CHINATOWN -- masterpeice?

[Dr. Vergerus]

Originally Posted by Archduke

Why don't you read that one screenwriting book. Forget what it's called and I'm to lazy to look it up but I think it used to be considered THE SCREENWRITING book. He dissects Chinatown in depth and if I recall it's THE ONLY EXAMPLE he uses for all his screenwriting theories that he tries to proclaim as the be all end all of how to tell a good story which always seemed a bit juvenile to me.

You don't mean McKee's Story, do you?

[Mr Scribble]

Did anyone feel that Chinatown is too dense or exhausting to follow, in terms of plot twists and turns?

For me, it is borderline too much, even with Towne's brilliance at the helm. In the hands of a lesser writer it would have been an incoherent mess.

[Ire]

Originally Posted by SNAFU

Still not reading anything that educates me.

I want to understand EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY what screenwriting techniques R.T. used to create what many regard as the greatest screenplay ever.

I want a deeper understanding so I can improve my writing.

I can't believe that of all the folks on DD no one has responded with anything other than banter/sarcasm.

And that no one's mentioned the misspelling the subject line.

Beginning, middle, end.

Towne wrote Chinatown many years before Syd Field wrote his book Screenplay which many would say was the first mainstream publication on the techniques of screenwriting. So Towne had no ostensible template or technique other than the experience of having written and consulted on screenplays for over a decade. He also had Raymond Chandler, Billy Wilder etc. and thirty years of detective movies and twenty years of film noir from which to draw.

It was beginning, middle, end. Robert McKee could tell you more. So could Syd Field

And yes masterpiece.

[Archduke]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vergerus

You don't mean McKee's Story, do you?

Naw I think it was the original edition of Screenplay. Very small book. Only example he uses for his rules of storytelling that supposedly hold true for every story ever told is Chinatown. Wouldn't suggest it as a book to learn storytelling from.

[Dr. Vergerus]

Originally Posted by Mr Scribble

Did anyone feel that Chinatown is too dense or exhausting to follow, in terms of plot twists and turns?

For me, it is borderline too much, even with Towne's brilliance at the helm. In the hands of a lesser writer it would have been an incoherent mess.

I don't know your age or tastes, but I've noticed that recent mainstream movies seem to have longer acts/sequences and less plot points/crises. If your tastes in films or what you mostly watch is basically stuff this side from the 80s, then it makes sense if Chinatown feels like having too much/too long plot.

[Dr. Vergerus]

Originally Posted by Archduke

Naw I think it was the original edition of Screenplay. Very small book. Only example he uses for his rules of storytelling that supposedly hold true for every story ever told is Chinatown. Wouldn't suggest it as a book to learn storytelling from.

Ah, ok. I've only read it partially, although I've read other of his books -can't remember which one, I think, it was titled The Screenwriter's Problem Solver or The Screenwriter's Workbook. Personally, I haven't found anything in Field's theories and paradigm that can be put to good use, other than arguing in web forums.

Now McKee, at least his book, is a whole different thing -I say "at least his book" because I've heard him say rather stupid suff. He doesn't claim to offer anything new, to have developed new concepts, and he doesn't offer a paradigm or structure films should follow (some people say he advocates for a 3-act structure, but that's a half truth: he admits every story has a beginning, middle and end -who would deny that, anyway- but he doesn't identify these three parts with acts; acts are defined by the relevance of the crisis they lead to, and he says that most stories will have at least 3 of them, but can have more.) Also, to his credit, he aknowledges that films which don't follow the few principles he mentions can be and often are just as artistically successful.

So it kind of annoys me when McKee gets thrown together with the likes of Field or Vogler, especially when it is done by people who haven't even read his book (this was once done by a famous screenwriter/blogger, and was followed by an offer by McKee's assistant to send him the book to see what he thought of it after actually reading it, but there weren't other posts on the matter so I don't know if he ever got to read it or not.)

McKee doesn't have more answers for the screenwriter than a book on painting techniques or color mixing has for the painter, but he certainly doesn't claim otherwise: the writer/painter is the one that has to do all the heavy lifting in the end. But studying certain aspects of the technique, even if you disagree with them, is still profitable.

Now, if some guy comes with a paint-by-numbers canvas for me to fill with my pretty colors, claiming that's the way to paint a masterpiece...

[SundownInRetreat]

Originally Posted by sbbn

If you "don't get" that some people are interested in discussing what they do or don't like about a movie -- then fine, grow up, move on and ignore the thread. But don't be an ass and try and shut down something just because you don't like it or "don't get it." That's not cool. This is a movie/screenplay discussion forum for God's sake! Some of us actually are interesting in knowing what grabbed a person's interest in a movie/screenplay, eg, (among others here) Ire's response, which was a hell of a lot more informative than your childish "this is stupid, move on" response.

Everything BDZ said is on the money. And he said it in the coolest way possible. I assure you he is not the one being an ass.

And did I say everything he said is correct and true?
Especially the bit about get it or don't. Just keep on moving if you don't. As for those wanting definitive proof (even though they've already decided they don't rate it).......

[Biohazard]

Originally Posted by Mr Scribble

Did anyone feel that Chinatown is too dense or exhausting to follow, in terms of plot twists and turns?

I just think watching Chinatown is a wholly passive experience. I watch, but I am not involved. I don't care about anyone or anything that is happening, despite the fact that it's structurally sound and does pretty much everything a screenplay and movie should do...except one thing: be entertaining. I've seen movies 50 years older than Chinatown that were more exciting and emotionally engaging.

Watching Chinatown is like watching a bum do a crossword puzzle. Even if he gets every answer right, it's still not exciting, or captivating on a personal level.

[SundownInRetreat]

Originally Posted by SNAFU

Still not reading anything that educates me.

I want to understand EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY what screenwriting techniques R.T. used to create what many regard as the greatest screenplay ever.

I want a deeper understanding so I can improve my writing.

I can't believe that of all the folks on DD no one has responded with anything other than banter/sarcasm.

And that no one's mentioned the misspelling the subject line.

This is so wrong on every single level.

There's nothing wrong in asking for a bit of help but expecting - demanding - a thorough list as though it's an ingredient list is mind boggling. And thinking it will somehow be a magic pill is even more staggering.

If you don't understand (or cannot see) the craft at play then being told what ad where is not going to help you either. And if you've read script after script, and even how-to book after how-to book, then you should be able to spot certain devices yourself. And if you can't see them....then like I said, you're not going to be able to use them.

In a completely non-sarcastic way: figure it out yourself. Start off minor - can you see the act breaks? What themes are at hand? Etc. Then work your way up the scale. And as you like info so much, go read one of the mnay texts and webpages devoted to the analysis of Chinatown.

I don't know which I find most staggering: the demand for a list of techiques you're going to be ill equipped to understand and implement or that you're now kicking up a fuss on a messageboard when the info you seek in most readily out there in multiple formats.

But as BDZ has said, if you can't see it then no amount of pointing it out is going to make it clear. You have to find it (or decide the consensus is wrong) on your own.

[Archduke]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vergerus

Ah, ok. I've only read it partially, although I've read other of his books -can't remember which one, I think, it was titled The Screenwriter's Problem Solver or The Screenwriter's Workbook. Personally, I haven't found anything in Field's theories and paradigm that can be put to good use, other than arguing in web forums.

Now McKee, at least his book, is a whole different thing -I say "at least his book" because I've heard him say rather stupid suff. He doesn't claim to offer anything new, to have developed new concepts, and he doesn't offer a paradigm or structure films should follow (some people say he advocates for a 3-act structure, but that's a half truth: he admits every story has a beginning, middle and end -who would deny that, anyway- but he doesn't identify these three parts with acts; acts are defined by the relevance of the crisis they lead to, and he says that most stories will have at least 3 of them, but can have more.) Also, to his credit, he aknowledges that films which don't follow the few principles he mentions can be and often are just as artistically successful.

So it kind of annoys me when McKee gets thrown together with the likes of Field or Vogler, especially when it is done by people who haven't even read his book (this was once done by a famous screenwriter/blogger, and was followed by an offer by McKee's assistant to send him the book to see what he thought of it after actually reading it, but there weren't other posts on the matter so I don't know if he ever got to read it or not.)

McKee doesn't have more answers for the screenwriter than a book on painting techniques or color mixing has for the painter, but he certainly doesn't claim otherwise: the writer/painter is the one that has to do all the heavy lifting in the end. But studying certain aspects of the technique, even if you disagree with them, is still profitable.

Now, if some guy comes with a paint-by-numbers canvas for me to fill with my pretty colors, claiming that's the way to paint a masterpiece...

Yeag I found MCkee interesting because he didn't try to oversell his observations about storytelling by claiming he had found "the one and true way to tell ever story ever!" Like Syd Field. And also he was smart enough to know if you want to teach general story telling you have to use more than one story as an example.

Unlike Syd Field who seems content just teaching people how to write Chinatown.