Been thinking a lot about formulas for writing these last few days - since watching a fascinating (!) program shown in the UK a few days ago called What Makes A Masterpiece. UK viewers can watch online at http://www.channel4.com/programmes/what-makes-a-masterpiece/4od . For all I know, the link may work overseas as well... The presenter was so utterly determined to prove that there was a formula for creating the perfect film script that he refused to accept the word of anyone he interviewed, including Robert McKee. Instead, he ploughed relentlessly on, made an animated film, and pronounced it scientifically 'perfect' because an invited audience agreed it was fairly creepy in places. Also featured bad statistics (5.5 out of 10 is "average", but 6.5 is "very high", apparently). Haven't laughed so much in months... But seriously, people will have watched this and assumed that writing is nothing more than following set rules. No wonder there are so many bad scripts in the world...

I'm one of those that tried to read the scholarly text you mention, but ended up turning to a distillation called "The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers". I thought it was great for laying the foundation, but as you note, following a formula only takes you so far.

I have to agree with Kaplan to an extent. I love Campbell, and he's guided me to a degree in some of my work. But he is not the be-all end-all he's made out to be. I was sent a treatment for an assignment recently on which the original writer had imposed a Campbell structure to the outline of his action-thriller. It was like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Not every journey is a hero's journey, and there are great hero's journeys that do not abide by Campbell's findings. I'm glad I didn't discover his work at the beginning of my career -- I wonder if knowing that his structure was the standard would have limited my thinking.

That is, I agree with Scott that the issue is the writers, not Campbell himself.

Bravo, Scott! Intensely valuable, instructive thinking here, as always. That said, you can lead horses to water, but...if the pumps don't work 'cuz the vandals stole the handles...you get last year's studio slate and box office numbers -- wrought by legions that are late for the sky... Rock on. Can't wait for part 2 tomorrow.

Wrote a similar piece about this way back, called, "What to do with parents?" http://www.blog.philipisles.com/2011/04/universal-kids-lit-question-what-to-do.html

I find Dan Harmon's distillation of Campbell to be very helpful, particularly because it is general enough to apply to all stories. Each "step" can be satisfied in various ways, rather than one definite type of action. I think that stuff will be my entry into Campbell at some future date. I'll dig up and post those links later tonight, hopefully.

I have lately really been embracing this hero's journey stuff. I had resisted because I don't care for the terminology that much, it feels very jargony etc. But when you think about what it means, why it exists, what I've found is that it is completely applicable to every major development of my life: event, resistance, struggle, change. When I realized that the hero's journey is not some screenwriting template but an actual pattern of human lived experience, that was the moment I realized how useful/meaningful it could be.

Joseph Campbell is for screenwriters what Stanislavsky or Meisner is for actors. You learn it because it's important. Because it's part of your history as an artist. Because it is tried and true. Then at some point you let it be a part of you and let go. And let it "fly like a big ass bird", as one of my old theatre professors used to say.

I wish I had time to comment on each of your responses as they all have merit and they all shine a light on Campbell re screenwriting. However I don't. I will try to pick up on things over the next couple of days. But thanks so much for your feedback!

Campbell is great and spot on. But hugely misunderstood. Recommend everyone look at Kal Bashir's version of hero's journey, which is just superb and answers a lot of the misconceptions about it. Kal's version is a big advance on Campbell's work and a much better take than Vogler's.

I'll agree with Ben here. There are so many directions you can take the ideas of myth. The possibilities are endless. To me, Campbell just opened up more colors to paint with.

The power of Campbell's work, for me, is in identifying of how we, as humans, commonly respond to structure. The kinetic response a sequence of events, words and images can have to affect a psyche. This is what I enjoy about writing and filmmaking. I concur with your sentiment Scott. He was a genius and a gifted researcher. We all better understand ourselves because of his work.