Greetings, class,
I hope the documentary scripting process was both challenging and rewarding for you. As you have probably discovered, documentary, broadcast, and narrative scripting is drastically different!
I must say, I have been impressed with your concepts and intuition on the genre thus far. Keep it up!
This week, we will resume reading and blogging on what you have read:
Story, Chapter 8, The Inciting Incident
Adventures in the Screen Trade, Chapter 16, Weaknesses of the Screenplay
For your homework:
Find a short story and begin a treatment of how you would adapt the short story into a functional screenplay. Refer back to your previous reading in Adventures in the Screen Trade
and to the handout provided in class.
Also, check out the following site, which provides TV drama screenplays in the correct format:
http://www.dailyscript.com/tv.html
Here is another site with all kinds of script goodies:
http://www.simplyscripts.com/treatments.html
Here is the expanded outline for Big Fish:
http://johnaugust.com/downloads_ripley/bf-outline.pdf
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Chapter eight: billy
I thought it was pretty interesting that the author pointed out the fact that we almost never see a character at their job; he describes it as boring to observe mostly menial tasks taking place around our characters.
I think that maybe this is what made movies like office space, and waiting such good and still compelling movies surrounding such menial tasks as an office worker in his cubical, or a waiter attending to people as they go into a restaurant.
One other thing that really stuck out quite a bit is the quote from the book. “For the purposes of (story) a convincing impossibility is preferable to an unconvincing possibility.”
I totally agree with this principle, as a matter of fact, being a Sci-Fi fan I’m a testament of such as well. I’ve seen first hand how something such as “Blade Runner” can move people, but then how many other movies, especially modern romances have characters whom react in just the right way to appease each other by jumping through these impossible hoops of romantic resolve, which would make no since to any normal human being with an ounce of self respect. Then again I’m told I don’t under stand because I’m not a woman… well you got me there.
However, that does bring up another question, are romance novels, and date movies free of this aspect of story telling because of the fact that they are supposed to be more fairy tale like, and that would separate them from a believable story line?
Being a viewer more than a writer for all of my adult life, I have failed to pay attention to the mundane details that make up a character's character. I did not notice that the simple actions from everyday life of a character in a good movie were being tossed aside for the politics and impossible possibilities to build character. I understand now how the careful placement of the inciting incident plays such an important role in setting up the balance of the spine and the quest which need to work together, only at the right time to make the story both intriguing and contradictory. The audience should now be questioning dramatic emphasis, the climax, rearrangement of the character(s) universe.
In Sundance, I agree that the screenplay suffered the cutes, and had a few too many reversals, which just screamed "wolf" one too many times, so that the viewer was callused to anything that potentially was going to happen to create exciting inciting incident. I was ruined after the scene w/Etta stripping for Sundance when it was revealed it was just a game.
I really agree with this author movies made with slight science fiction seem a bit more believable. i think a good example is the da vinci code for the longest time people chose to agree with this novel turned movie over to explain the accounts in the bible but then later after the film the author admits to fabricating facts in order to make his story make sense but, people believed it. they believed his story more than the biblical accounts even. i ve heard some people defend it more than the bible itself, and all this writer did was mix a little fact with fiction. sounds like the perfect lie to me.
The first two things that Goldman mentioned as a flaw in the script: Too much smart ass dialog and Reversals. I thought those two things made reading it funnier. I have watched the movie recently, and they did cut out a lot of those two items, but left enough I for it to still be funny. It added to the personalities of the characters, but too much would have made the movie too cheesy. I haven’t watched a lot of old westerns lately, but as I remember they had unrealistic shootings and heroes also, so I didn’t think Goldman’s #4 reason: Some scene you just don’t believe was ok because it was following the genre of the movie. Like he said without it, he would just be another outlaw. I like how he is able to point out his own flaws and realize why that scene didn’t work for the screenplay and not take it seriously, etc…
It is amazing how much thought is put into a character, but doesn’t necessary show on screen. Of course they are subtly there as you go through the story with the characters, but often over looked and not thought about deeply. I like how chapter 8 breaks down incidents and how setting somewhat effects that along with other elements. He always ties things together so nicely, I knew they were there but not how they connected as a whole. The diagrams helped in this chapter, but I could use more visuals.
The Chapter on the inciting incident was eye opening for me. I believe that the inciting incident can make or brake a movie, in that it if your inciting incident dose not capture your audience they will not watch the rest of your film. The points made in the chapter were very helpful, for example, Authority. The author must research his subjects, charters, and locations to give them a authentic feel.
I think its really interesting that part of characters are not always mentioned. There are so many things in this story that are not directly revealed. Like how he mentions that the job is boring but never really places him in the job at any moment. But i guess that it still works. So many movie don't follow the same outline, so i guess that its an exception for the other ones. One character is as important as the other, its like without the one (the small roll) you cant really have the other. there were a couple thing that i thought were a little odd in the movie like when she starts to strip for him. Dont get me wrong it works, but i just some how question it.
It Just seems like there are so mant rules to a character and the way a movie flows. But there are so many movies out there that are either exceptions and or "breaking the rules", but then you get told that there more like guide lines, but for who? just for the audience? or the movie critics that can make or break your movie? its just a thought.
I enjoyed reading this chapter a lot. I am someone that is interested in the deapth of a person. This chapter explains the importance of creating a backstory for a character. Why do our characters react the way they do, what do they consider right or wrong. These datails can make your story stand out as original or seem repetitive as something you've seen before. Mkcee explains how this is a true art form, to create environments and history for your characters. Empathy and Identification is what will keep audiances pulled in to the story, it will also make the story authentic. When a story reaches the point where a dynamic fully developed event will take place is called an inciting incident. This situation can transform a films dynamics depending on how characters react. Whether or not a character follows his or her counciouse desires. This is so interesting to me because I love so many genre's, that I have been drawn into films because of the backround story or because I related to characters. I have also loved films that were so far and distant to our reality's. I feel inspired to be more creative. This has been so useful.
At this point, I can’t classify what McKee writes as opinion or theory. Everything the man preaches on story is an unvarnished fact. It would be easy to dismiss his writing, given it is all grounded in common sense. But since McKee is the only writer brave enough to articulate the mechanics of story, akin to the way Aristotle made us consider the unities of structure.
The inciting has always been my favorite part of writing Finding the moment that defines the tone of the film especially my own remains the most exciting aspect of writing. But the reward is hard earned, massively because getting to that point requires patience and skill on the part of the writer. Much of what we ingest now is based around the inciting incident happening at the beginning of the film, then stemming off into a series of events that catapult the story, while the back-story behind the incident is supplemented by flashbacks (structure ala Tarantino). The inciting incident becomes a plot device, rather than an element of the plot. But as McKee writes, the incident should function as a matter of establishing mood and foreshadow future consequences, being free of the novelties of plot contrivances.
As for Goldman’s weaknesses, I disagreed with some of his own criticisms. His smart-ass dialogue moves the story along, at times when it would drag without it. When Butch and Sundance meet their end, their exchange fits their characters. These were guys who never faced the reality of their situations, and by not doing so in the end, the dialogue painted their characters more vividly. The guidelines of his world, as McKee talked about, had been set, and he didn’t deviate from those to make us have an ending that would have been more dramatic, but ultimately untrue. Much of his other criticism comes across as valid, but overall, I found that smart ass dialogue to be the saving grace of Butch and Sundance.
Post a Comment