I think this quote is true - screenplays are stories and stories have a structure to them even if it's as simple as beginning, middle, and end. I don't think there is anything more fundamental than the fact that screenplays are structure.

Hey Scott. Just found out about GOYOQ, and I want to add my voice in thanking you for doing this. Maybe what Goldman was saying is that a screenplay has no room for error. If you don't nail the structure in this medium, everything falls apart. Whereas, perhaps in a novel there is more room for meandering. Not that I haven't seen movies meander, but perhaps there it's more obvious.

I got this from a discussion on the complex structure of network TV. Let's see if it rings any bells with a screenplay and Goldman's comment. A screenplay is like a house, requiring three elements to exist: floor, walls, roof. A way into the structure is needed, and that = door/protagonist. A way to look into and out of the structure is needed would = windows/emotional hooks. To make the house livable requires plumbing and fixtures, and that would = B story/concept/theme. If a house is going to sustain what takes place inside, it needs a power source, and that would = inciting incident/call to adventure/conflict. I could go on with this, but there's no need. Not that I ever argued against a script needing structure (it is structure or it's just a painting or photograph), but thinking of it in these terms helped me visualize that structure, rather than leaving it as an abstraction.

How you tell a story is important. It's the foundation of the narrative. Without structure a story is like a quilt with many loose parts and no coherent connection.

The means by which story unfolds literally IS the story. If it were told from a ifferent point of view, or emphasizing different events, or rearranging elements of time, the screenplay would be entirely different even if the narrative events were the same, and hence would tell a different story. Ideally, the elements of one’s screenplay should be so necessary and interdependent that if one element or line were missing the entire story would collapse.

Though our culture is mostly in tune with the process, watching a film is inherently a chaotic thing. Without the notion of structure or story, a film would be a series of images and random cuts incomprehensible to the viewer. Our minds would rebel against it. Without a discernible reason for cuts between pieces of film (or indeed for the images contained in a single shot), we would not be able to make sense of a film. The human mind is very good indeed at creating a rationale for odd things it experiences, but should a film remain elusive or not coordinate with the sense the human mind is trying to make of it, we will lose interest and decide there is no sense to be made of the film. But should the film prove to be predictable and understandable, while still surprising at times and thrilling at others, then we follow along. We want to be rewarded for the task it is to follow a film through the complicated task of watching it. Structure is what makes film make sense, and screenplays are where the structure is laid out first and foremost. A screenplay is where all the people making the film get on the same page. It is a tool to bring people together to make a film, and as such it is where the comprehensibility of the final product is to be found. This is why I think so many simplistic and formulaic screenplays get made. They are at least understandable to a wide variety of people. They provide the structure necessary to produce a filmed narrative and have people watch it. The great screenplays, however, are able to put more complex ideas about humanity on the screen in an understandable and accessible way. That's what I think Goldman means by screenplay is structure. It's an elaborate blueprint for a film, one that can be understood by an audience. Even single moments are precisely structured to help an audience successfully tell itself the story that the filmmakers wish to tell.

Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I thought I'd echo the point some of you made with this quote from veteran screenwriter Charles Bennett about writing a screenplay: “The construction is the most important goddamned thing. It’s like building a house–you have to build the outside properly before you put the bits and pieces inside afterward. Get your story, get your architecture right, and you can always add your dialogue afterwards. A story starts at the beginning, it develops, it works itself out, and it works up to its finale. The great essence of construction is to know your end before your beginning; to know exactly what you’re working up to; and then to work up to that end. To just start off and wander on the way isn’t any good whatever… because you’re wallowing.” Note the implied Three Act Structure. Also the importance Bennett puts on knowing the ending. Couldn't agree more. The ending shapes everything leading up to it. I would go one step further: The ending is implied in the beginning, at least insofar as it's tied to the 'destiny' of the Protagonist. So the very roots of the ending are present - or should be - in the beginning state of the Protagonist (in most Hollywood movies). So I concur with the sentiment that Plot = Structure, indeed, that is one of eight screenwriting principles creating the foundation for character-based screenwriting. But I subscribe to the theory that plot derives from character, so ultimately the structure of a screenplay is wholly dependent upon the relationship of the characters to each other, and the story universe. This path gives us the best shot at creating a vibrant, compelling and surprising narrative structure, not some lifeless paint-by-numbers formula.

Inspiring. As always *,*