The Screenplay Skeleton

screenplay is structure – so said William Goldman, so i’m not gonna argue

what he didn’t say is, “there exists one correct screenplay structure that must be adhered to, and here it is” – because that would have been stupid 

and yet, that’s what a lot of teh gurus seem to profess – or, when they don’t profess this dogma themselves, then it’s their students or acolytes who misconstrue the lessons and restate them as IMMUTABLE LAWS 

where did these “laws” come from? – i’m guessing it all started innocently enough – in the spirit of Genuine Academic Enquiry, people began analysing movies and screenplays, and then comparing them against each other to see what (if any) similarities or common patterns they could find 

unsurprisingly, they did find similarities and common patterns ... lots of them – but they were common patterns – not universal patterns, not mandatory patterns, not essential patterns ... just a whole bunch of patterns, some of which were more prevalent than others  

they then proceeded (in a statistical sense) to “stack” all these patterns (from the ubiquitous to the rare) on top of each other – when done, this process revealed a kind of meta-structure embedded in the noise – which is both cool and unsurprising   

unsurprising because screenplays are human artefacts – artefacts shaped by millions of iterations of trial-and-error in a Darwinian struggle that sees those screenplays that best fit the needs of the audience survive and prosper – begetting in their turn (via inspiration and imitation) other screenplays of a similar form 

the problem arose when some people (seeking certainty, or a shortcut, or a hook for their how-to book) took this fuzzy meta-structure and stripped it of all its life-giving messiness ... until all that was left was a skeleton   

but it wasn’t just any skeleton, but THE SKELETON 

okay, you’ve seen the image, let’s get stuck into the analogy 

let’s say that screenplays are just one particular kind of language-based expression – one category amongst all the others including: jokes, poems, ballads, short stories, novels, stage plays, etcetera and so on 

just as mammals are just one particular kind of skeleton-based animal (vertebrates) – one category amongst all the others including birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, monotremes, etcetera and so on 

okay? right, so which mammal is THE MAMMAL?   

scientists say it was originally a small, shrew-like creature, but now? – let’s ignore, for the moment, those perceptual outliers like whales and bats, but what about llamas, tigers or bears? – how about “oodles”, they’re popular – is a labradoodle THE MAMMAL? or something smaller, like a cavoodle? 

but of course there is no THE MAMMAL – they are all equally mammals (including whales and bats) – and they are mammals because they are all based on the same structure ... just as successful screenplays [1] are all based on the same structure  

the problem, as i see it, is that some people are artificially constraining how that structure can be shaped – it’s like they’re trying to tell us that pygmy bats and blue whales can’t be successful mammals because they’re not the same shape as (say) a labradoodle – which is as ridiculous as saying that a screenplay is not “correct” because the Inciting Incident happens on page 3 (to pluck a number out of the air) [2] 

but the problem is deeper (worser?) than that – the idea that there exists THE SKELETON on which all screenplays should (must!) be structured is based, i think, on the misconception that stories can be “assembled” piece by piece, with a fixed place for each and every element 

this mistaken belief probably arose when some people confused the end product with the process – the process that begins with a zygote and ends with a labradoodle chewing on your favourite Uggs   

in my limited experience, screenplays, like labradoodles, aren’t assembled, they’re grown   

yes, i’ve read the books and not a few blogs, plus i’ve watched videos, listened to podcasts and even did some courses IRL – and, for a time (it must be admitted), i was willing to “believe” ... particularly if it was going to help me to get to where i wanted to be [3]

so i tried constructing screenplays – not once, but multiple times – and i found it doesn’t work for me – i mean, how can you attempt to recreate the experience of watching a movie when you’re distracted by bullshit like what page you are up to? 

writing a screenplay is difficult enough, without having to contort your story to fit some ideal of THE SKELETON – imagine trying to design a blue whale while having someone insist that its nostrils must be in front and below eye level, because that’s how “all” mammals are structured   

[at this point i could go on to speculate on the motives of some people and their cult of THE SKELETON ... but let’s assume they only have the best intentions – after all, you don’t have to be a baddie to be wrong] 

now to clarify – by growing, i don’t mean just sitting down and bashing out a script – i’ve made that mistake a few times, too 

no, growing a screenplay is about creating it organically – using whatever works best for you: index cards, spreadsheets, dog-eared notebooks, folders on your computer packed with .txt files ... whatever – it’s an iterative process – building, shaping, cutting back, adding on, rearranging – and then, moving from notes, to beat sheets, to outlines (or whatever) until you have a screenplay – and then continuing to work on it … until it’s as done as it can be

and never once worrying about what page your Second Act Climax falls on ... or, even if there is a Second Act Climax   

of course this assumes an awful amount of effort – but i’d argue it’s no more work than constructing your screenplay – and it’s definitely more enjoyable because you’re immersed in all the fun stuff: characters, motivations, reveals, setbacks, reversals, drama, conflict … and not counting pages 

the real issue with ignoring THE SKELETON is it means that you must know what works and what is right for your screenplay 

YOU have to have the self-belief (self-delusion?) to structure your screenplay the way you believe (think? feel? intuit?) is best for your story, despite what some people may think – and that’s the hard bit – the scary bit – it’s why so many of us (me included) are/were willing to set aside some or all of our “artistic integrity” for the illusion of certainty THE SKELETON provides – clutching to it in the stormy creation process like it’s a lifesaver (the flotation device, not the person) ... only to find that, not only doesn’t it float very well, but it keeps bashing into you and dragging you away from shore 

but as terrifying as this need for self-reliance is, it’s also fundamental to the process of creation – all artists must overcome the terror of being wholly and solely the final arbiter of their own work – and so must screenwriters, whether they consider themselves artists or not – you are responsible for the shape of your screenplay

... well, up until the point you allow someone to pay you to change it

so are all those courses and books and videos and podcasts a complete waste of time?

speaking as an (as yet!) unproduced, wannabe screenwriter, i think the short answer is: no, most of them are not a complete waste of time

my advice would be to “educate” yourself as much as you can – just ignore, or at least, don’t pay too much attention to the page-count stuff – with that stuff out of the way, there’s still plenty of value to be had – in addition to the basic script-formatting “rules” and learning the various jargons (people uses different terms and definitions for the same things), there is tonnes of useful advice on things like developing characters and conflicts, making descriptions more active, sculpting dialogue, hiding exposition, developing themes and image systems and so on and so forth

and what you will find as you read, watch and listen, is that’ll you begin to develop your very own, personal bullshit detector – some guru (or well-meaning nuff-nuff like myself) will state something and you’ll pause, think, and then decide: maybe, but that’s not right for me

and then get back to writing your screenplay your way … whatever its shape 

a final note – after reading the above, don’t assume my screenplays tend towards some weird avant-garde constructions – i may ignore THE SKELETON, but my aim is not to design some unique structure for the sake looking cool – i’m just trying to tell a story – which means that, despite my scepticism, the final structure of my screenplays usually do look quite labradoodle-ish ... with, perhaps, just a hint of vampire bat

[1] does not mean financially successful, although they often are – just as screenplays that adhere to THE SKELETON are not automatically financial successes 

[2] for a forensic dissection on the arbitrariness of page counts (and their lack of relevance to your screenplay’s structure) read John August’s thoughts here and Stephen Follows’ research here

[3] not all the books, blogs, videos, podcasts etcetera i consumed were peddling their take on THE SKELETON – many ignored it or just referred to a vague version of A SKELETON to help the reader, viewer or listener orientate themselves, while they discussed the more important aspects of writing a screenplay – there were even a few who openly attacked the notion of THE SKELETON … but when offered a choice between the “certainty” of THE SKELETON (no matter how dubious) and the alternative of figuring it out yourself, it’s hard not to be tempted (at least for awhile)

comments? questions?

The Screenwriting Iceberg

before we begin – in a late and belated attempt to do my due diligence, i typed "writing iceberg" into SEARCH and discovered that some bloke called ... wait a sec, i got it some-- ah! here it is: some bloke called Ernest Hemingway had an idea which he called the "iceberg theory" of writing 

well, that's fucked that then, i thought 

but after a quick scan of the Wikipedia article, i was relieved to learn that, while interesting and useful in of itself, it hadn’t much to do with my little rant below ... besides, i’d already done my little iceberg graphic, so i really had no choice but to continue with what i call: 

THE SCREENWRITING ICEBERG paradigm, hypothesis ... thing

okay, now before we begin (again) – be aware that there’s no great lesson or useful insight here – if you’ve seen the graphic then you can pretty much skip the rest and get back to work …

still here? – alright, let’s try and make this quick:

the first thing that the astute observer will notice is that, unlike traditional icebergs, the preponderance of the Screenwriting Iceberg’s mass is observable above the waterline, with just ten percent of it being hidden below

that ten percent below the waterline represents the screenplay and, while it’s never directly experienced by the audience, it does in fact support the entire movie and everything the audience experiences

doesn’t look too stable, does it? 

look at it – all that superstructure balanced precariously on that little wedge of screenplay at the bottom

it scares the shit out of me – my movie, your movie, anyone’s movie – it all relies on those 117-or-so pages of script to be so precisely calibrated and machined, that it won’t immediately flop over onto one side and sink to the bottom, the moment someone tries to take it out for a spin

this is yet another reason why screenwriting is so fucking difficult

with just words on a page, you have to be able to lay the foundations of a massively complicated and complex enterprise in such a way that it will (eventually) deliver the experience you have imagined for your audience 

to this end, your screenplay will be the basis for vast array of decisions – from selecting the director and cast – to the thousands of creative choices required in art direction, cinematography, set design, costumes, props, sound, music and so on and so on and so on ...

and with each and every one of these decisions, the screenplay must be able to provide some guidance

but how? – there isn’t enough room in the average 117-or-so-page script to describe the locations in any detail, let alone the thousands of other visual and aural elements that combine to make up a movie – how can we communicate all that complexity when there’s barely enough room to describe the action?

well we can’t – and we shouldn’t – it’s not our job – the screenplay should provide guidance, not answers (my young Padawan) – a movie (or streaming series or whatever) employs dozens (hundreds!) of talented people whose job it is to answer these questions – using the screenplay as guidance … and under the director’s direction (of course)

okay, you say, “but how do you provide this guidance?”

… well, that’s as easy as inverting an iceberg and balancing it on its tip ;-)

comments? questions?

Pulse-o-meter Analysis of Classic Horror Movies

a long, LONG, LONG time ago i was inspired by various gurus to rewatch some classic horror movies with the intention of identifying the various “structural markers” – y’know the drill: Inciting Incident, Break into Act 2, and so on 

but, as often happens, i got distracted by how i was feeling 

so i began noting my “mental state” from moment to moment – and graded them on an 8-tiered Pulse-o-meter scale from positive & relaxed through neutral to feeling negative & fearful

(why eight tiers? no idea)

the abstract image above is based on the results – the movies from top to bottom (and in order of run time) are:
• An American Werewolf in London
• The Thing [1]
• Poltergeist
• Alien
• The Birds
• Jaws
• The Exorcist

aside from the unsurprising fact that horror movies tend to get scarier towards the end (the reddish bits), there doesn’t seem to be any clear patterns to discern ...

however, that may be due to the tiny sample size – and the poor quality of the data – after all, i’d seen all the films at least twice at the time of the experiment, so i was hardly an uncontaminated sample – and therefore my reactions were unlikely to be “true” 

that said, i decided to layout the results on some charts

click image to view PDF

the above is the first page of a 2-page PDF – the first page simply tracks my Pulse-o-meter readings over the movies’ run times – on the second page, i “standardised” the movies to the “same length” – i know that doesn’t make a lot of sense, i just did it in case it revealed some hidden pattern ... which it didn’t

click image to view PDF

this is the same as the first page in the previous PDF, but with each bit annotated to help you orientate yourself as to where you are in the movie, like: “oh yeah, that’s where he wakes up in the zoo”

click image to view PDF

finally, i decided to go back to my initial idea and try to identify where the “structural markers” would fall 

now i’ve dug through what notes survive from that time and i can’t figure out which, if any one structural paradigm i tried to apply to these movies – the chances are i probably tried to consolidate various gurus’ structures into one

which is to say, it would be best to assume that the function of each of these “structural markers” are of my own invention and should not be trusted – and further more, the placement of these “markers” were based on my understanding at the time, and so should also not be trusted 

in short, as noted on the PDF: “Placement of the structural markers are, at most, educated guesses based on ‘book learning’ and gut instinct. Feel free to disagree.”

so, with those rather large caveats duly noted, is there some “obvious” structure that shines through? – not that i can see – nothing useful, at least

which shouldn’t be surprising – not just for the reasons noted above, which would be more than enough for most ardent “structuralists” to dismiss the whole exercise (and rightly so – like all good science, the data would need to be independently verified across a number of studies)

but there are other reasons why there are no obvious similarities in structure between the sampled movies

one reason is they were made at different times – and movies change as fashions change, and as audiences become more cinematically “literate” 

but the main reason, i would argue, is that i doubt if any of the filmmakers behind any of these CLASSICS were concerned with sticking to a standard formula, i mean, structure (sorry) – i believe the writers and directors were more interested in telling their story and delivering an experience 

perhaps it’s unfair to try and apply a “standard structure” to horror movies – after all, the genre is (supposed to be) about surprising the audience and unsettling them by subverting expectations ... things difficult to do, particularly if you decide to structure your story in a way the audience has seen a thousand times before

which raises the question: why are so many horror movies so formulaic?

[1] it probably doesn’t need to be said, but this is of course Carpenter’s 1982 movie – not the 2011 prequel

p.s. – on a related topic – for a forensic dissection on the arbitrariness of page counts (and their lack of relevance to your screenplay’s structure) read John August’s thoughts here and Stephen Follows’ research here

comments? questions?

Wrong time, wrong genre

a recent headline caught my eye: Coronavirus pandemic spurs Australian movie producers to favour feel-good films

well, nothing good lasts forever – and so, according to industry experts with far more experience and cred than i, the horror genre’s current popularity will come to an end when the current pandemic passes

audiences will be looking for “feel good” experiences they argue – pointing to changes in viewing habits after WWI and the Spanish Flu pandemic, and post WWII

and if you look at the graph below ... well, maybe they’re onto something

see graphs here – ht: No Film School

the graph is part of a larger group of graphs (created by Bo McCready) that tracks horror and eleven other genres over the same time period – the graphs are interactive, detailing the most popular movies per genre, per year ... interesting stuff

however, i do have some “issues” with these industry experts’ prognostications – and not just because i’m fond of horror movies

let’s begin with that standard piece of boilerplate slapped on the end of ads for financial products: Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

this isn’t just a nice, little “get out of jail card” for spruikers[2] of shonky financial products, it is also recognition of the fact that many things are just too complicated to be able to predict ... for example, how our current pandemic will play out

sure, in the past, a certain pattern appears to have played out – but that doesn’t mean it will do so again – people may not change, but the environment they’re living in certainly does – and this impacts upon how they react to changing circumstances

for example, look at the more recent end of the graph – it appears, to my untrained eye at least, to contradict, or at least call into question, the notion that after the societal trauma of 9/11, people turned their attention to the “feel goods”

the graph makes it clear that they didn’t – and the other graphs (including Romance and Comedy) seem to bear this out

why is this? i’d argue it’s because, since 9/11, we never actually reached a “post-crisis” stage[3]

instead, we have lurched from one crisis another – y’know the list: wars, domestic terrorism, epidemics and pandemics, the rise of political extremism and the growing threats posed by Anthropogenic Global Warming

all this, while many of us struggle to get by in stagnating economies where we’re forced to work more for less, while whatever protections we once had are being reduced or removed

but let’s say that COVID-19 is tidied away within the next few months and the predicted global depression ends up being a non-event … the world will still be stuck with dealing with all the other shit

and so the assumption that in the near future, people will, en masse, search out “feel good” content after all this is over, is, to my mind, a little dubious (at best)

until that halcyon day when we finally (collectively) get our shit together, many of us will want (NEED) horror – either to “inoculate” ourselves against the real horrors that surround us – or as a form of escapism, when the other genres are just too “feel good” to be palatable – or just to experience that blessed release we feel when a nightmare finally ends

... or at least, that’s my opinion – but then, i’m just some nuff-nuff with a horror script i’m planning to sell

[1] nickname for Australia’s goverment-owned media, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation

[2] spruik – to sell or promote – named after the ladies and gents who used to (and probably still do) stand outside certain stores and yell about the high quality and low prices of the merchandise therein

[3] by “we” i mean that subset of humanity commonly referred to as the West – not that the rest of the planet isn’t dealing with the same shit (and then some!) – but the article is about producing films for Western (particularly Australian) audiences

comments? questions?

Thanks, but no thanks

sometime after high school i was turfing out old textbooks, when something in an English textbook caught my eye – it was page from a screenplay ... or at least, that’s what the caption indicated [1]

it was the scene from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid where they’re trapped on the edge of a cliff with the Pinkertons closing in – y’know: “You stupid fool, the fall’ll probably kill you.”

a light bulb blinked on – ah, so this how they do it! – looks easy enough

so i started writ--

before continuing, i should clarify something

at the time, i did not consider myself as someone who could be a writer

i’d always been a solid “C” student when it came to English – the idea that i could be a writer of any kind was always a little weird to me – sure, i loved reading and was one of the few kids who had read ALL the required English reading before the school year began …

and sure, i loved writing, making shit up and trying to copy the style of my then favourite authors – but what use was all this love, interest and passion when my grades made it clear that i was barely mediocre

and so i had decided to become a graphic designer – i repeated Year 12 at a tech school so that i could put together a graphic design folio to get into uni

while doing so, my new English teacher suggested that the writing biz might be something i should look into – her enthusiasm for my writing and her disappointment when i told her i wanted to become a graphic designer was, to my mind, nice and all, but very misplaced

so i did the only sensible thing, i ignored her advice and offer of help ...

i’m not much smarter now – but looking back, maybe she was what made me pause when i saw that page of screenplay in the textbook which lead me to--

write a screenplay for the BBC’s Doctor Who – because, why the hell not?

TIME INVASION was to be an epic saga in which a future version of Earth plans to invade contemporary (1980s) Earth, and only the Doctor can stop them! – fucking awesome!

a page from the script – not sure where the weird formatting came from – still, riveting stuff!

clueless as to how these things worked, i decided to go ALL IN – my submission to the BBC included:

• 26 page screenplay (first episode)
• 36 page handwritten synopsis (for the rest of story), and
• 19 pages of drawings including: costumes, spaceships, vehicles, props & set designs

looking at it now, Time Invasion was way beyond the scope of what Doctor Who could do TODAY, never mind the technical limitations of the ’80s

the cast of characters alone numbered well-over a dozen, and they were just the speaking parts – then there were dozens of sets (ranging from big to huge), innumerable special effects – the list goes on

oh, and the contemporary Earth scenes were set in the Australian outback

unsure if this was enough, i ALSO submitted another eight pitches for story ideas (complete with concept drawings) including one called, The Hound of DeBaskah 12 that featured this little cutie ... 

obviously inspired by Giger's xenomorph, this little bugger predated Alien 3's baddie by 10 years! – now, i’m not saying i'm psychic, but what other explanation could there be?

anyhoo – i packaged it all up and sent it off

and waited ...

and then it ALL came back … with the polite, little note you saw at the top of this post – sure, i was disappointed, but i also had a job in an ad agency – so i’d proved myself right – DESIGN: 1 – WRITING: 0

i packed the submission away with my short stories and bits of YA novels and other pieces of creative flotsam – comfortable in the knowledge that i’d made the right decision

and yet, here we are …

[1] while taking this trip down memory lane, i went back to William Goldman’s screenplay to find the page – it wasn’t there - that “one page” in the textbook actually covered about three pages in Goldman’s screenplay – my first attempt at screenwriting was based on a fabrication

comments? questions?

Welcome

is this even the time? – i mean, i’ve been planning to do this for so long, but now …

and then there’s this voice saying, “why bother” – everything is fucked and THIS won’t end well – of course, “THIS” refers both to the current pandemic and my belated attempts at becoming a screenwriting-type person

on the other hand, there’s the voice saying (SHOUTING!), “here’s that free time you’ve always been bitching about! use it! you may never get another chance!” – which, it must be said, is a compelling argument 

but then on the other, other hand, a third voice wonders aloud, “should you even be thinking about this? sure, you’re okay (for the moment, at least), but millions of people aren’t ... isn’t this all a little bit icky?” 

yeah, i do feel a bit icky – it’s sort of like a pre-emptive version of survivor guilt with the added frisson of knowing that this confidence may well be misplaced and, AND, AND! ...

...

as you are reading this, you know which voice won the debate – so let’s do whatever it is when expressions like, “make hay while the sun shines” and “strike while the iron is hot”, are sort of what you’re after, but don’t feel appropriate – so:

welcome to my inaugural blog post! 

OKAY! ... here we go ...

shit, this is scary, exposing yourself–– 

[NOTE: the long, dubious attempt at humour that seemed funnier when i wrote it a month ago has been REDACTED] 

let me start again

as i wrote in WHY? the purpose of this website and, by extension, this blog is to introduce screenwriting-Robert to PPs (Potential Partners) e.g.: producers, directors, actors, etceteras, writers ... 

i’ve been a “creative” my entire working life – mostly as a graphic designer / art director in the advertising and design industries [1] – so it would be natural to think, dear PP, that i would be acclimatised to “putting myself out there” – but, no

why? because, as any number of mobster flicks have taught us, the work was not personal, it was strictly business – not that i didn’t care – not that i didn’t put myself into the work — it just was not about me

a screenplay, however – particularly a spec screenplay – surely that is about me, right? – i mean, no matter what the setting, characters or subject matter, a spec screenplay can’t help but reveal at least something about the writer – isn’t that scary?

sure, i guess – i mean, yes, it is ... but it’s also a PERFORMANCE 

the need to entertain, to be clear, to keep the pages turning (and even the screenplay format itself) ensures that no matter how personal the story is, there is always a layer of “artifice” between the reader and the writer – something to create a comfortable distance between you and your work

but here, on this blog, i’m trying to be as open as possible [2] and avoid ARTIFICE – to let my ideas, thoughts, opinions, brain farts or whatever stand on their own – and so give you, dear PP, a hint of who you may be dealing with one day in the future (assuming there is one)  

hence this “style” of writing – i’m not trying to be “cool” (that ship sailed years ago) – it’s just that i didn’t want to have to worry about delivering a performance (or worry about the rules of Proper English, for that matter) – i just want to say what i need to say and then ... get back to my screenplays as quickly as possible (y'know, the FUN stuff)

sure – there will be some PPs (most of whom won’t have read this far) who will find this “style” off-putting or lazy – they’ll say, “this is not the way to promote yourself as a writer” – and they may well be right, but frankly, i haven’t the ”mental space” for anything else

okay, this little performance has gone on long enough – next post will be about something more interesting ... hopefully

[1] this site was not created to spruik (advertise) my design skills, such as they are – so i haven’t invested too much time in how it looks – in time, things may improve

[2] please note, being open about myself requires a degree of honest introspection i may not be capable of – apologies in advance

comments? questions?