This guy should not be allowed to write about movies, because if he knows this little about scriptwriting, how can he have any credibility in regards to the rest of the filmmaking process? "There are almost no general rules about screenplays that apply across the board, no matter what McKee or anyone else tells you." This is so far from the truth it's laughable.

Well said, Scott!

I thought his critique of "Young Adult" was largely accurate. The movie is an uncomfortable, unpleasant experience that doesn't feel real. Cody got to break a rule, but to what end? We are still stuck watching Mavis be a malignant a-hole to largely sympathetic people. It's not played as broad comedy, so it doesn't come off as funny, just tragic and offputting. I like Diablo Cody, but her choice to not give Mavis a character arc results in a flat storyline. We are trapped with a self-centered aging mean girl for two hours and wondering why we should care.

I whole heartedly agree there is a formula for screenwriting... Ass + Chair + A-ha! = Story

Yes there are bad scripts... But I'm wondering if good scripts sometimes fall victim to bad readers?

Great post, Scott.

Yeah, I'm sure he could fool the laymen, but anyone who has studied screenplays for five minutes figures out a bunch of rules THAT TOTALLY APPLY ACROSS THE BOARD. I think my caps-lock got stuck.

Give'em grief Scott you warrior you!

This to me is pretty emblematic of the lack of respect and attention screenwriting gets in general. It's the single most important aspect of a film, so whatever generic criticims one makes about screenwriting, they should really just be applying them to the world of film as a whole. But they rarely address the screenwriter directly since he/she is out of sight, out of mind. It's only the highly idiosyncratic writers like Diablo Cody (and Kaufman, and Tarantino, and Woody Allen) who draw even the hint of a comment about the "script." The only time we see discussion in mainstream media about a script is when the film itself is "aware" of it - and that's really only if it's very original or very formulaic. Yes - of course there's a formula to screenwriting: Three acts, protagonist, antagonist, dialogue, action and scene descriptions, etc. But what critics fail to mention is that Tolstoy also followed a formula. Shakespeare followed a very strict one. So did Balzac and Twain and Dickens. There's nothing wrong with following the skeleton of a formula when you write; it's when the formula supercedes the content that you have to worry. When an architect builds a house he builds according to a formula: I can use certain materials, I have to obey the laws of gravity, I have to make the home utilitarian AND attractive, it should have levels, stairs, etc. But a great piece of architecture is still great art despite this formula. Same with film. As for criticism of screenwriting as an art form, that's fine, as long as the critic gives equal time to all screenplays and screenwriters and acknowledges that making any film without a screenplay is like building a house without a blueprint.

Thanks for all the comments. Some quite valid points by all. Let me add this: As Ben suggests, there is a distinction to be made between a 'formula' -- that is something essential to story itself -- and 'formulaic.' The latter arises when a writer only deals with the surface level of the innate story elements. Narrative elements like three acts, Protagonist vs. Nemesis, journey, metamorphosis are all dynamic in nature, metaphors for writers to help us dig our way into the heart and soul of a story, and thus give it life. This is true for epic period dramas and silly slapstick comedies. Frankly that's why instead of 'formula,' I prefer to refer to them as 'archetypes,' not only to get us away from thinking of a system to be learned in some sort of quick and easy way to write a quick and easy script, but also because archetypes suggests something universal, essential, organic, and instinctive to all human beings. It's also, of course, the preferred language of Jung and Campbell, two of my guiding lights when it comes to this stuff. To end, let me draw an analogy I have never stated in public before, but I think there is some validity to it. People who cling to some sort of specific formula for writing a screenplay -- this particular paradigm, that specific set of beats -- are what those in theological circles would call "fundamentalists." That is they take the words [i.e., formula] literally. Instead any ideas a screenwriting 'guru' promote -- and I would include any of my ideas about how to approach writing a story -- should not be taken literally, but metaphorically. As I said in the OP, story is bigger than formula, and when we reduce it to formula, we do a disservice to story. The language of screenplay theories provides a context in which we strive to uncover the mysteries of a story... but at the end of the day, story is still -- and should be -- a mystery.

John August made an important point in his podcast, which is that the way people talk about screenwriting in Hollywood, and the "technical" terms they use often come from people like Syd Field, Robert McKee, or Blake Snyder.

I find your comment interesting because it clearly shows you're a screenwriter and not a filmmaker. Watch any film outside of the Hollywood system and "uncomfortable, unpleasant experiences" will abound. Films are not relegated to evoking sympathetic syroupy feelings but rather, they are temporal lenses that agitate us, allowing us to see a plethora of things and consequently eliciting a wide range of human emotions.

That is so true. "Break" the story?? Ugh.

Just because it's difficult to screenwrite doesn't mean it's some sort of mystical random experience. Scott is on the money of course. It is hard work. Harder, for sure, than writing movie reviews.

[...] The diminishment of screenwriting (gointothestory.blcklst.com) GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_bg", "ffffff"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_border", "eeeeee"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_text", "555555"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_link", "36bcab"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_url", "36bcab"); GA_googleAddAttr("LangId", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Autotag", "books"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "books"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "screenwriting"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "story-structure"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "alex-epstein"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "blake-snyder"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "david-milch"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "john-truby"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "screenwriting"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "william-goldman"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "writers-resources"); GA_googleFillSlot("wpcom_sharethrough"); Share this:ShareEmailFacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponLinkedInPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Tagged Alex Epstein, Blake Snyder, David Milch, John Truby, Screenwriting, William Goldman, Writers Resources [...]