Clarification on point one
In my previous post on How to write a scene, I wrote that the first question a screenwriter should ask is, “What needs to happen in this scene?” Not only that…
Many screenwriting books will tell you to focus on what the characters want. This is wrong. The characters are not responsible for the story. You are. If characters were allowed to control their scenes, most characters would chose to avoid conflict, and movies would be crushingly boring.
As I typed this, I anticipated a sea of hands shooting into the air, a chorus of But! But! Buts! So I added a lengthy disclaimer in which I wrote about terms like “character driven” and “character motivation.” But then I decided to cut it, just to get the reaction:
John, are you fucking retarded? A character must act his character not what’s most convenient for you. — Chris
Now that Chris has lectured the professional screenwriter on the craft, we can take a look at why I stand by my point.
We’ve all seen dull, mechanical movies where the characters are pretty much spectators. The story is driven by external events, without any real engagement or decision-making by the so-called hero. Sure, at times they may discover information or get in a gunfight, but they’re basically zombies. Plot-bots.
This is a fundamental structural issue, not a scene problem. From the conceptual stage, the characters were placed in the wrong seat of the car. They’re in the passenger seat, staring out the window, when they should be behind the wheel. The best scene-work in the world isn’t going to solve this problem.
Remember: This is a tutorial about how to write one scene. The first question is, “What needs to happen in this scene?” Or, to rephrase it, “What do I need to show the audience?” Yes, the character should be responsible for his or her actions and decisions inside the movie, but you, the writer, are responsible for deciding which moments the audience gets to see.
Think of yourself as a documentary editor. You have hundreds of hours of footage. Which bits are you going to use to tell your story?
In your movie–an inspiring drama set against the majestic backdrop of Alaska–the hero may want to win the igloo-building championship to prove his dead architect father’s theories correct and reconnect with his Inuit half-brother. But in this particular scene, what needs to happen is that the judges rule that ice blocks must be quadrilateral, thus thwarting the hero’s geodesic ambitions.
Clear? Great. Now let’s talk about situations when “what a character wants” does become scene-specific.
Actors and directors often talk of “character motivation,” using phrases like, “What’s the character’s motivation in this scene?” That’s a valid if somewhat dispiriting question, particularly on the set; either they’ve shown up without doing their homework, or the script really is that confusing. You may find yourself explaining that the hero is trying to rescue his son from the avalanche because he loves him.
If you re-read my how-to, at no point was I advising forcing your characters to act against their natures. But I was telling you to take control. My post was about writing a single scene, and a single meandering scene can derail a script. The argument that, “But my hero really wanted to watch TV for a couple of hours!” won’t win you accolades for your dedication to the craft.
Articles
January 10th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
I didn’t say anything after the on-rush of comments (shall we call them complaints?) about your previous “scene” post.
But this post, like a good scene, has accomplished a number of tasks simultaneously and efficiently, if I may be so bold to say so.
1) By being able to boil your point down to a clear explanation, you handily prove why you are a professional screenwriter.
2) The fact that you had to actually spell this out in big block letters proves that you are in no immediate danger of losing that position.
Truly, I mean no offense to the other posters, but before you start quoting screenwriting books, check how many scripts the author has had produced.
It’s a fair question to ask.
January 11th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Perhaps I’m not getting the problem here, but I’ve always worked under the assumption that a character and their actions go hand in hand. If, for example, I’m working on a scene and I find out I what the scene needs is counter the way I’ve written the character I think it’s a problem with the character and not the plot. I’ll go back and alter the character. This will invariably mean I’m having to go back and alter some other scenes to fit the character change, but it’s a hell of lot better than having a character going against his “nature” as I’ve designed it. Of course, I’m hoping that before I even get to the character/plot Sophie’s Choice I’ve created a character so well defined that they can in effect create a plot for themselves. That is metaphorically speaking for all your literalists.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:58 am
But, hang on. What’s going to happen to the hero’s geodesic ambitions? Are you just going to leave us hanging like that? Damn you August, you’re just stringing us along here.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:00 am
Agreeing with Earl Newton. It’s surprising how many screenwriting books are written by people who aren’t produced screenwriters. A lot of them seem to be ex or working script readers, which is a valid profession, and certainly one of looking at a screenplay. However, surely a working screenwriter has the most valid advice to give?
I’m, like a lot of people who read and post on this site, an aspiring screenwriter, and I’ve read a few screenwriting ‘how-to’ books. However, the best advice that I’ve got is from blogs like this and Jane Epenson’s, the two William Goldman books, and from speaking to working writers in the flesh. They’ve got past all the script readers, after all.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:36 am
“Retard” reminds me of that one scene from Being John Malkovich… c’mon Mr. August, when are you and Charlie Kaufman going to do an existential buddy comedy?
January 11th, 2007 at 6:42 am
“As I typed this, I anticipated a sea of hands shooting into the air, a chorus of But! But! Buts! So I added a lengthy disclaimer in which I wrote about terms like “character drivenâ€? and “character motivation.â€? But then I decided to cut it, just to get the reaction:”
No fair - that’s entrapment
Since I was the first to fall into your punjii stake trap, I should point out that if you’d explained yourself better in the first place, as you have here, I wouldn’t have bothered posting in the first place. Your first draft needed a polish, and has now passed the readers, with a weak recommend
Touché,
R.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:02 am
“the judges rule that ice blocks must be quadrilateral, thus thwarting the hero’s geodesic ambitions.”
I HATE it when that happens.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Funny thing, some stumble about a bit of advice and feel inclined to bombard an A list scripe whose movies have grossed well over half a billion dollars with screenwritiong 101 wisdom… Why not think, hey, this kid’s an A list scripe whose movies have grossed well over half a billion dollars, maybe I should think about what he said before my greasy fingers put aside the Hustler and assault the keyboard? Think, people, think! You might learn something.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Hey John, Are you fucking retarded?
….no; wait. That was really good advice. That other guy is retarded.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:27 am
I think a lot of value can be had out of creating rich,interesting characters and letting them drive their own destiny- if you’re writing a novel. A screenplay, IMHO, requires a great deal more economy. I think that if the question “what needs to happen in this scene?” isn’t met with a compelling answer, then you don’t have a scene.
Keep the craft posts coming and congrats on the BUZZ around El Nueves.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:54 am
“I think that if the question “what needs to happen in this scene?â€? isn’t met with a compelling answer, then you don’t have a scene.”
That’s what rewriting is for.
I see where you are coming from, and really, I think the answer falls in the middle (as does everything else worth arguing about). A good plot unfolds naturally and logically from premise to conclusion, and good characters are a part of that. A writer friend of mine once said, “I think of a conflict situation, and then I think of characters who would be the worst suited to deal with that situation, and that’s who I throw in the mix.”
January 11th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I’m kind of glad you chose to address that post because not only did you back up your theory but you drove the point home. To say that a character drives a story, yes, on some level that’s true but not entirely. Characters make choices. That’s what gets them from point A to point B but you, as the writer, make the character choose based on the situation you put them in.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
I totally got you on the first round, John, it’s the other guy that was retarded.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
“Funny thing, some stumble about a bit of advice and feel inclined to bombard an A list scripe whose movies have grossed well over half a billion dollars with screenwritiong 101 wisdom… Why not think, hey, this kid’s an A list scripe whose movies have grossed well over half a billion dollars, maybe I should think about what he said before my greasy fingers put aside the Hustler and assault the keyboard? Think, people, think! You might learn something.”
Yeah, because as we all know financial grosses are the pure definition of quality. That’s why McDonalds make the greatest food in the world.
R.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
It truly is in between. You can’t have characters driving the plot because you’d never get anywhere, but you also don’t want plot driving the characters because they would turn out one dimensional. Anyway, I don’t think plot nor character drives the script. Not when I write. When I write, I drive the damn script. You create one to compliment the other, simultaneously. However, as a bonus the character you create may very well get you thinking about the plot in a completely different way and vice versa.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
“Yeah, because as we all know financial grosses are the pure definition of quality”
I never claimed they were. But I think it’s fair to say that if a writer’s films have grossed said amount it’s a pretty good indicator that he knows what he’s doing. And aspiros should listen and learn. People tend to forget that behind those dollar signs stand people, as in audience members who went to see a film and enjoyed the hell out of it because it was damn well written. Besides, analogies always fall short, but if I had to, was forced with a gun to my head to come up with the food equivilant to BIG FISH, BIG MAC would not come to mind. So shoot me.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:25 am
John, isn’t it also true you can get to the same scene by doing exactly the thing you’re arguing against?
So, you have your character whose motivation is to prove his father’s design in the igloo contest, but he’s thwarted because the competition organizer’s motivation is to preserve traditional values. Hence the ruling about block shape.
I guess it depends on whether that story is about the character being thwarted by circumstances or whether it’s about being thwarted by other people’s conflicting desires.
Both work, but each is a different story.
So it seems to me that whether the scene is character driven or not, really comes down to the type of story you’re telling.
But actually having that distinction is useful, because I’ll admit I tend to forget circumstances can intervene naturally in a character’s story, as well as other people’s stuff.
January 12th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Those of us who live in Igloos are desperatly trying to learn the ways of the world. I see now that when excanging opinions you americans sometimes start by saying ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED and then go on to make your point. Somehow I don´t think this is the best way to get a dialogue going. But what do I know, I will get back to eating yellow snow now.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am
I know quoting the Poetics is obnoxious, but I find it interesting that good old Aristotle himself felt that “most important of all is the structure of the incidents… character comes in as subsidiary to the actions.” It’s a bit frustrating that the majority of screenwriting books - which almost always owe their foundations to the Poetics - really do argue the “character first” approach, despite paying lip service to the importance of structure.
Of course it’s a chicken and egg issue, of course they’re linked, and of course you do your best to balance the two… but in terms of process, I always find periods where I’m forced to focus on one over the other, and it’s been a long, hard discovery for me to realize that structure really is primary. I think the character-first approach often feels better during the process, because it can feel more organic and surprising (e.g., “the characters just came alive in my head). But the results rarely do.
January 13th, 2007 at 2:29 am
I think the point people are trying to make is this:
This scene could go in several different directions.
He could rip the rule book to confetti, shouting “Rules! Did Michaelangelo follow the rules?” And build his igloo as the crowd rejoices. His half-brother hugs him.
He could go postal, shoot them all, and build his igloo with blood-flecked ice blocks, leaving it as a savage monument in the silent wasteland. His half-brother hunts him down and kills him.
He could run sobbing from the contest to collide with a sledge driven by an attractive Iditarod contestant and be nursed back to health in a cabin in the wilderness. Who needs half-brothers when you have True Love?
You know what needs to happen because you have an outline to guide you, presumably. But what if the hero seems to be acting out of character in order to get the outcome you want? Do you ignore this and carry on, or do you modify his character and go back and rewrite previous scenes so they are more in accordance with his modified character?
January 13th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I don’t see any conflict between stories built from character development and good structure.
I think where the problems with “character driven” movies arise, is when the screenwriter loses sight of the need to tell a story, because they’re too obsessed with making some deeply personal points about human nature.
Anytime a screenwriter sacrifices good story telling for self indulgent character “realism,” then I’m the first person to eject the DVD to go hunt for a good book.
I just can’t see the point of throwing out character development, per se, as a screenwriting tool just because some people use it to justify poor story telling.
Hell, if we eliminated a development technique every time some used it to create a bad scene or even a bad movie, we’d be left with no technique at all.
In my opinion, character development alone won’t create movie, anymore than structure alone will. It’s not an either or choice, a good script needs both.
And let’s face, Arisotle only wrote the poetics because he couldn’t get his screenplays into production! LOL
January 30th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Thanks for the clarification, mr. August.
(But then I remember all this is from the guy who wrote a freudian-bullshit-backstory for Willy Wonka).
The way I see it is this: YOU -as a writer- have the control. But you CAN´T betray your caracters just because you wrote the plot first. Or because the studio sent you notes. You know, those helpful emails helping you with clarity, pace and rhythm.
I think if you already established your character as an Ivy League nerdy matematician, you CAN´T write an ending where he kills all the villains ninja-supersayayin-style, only because he gets mad. Or making a character forgiving another character just because you are in the third act and you
re running out of time. Or, if you already established a character as important, you can´t forget him/her (=no story line) just because he or her serves no porpuse to the All Sacred Three Aacts-Eight Fucking Sequence-Campbellian plot.re wrong.I was always annoyed about the French wife in Big Fish. I mean, this movie was released nine months after the US invaded Irak. And you have this French girls listening to this American Patriarch telling his big epic stories about Corea, killing nameless comunnists and saving the world. And, well, this french obviously intelligent girl stayed in silence? Just because you created a character and then, in the All Sacred Plot, you forgot about him/her?
Well, after all, maybe the unproduced screenwriters aren´t corrupted (just because they still don´t have the chance). Anyway, mr. August, I honestly have nothing against you. I just started to write a post and I came up with this. And it´s because I think you
February 17th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Its gone awfully chilly in here.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Gotta reply to lippyone’s comment that a novel is different.
It’s exactly the same. If author doesn’t decide what needs to happen in this scene and set everything up to that’s the case, then you get the meandering scene that goes nowhere.
It all applies in exactly the same way. Writing dramatically is writing dramatically.