as having a beginning, middle, and end. It's kind of like describing modern military vehicles as all being made of metal, a propulsion system and weapons, accurate but not helpful in constructing one.
      Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
      And really, how many writers out there are writing outside the 3 Act structure to be different, and how many cause the story calls for it? One of those reasons leads to certain doom.
      How dismissive. Writers don't create their scripts for the sole purpose of just being different. The writers I know who eschew the 3-Act system do so because they determined that the 3-Act system was failing them. A wise man once described insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. To my fellow writers, if you're using the same paradigm over and over again and not getting better results... why?
      Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.

      -Steve Trautmann
      3rd & Fairfax: The WGAW Podcast

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

        Originally posted by KitchonaSteve View Post
        Writers don't create their scripts for the sole purpose of just being different. The writers I know who eschew the 3-Act system do so because they determined that the 3-Act system was failing them. A wise man once described insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. To my fellow writers, if you're using the same paradigm over and over again and not getting better results... why?
        Thanks for an educational and interesting back and forth.

        Maybe, when all is said and done, those who begin with and who write from a heartfelt place with the simple but sisyphean goal to move the reader/viewer have the best chance to do so (though this is not to imply commercial success.)

        When we remove the restrictions, rules, gimmicks, and artifice, and begin with the motivation to simply tell a tale in as pure and inspired a way as possible, perhaps we can become free to do just that. Maybe it will be three act, maybe it will have no discernible structure whatsoever.

        The more broad minded we can be about structure, the more broad minded we can be on the stuff that matters, right?

        P.S. Steve, love the podcast.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

          Cyfress, when reading amateur scripts I felt that the thing that made them bad is that they were uncreative, trite and cliche ridden. Where the beats occurred was irrelevant. But we've been through this before...

          Agree to disagree. Many good films have been written with a rigid three act structure. Most great films make their own.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

            I'm not sure when 3 acts became the be-all end-all. Was it Syd Field? Because Greek Tragedies, as Steve noted, weren't written in acts as such (though English translations tend to sort them into either 3 or 5 acts). Shakespeare wrote in 5 acts, as did playwrights for centuries before and after him. Five acts was the standard for a really, really long time unless you were doing a short-form play. Then 3-act plays became popular. These days, most plays and musicals are just 2 acts (if it's too long not to have an intermission...never really understood why a 90 minute play needs an intermission while 3 hour movies don't get them anymore).

            "Acts" are basically just your key turning points in the story. Often they marked a spot where you were going to take a break, so they needed to end in a way that would get the audience to come back for more. Really, network TV is the thing most closely following traditional theatrical act structure. The Syd Field usage seems so broad that you can retroactively apply it to anything.

            Personally, I think the key thing to think about when writing is just keeping the story moving forward. I think of it like you're fighting the audience for their attention. I never want anyone to think they can get up to go the bathroom without missing anything. I want the show to end with full bladders. And I want to reward people for sticking it out by giving them lots of payoffs for earlier stuff.

            I do think that working that way, or picking out act breaks and writing to them, or working in sequences, or doing a Save the Cat paint-by-numbers thing - the point is that eventually it should lead you to basically the same place. A story that's interesting and engages the viewer.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

              I'm a true believer that whatever a seasoned pro does in a story has no bearing on what an amateur is capable of. I proved to you that Lethal Weapon does follow a 3 Act structure even though Shane Black doesn't think one second about it during the writing process. You had nothing to rebut it except say OMG.

              You'll do what works for you and others will do what works for them, from what I've seen most have no idea what works. That's from my own experience reading amateur scripts.

              For some reason people feel they stand shoulder to shoulder with writers like Shane Black or the Cohen Brothers because this is art. It's like someone who uses paints by numbers saying he is gonna create trapezoidism by painting all characters in trapezoids. By all means go ahead, I mean Picasso painted people as triangles. No reason you can't, just don't expect anyone to rave over it or buy it.

              The three Act structure is only 5 events. There's 50 - 60 scenes in a script. That leaves lots of room for the writer to do what they want. Fact is, these five events happen in any script, they almost have to for a story to take place.

              what is this more than one story thing? Yes,they are called subplots. There is never more than one controlling idea for a script. Not enough time or space on the page to do that plus people would get confused.

              You can do what you want. Write what you want. How you want. It's my experience that amateur scripts meander, they do not escalate. The second Act sags and hits the same story notes over and over. You blame the 3 Act structure for this like by some miracle if they just didn't think of it they'd write something good. I blame the writer who doesn't know how to execute. The 3 Act structure is a tool. Would a carpenter blame his hammer for poor results?

              Does anybody in this thread have a script I could read for reference? Something you wrote, without thinking anything about elements of the 3 Act structure and you think works? I would love to see if the script meanders and lags in the middle or does it shine with uniqueness and unfold in an interesting way.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
                what is this more than one story thing? Yes,they are called subplots. There is never more than one controlling idea for a script. Not enough time or space on the page to do that plus people would get confused.
                Of course there is more than one story in a film. To use an example of one you just said you saw in some other thread -- Arrival.

                It's about mankind (military) wanting war vs. wanting communication. It's about time and what that means. It's about deciding to love even if you know that love may be cut short.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                  The story in arrival is clear. They want to find out where the heptapods come from and what they want. Does this controlling idea touch on various themes? Yes. All through the eyes of one character.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                    But it is story, not just a theme.

                    I think, like the rest of us, you have extremely limited definitions when it suits you.

                    My overall comment would be that when you are secure in your own process -- if that's three or five acts or whatever -- you don't have to try and convince anyone else their process is wrong.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                      Limited? The possibilities inside the 3 Act structure are unlimited. This is just one of those things where a technique or a tool becomes very popular cause it has been proven to work for the writer and the audience so now there has been a movement to argue against it.

                      Subplots exist in every film. Now all of a sudden subplots are whole other story inside the script? If in Arrival Amy Adams was on Eharmony when she was on her down time, and in those scenes she went on some humorous dates, looking for love and gabbing abut it with her girlfriend, then I would say, yea, there is to completely different stories in the script. But that's not the case. The Daughter, her ex husband are all part of the main conflict.

                      All these writers that think they are working outside the box really are not.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                        i see a book series here-

                        -loving within the box
                        -hating within the box
                        -dreaming within the box
                        -struggling within the box
                        -living within the box
                        -using the box as a litter box
                        -looking up one clear, cold night at the twinkling stars within the great big universe box and trying to find your spot in such box
                        -getting a chill, go inside and check out sports center. the tv screen is sort of in a box.

                        basically, it is all in the box. box set.

                        just having a bit of fun. i don't overly think about structure, etc, but i know stories need to work in a satisfying way. what works for a writer works. i tend to like a pencil sharpener...the old kind you screw to the wall, a ceiling fan going at the slowest speed that is pulling air up, not pushing it down (and regardless of season), a dog hanging around, a full wastebasket, and other things like chewing on raisins covered in black pepper (substitute for chewing tobacco). i figure i don't write like most writers and most writers do not write like me or think about writing like i do or chew on peppered raisins while they are typing. i'm good with all of that.

                        i wish all good luck with their words and stories.

                        the raisins i like do come in a box.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                          Taylor Sheridan on structure: "The last frontier is demolishing the structure that we've all been held to for so long because we were told you had to do it this way. Rules are meant to be broken, but it has to be to serve the story. The rule is-and everyone who reads this will now know-about 15 to 17 minutes into a movie, I'm going to tell you what the movie's all about. And I don't do that in Hell Or High Water. I don't tell you what the movie's about until the end of the second act going into the third act. Hopefully the result is that you're extremely conflicted about which characters you're rooting for.


                          Not to suggest he knows what the heck he's talking about, just a perspective from a pro.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                            Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
                            ...I proved to you that Lethal Weapon does follow a 3 Act structure even though Shane Black doesn't think one second about it during the writing process. You had nothing to rebut it except say OMG.
                            Introduction, crisis, climax, resolution, and something else? These are common elements of all storytelling, not just movies. The OMG was a reaction to the idea of certain story points having to land on certain pages.

                            What Black was thinking about when writing Lethal Weapon was telling two stories. One about the murdered daughter of a money launderer and the mercenaries who did it, and the other about a broken cop who is suicidal over losing his wife. That second story is tied to the first, but they have completely separate story questions, setups, developments and resolutions. The murderers must be brought to justice, and Riggs must be fixed. He's fixed through his partnership with Murtaugh and his incorporation into the Murtaugh family.

                            Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
                            what is this more than one story thing? Yes,they are called subplots. There is never more than one controlling idea for a script. Not enough time or space on the page to do that plus people would get confused.
                            What indeed. This might be the biggest failing of the 3-Act system, getting people to think of a movie as only telling one story. Lethal weapon told two, as illustrated above. Some movies tell two stories where the second grows out of the first, especially horror films where it starts as a detective film (what is it) and evolves into an action film (let's kill it before it kills us). These usually have relationship or personal story also. Other movies that tell two, stories:
                            • Casablanca - Victor Laszlo escaping the Nazis, and the Rick and Ilsa love story.
                            • Liar Liar - The broken family and the career/divorce case.
                            • Fargo - The kidnapping caper and detective story of the murders.

                            The art and craft of these films is how the writers chose stories that complimented and informed each other. How do we know that these are different stories? Not only do they each have different story questions, but they are also different genres. Why, you might ask, do I not consider these other stories sublots? Excellent question (glad I asked).

                            Sub-Plots
                            Sometimes the term is used to describe one of the main stories, and sometimes it's used to define the smaller stories that can be easily pulled out of film without hurting the main stories.

                            I believe that subplots are those smaller stories that are either driven by secondary characters and reveal the true nature of a main character, or are used to introduce main characters in a narrative separate from the main stories, like the opening sequences of many Bond films or the opening sequence in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Here are what I identify as subplots in the films referenced above:
                            • Lethal Weapon - The Jumper. It shows Riggs doing the job, but not committing suicide when he had the chance.
                            • Casablanca - The young Bulgarian couple. When push comes to shove Rick is a bleeding heart and a romantic.
                            • Liar Liar - Can't think of one in the released film, but there was an opening scene in court where Fletcher gets an obviously guilty guy off the hook (it's on the DVD). It was cut along with some other beats with that character. There are lots of films that don't have subplots, and some have more than one.
                            • Fargo - I could argue that Fargo has sublots for Marge, Carl and Jerry, but I might be stretching for Jerry's. Marge - the Mike Yanagita story. It's a weird and uncomfortable situation for Marge, and she reacts to it like she reacts to everything else, a calm professionalism. Carl - The Shep/Hooker sequence. - we get a glimpse of Carl away from his partner and how he can't stand up to anyone without a gun in his hand. Jerry's would be him selling cars especially with the miffed couple and the Tru-Coat.


                            As to the idea that there's not enough time or space on the page for multiple stories because it would confuse the audience... I'd like to point out that contemporary sitcoms tell three stories in twenty-one and half minutes. Granted some of those stories might be a bit thin, and the characters are already established, but I've never met anyone who complained about how confusing sitcoms are, and they should pump the brakes on all that story telling. On the other hand I think we've all read scripts that were slow and boring and not much happened.
                            Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.

                            -Steve Trautmann
                            3rd & Fairfax: The WGAW Podcast

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                              I didn't see the movie, but isn't that the one about the bank robbers and Jeff Bridges is the cop or sheriff chasing them? I have a hard time believing that people have no idea what the film is about until 2/3 of the way through.

                              It's funny, he references 'demolishing' what we know about structure but then in the same sentence references ACT 2 and ACT 3 of his script, so is it safe to assume it is written in the 3 Act structure.

                              What pros do and what amateurs do are two totally different things. I'm sure Taylor Sheridan is very, very familiar with the 3 act structure. Written in it for a long time before he ever tried anything like being ambiguous between the good guys and bad guys until 90 minutes into the movie.

                              I never said to never try something different. Even though, time and time again that's what people are hearing. What I said was, perfect the basics first. See what makes the tick and see what each ingredient in the recipe does, then try something different. Just like Taylor Sheridan or Shane Black or Chris Nolan. I'm sure they all are very much aware of the standard 3 act structure and have made themselves very comfortable with it, that's why they know how to tweak it. But when an amateur comes out and blasts something that they probably can't do and say it leads to this and that and its the downfall of the amateur screenwriter, I just shake my head.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Kenneth Lonergan on structure

                                Shane Black told you this about Lethal Weapon or you are making conclusions? I haven't seen it in a while but I'm pretty sure Lethal Weapon is an action flick about two cops taking down a drug ring. Everything else you list are subplots. The Jumper? That's not a subplot. It's a character building scene for Riggs - he really is crazy. Its the pairing of opposites, done all the time in film, long before Black ever did it. The crazy, insane cop with a death wish and the about to be retired, older family man cop. Steve, really, you are just like making stuff up to try and make your point. In any story of a pairing of opposites the characters learn from each other. Fixing Riggs is a subplot, not its own story. You are picking out scenes from the movie and saying it is its stand alone story...okay...

                                Scripts mix genres all the time, it doesn't mean their is more than one main story going on. Casablanca is about a man who swears to stay Neutral and there is nothing that will change his stance, he will stick his neck out for nobody. Then Ilsa walks in with Lazlo. It's one story, the forbidden love story between Ric and Ilsa is a subplot. Liar Liar is about a Lawyer who must win the case of his life without lying. That;s the story. The fact that he's broken his son's heart with so many lies is a subplot that is very much connected to the main plot. Definitely not two stories. One with subplot tangents. You are kind of taking all the subplots of films and saying you are redefining what a subplot is and you are calling it a new story. Okay...I just call them subplots.

                                Two stories would mean two different controlling ideas. Two different goals. Two antagonists, one for each story. This is why I think you just want so bad to do something different for the sake of it. All these movies you listed all follow the 3 Act structure.

                                And I never said a word about page numbers, I asked you how many minutes until something happened. If you do not upset balance in the hero's life by the 10 - 15% mark of the storytelling, people get bored, if you haven't crafted the dilemma that will play out by the 25% mark then people start getting disinterested, if you haven't kicked up the plot by the 50% mark, the story becomes stale, if you haven't put your hero in his personal hell at about 75% of the way through then people will never feel for them, and if you haven't figured out how to have the hero resolve the dilemma in a unique, unforeseen way at the 100% mark then the audience will not feel satisfied. These are not rules, they are observations from thousands of years ago and still hold today.

                                Yes, if you know the 3 act structure like the back of your hand then can you throw a curve into the structure? Sure, I wouldn't see why not.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X