Rethinking motivation
I’m in the planning stages of my next project, which is honestly my favorite part of the writing process. There’s no emotional cost to killing unwritten scenes, no niggling logic flaws, no exhaustion at page 72.
Plotting a movie is mostly figuring out who the characters are, and what obstacles they’ll face. In film school, we were taught to look at character motivation as the combination of two questions:1
- What does the character want?
- What does the character need?
The implication is that your characters should be able to articulate what they want (true love, the championship, revenge) at or near the start of the movie, but remain clueless to what they truly need (self-respect, forgiveness, literacy) until quite late in the story.
The screenwriter-creator leaves explicit prayers unanswered, but performs subtle psychological revelation so that the characters exit profoundly changed.
Like most screenwriting hackery, this want-vs-need concept works just often enough to seem useful. You can trot out the familiar examples. Every character in The Wizard of Oz can be addressed this way (the Scarecrow wants a brain, but needs to realize just how smart he is). Ditto for The Sound of Music, though it gets a bit vague amid the younger Von Trapps.
Of my films, Big Fish and Charlie and Chocolate Factory come closest to fitting this template, though it requires a bit of hammering to get there. In Big Fish, Will Bloom begins the movie wanting to find the truth in his father’s tales, but he ultimately needs to accept that his father is contained within these tales. In Charlie, Willy Wonka wants an heir, but needs a family.2
Bolstered by these two examples, I spent a few hours this week looking at the characters in my project through the want-vs-need lens, before finally concluding it is complete and utter bullshit. Trying to distinguish between characters’ wants and needs is generally frustrating and almost universally pointless. The fact that I can answer the question for Big Fish and Charlie after the fact doesn’t make it a meaningful planning tool.
I’ve written about character motivation a few times, but hadn’t thought it necessary to define my objectives. But I think it can be simplified down to a single question:
Why is the character doing what he’s doing?
Here’s what I like about this definition:
It scales well. You can ask this question about a character in a specific scene (”Why is he trying to get in the bank vault?”) or the entire movie (”Why is he racing in the Iditarod?”)
It implies visible action. Characters in movies need to do something. That sounds obvious, but you’d be surprised how many scripts slather motivation on like spackle to fill the holes. ( “He has OCD because his father abandoned him.” Umm, okay, so why is he robbing a bank?)
It can be both concrete and psychological. In Go, why is Ronna trying to make the drug deal with Todd Gaines? (A) Because she’s about to be evicted. (B) To prove to her friends (and herself) that she can. Both are true.
When I started asking this question, many of my concerns with the project I’m writing slipped away. The problem wasn’t character motivation, but how I was looking for it.
That said, you need to be careful not to stop at the first easy answer: Why is he racing in the Iditarod? “To win the prize money.” The better answer will likely lead to a better story. Why is he racing in the Iditarod? “To beat his ex-wife, the five-time champion.” “To catch the man who killed his brother.” “Because the ghost of his childhood dog is haunting him.”
For the record, I’m not writing Snow Dogs 4.
- My recollection is that these ideas are featured in Syd Field, but I’m not inclined to look it up, for fear of sparking of an enraged tangent about how damaging I think most screenwriting books are. ↩
- Charlie Bucket *wants* a Golden Ticket, but *needs*…well, Charlie doesn’t really need anything, which is another argument for why [Wonka is the protagonist, and Charlie the antagonist](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2005/whats-the-difference-between-hero-main-character-and-protagonist). ↩
Filed under: Big Fish, Charlie, Projects, So-Called Experts, Words on the page, Writing Process
Articles
March 25th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Doesn’t Charlie kinda need….food?
March 25th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I don’t think Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Big Fish are good examples, though, since they were both novels first, and novels have a different modus operandi than movies. (Which is why novel adaptations in general are rarely a slam-dunk and more often a disappointment — not singling yours out for criticism, just pointing to a trend.) A movie envisioned as a movie from the get-go is more likely to focus on dramatizing the wants and needs of the protagonist, rather than on the more cerebral goals aspired to by novels (i.e., psychoanalyzing an individual, elucidating a world, delving into history, etc.). Had Citizen Kane or Casablanca been originally written in novel form, they might have focused on (respectively) exploring the corrupt history of publishing or probing the tortured minds of people whose lives were torn apart by war. And because of that, it would have been an uphill battle to turn either one into a good movie. But they were both original screenplays, and as a result each one does a great job of showing us troubled characters who never get what they ostensibly “want” but do get their true “needs” met in unexpected ways.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Please please please don’t let me dissuade you from what sounds like a hugely entertaining “enraged tangent about how damaging [...] most screenwriting books are.”
March 25th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Geez, John, don’t leave us hanging. Who is writing Snow Dogs 4??!
March 25th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I’m going through this same process on my current script…and while i has wonderful revelatory moment this weekend when I discovered my protagonists’ want vs. need, I started to wonder how necessary it really is. Thank you for codifying these thoughts as a neophyte such as myself receiving confirmation from someone with your talent and experience is always emboldening.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
That’s interesting. The want vs need thing hasn’t really worked consistently in my thought process either. It always does come down to the much simpler “Why” question. I find if I have an answer that subverts the original question, then I’m on to something…
You’ve sort of confirmed my thinking a little here.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I agree with Nick, who is John to use his own movies as examples, tsktsktsk.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
@Tiny Writer:
Remember that the “need” is supposed to be something that the character doesn’t realize (or won’t admit) that he needs at the start of the story. Food doesn’t fit that definition.
@Nick:
The Godfather was a disappointment?
We need to move beyond the idea that adaptations are fundamentally different than originals. They really aren’t. If I showed you 100 movies, my hunch is you couldn’t tell me which ones were adapted from books unless you’d already heard that they were.
@KT:
Surprisingly, Darren Aronofsky.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“Want vs Need” may be useful for beginners to think of characters in three dimensions. Acting classes have all sorts of stupid, useless exercises, which everyone should do once. The danger is when people cargo-cult.
I think Mamet’s take fits into your philosophy. In “Three Uses of the Knife,” he says real people aren’t deep thinkers. So while a character’s ultimate want may be “to start over,” their only goal right now is “successfully rob this bank.”
March 25th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I’m a little confused. This post explicitly states that the want-vs-need dichotomy of film school lectures is “complete and utter bullshit.” In footnote 2, you link to an earlier post where you highlight that movies generally follow precisely that “rule,” and then use that “rule” repeatedly as the backbone for your explanation of Charlie and Wonka’s dramatic roles.
What’s extra confusing to me is that I feel a strong sense of agreement with both posts. (I guess I should have read about squirrels.) I’m sure that the best use of the want-vs-need lens falls somewhere in between the Holy Grail of Film School and deceptive-to-the-point-of-hurting-your-growth bullshit.
But I’m not sure where in that vast gray space this falls. Could you clarify? Is it useful, but over-touted? Is it, as taught, missing the real point - but well-intentioned? If an analytical tool is “complete and utter bullshit,” why can (or should) we look at most movies as “generally following” it?
March 25th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
@John August:
I didn’t say all movies adapted from books are a disappointment, only that most of them are. And I think that’s true. (Sure, most original films are disappointments, too, but usually for different reasons.)
Look at The Da Vinci Code. As a book it was never going to win a Pulitzer, but it was a hell of a fun read that kept the reader turning the pages. It was given a big budget, big stars, big behind-the-camera talent. And it didn’t work at all. Why not? Why couldn’t a fun, popcorny book translate into a fun, popcorny movie? Probably because the filmmakers tried desperately to keep in all the elements of the book that made it successful. And then it turned out that those elements didn’t work as a screenplay.
The Godfather worked (obviously), but not simply because it was a great book and great story. It was because (a) Puzo had real screenwriting chops and (b) with Coppola’s help, he was willing to make huge changes to its structure to turn it into a good screenplay. Same thing with The Princess Bride — Goldman absolutely did not hold his novel sacred; he just tried to write a good screenplay. And he did.
I’ll be honest about two things about your version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Number one: I think it was a very honest translation of the book, infinitely moreso than the previous incarnation. Number two: It didn’t work for me as a movie. Because at the end of the day it’s not a cinematic story. It gave Tim Burton a lot of cool visuals to play with, and a chance for Danny Elfman to win his way back into my heart with the song interpretations, but where was the primal story in it? I think to really be a great movie, it would have needed drastic changes to the plot. But, no, you can’t make those drastic changes because the book is sacred and the Roald Dahl fandom would crucify you for defiling it. Which is why it’s so damn hard to make a good book into a good movie.
You know what was a great book-to-movie adaptation? The Bourne Identity. And Tony Gilroy didn’t even read the book before writing the script. Because Doug Liman told him not to. I think they were on to something there.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Nick,
Most are disappointments? Really? Silence of the Lambs, Goodfellas, Lord of the Rings, Talented Mr. Ripley, Fight Club, Schindler’s List, No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Jaws, Children of Men, Stanley Kubrick’s entire filmography…and for the record, I kinda liked The Da Vinci Code, Tom Hanks’ hair not withstanding.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
@Mani:
I’m calling bullshit on “want versus need” as a necessary distinction in character motivation, and offering “Why is the character doing what he’s doing?” as a better question to ask.
But as I cited in the four examples above, a lot of times you can look at a finished movie and see why a character — a protagonist in particular — many enter the story seeking one thing, and exit the story having gained something different. That’s Wonka. He changes over the course of the movie, and ends up with the thing he initially rejected.
That’s not to say I needed to investigate want-versus-need before I put pencil to paper. I didn’t. I looked at the characters presented and realized Charlie didn’t have any reasonable place to arc, while Wonka was a reclusive weirdo who suddenly decided to let people into his factory. That was the fertile ground.
I could rewrite the old post I linked to, omitting the want-versus-need stuff. But that would be a little dishonest.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
@Gary:
I’d say those are the exceptions that prove the rule. You could argue that most sequels are bad and unnecessary, and you’d be right, but I could still bring up Godfather 2, Spiderman 2, X-Men 2, Toy Story 2, Empire Strikes Back, and so forth to dispute you.
Besides that — most, if not all, of the movies you list required huge changes to the source novels to make them more cinematic. Silence of the Lambs changed the POV from Crawford to Starling. The Shining was different enough from the book to make Stephen King complain. (A TV version made several years ago was supposed to be much more faithful to the novel, but do you hear anyone talking about it now?) I haven’t read the book Children of Men but from what I’ve heard, it bears almost no resemblance to the final film. Ditto L.A. Confidential (even though it’s not on your list). And yes, there are some books that were successfully adapted to the screen with little or no changes (Huston’s version of The Maltese Falcon, off the top of my head). But not most of them.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Not to mention Die Hard and Passion Of The Christ…
March 25th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Nick,
I’m not sure if you are aware of this or not, but the overwhelming majority of movies made before 1985 were developed from source material, mainly from books. Original screenplays were the “exception that proves the rule” before the mid 1980s.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Great post, John . . . it’s something Mystery Man on Film and I have been doogling back and forth quite a bit . . . many film characters’ actions seem to center around their goals (and goals, like Ronna’s need for rent money, are good) but their motivation is more important, primarily because it represents the characters emotional attachment to their actions.
I elaborate more in a post here called “Goals, Motivation and Use the Force, Luke!” http://writerjoshuajames.com/dailydojo/?p=694
And I agree with you regarding books to film - most of the time, many folks don’t know there was even a book (and sometimes the novelization comes after) . . . story is story.
And regarding the rant on demon screenwriting books - YES PLEASE!
March 25th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
@Nick Uh, I’d say it’s rather a leap to say the novel SILENCE OF THE LAMBS changed the POV from Crawford to Starling during the adaptation. In fact, I’d say that’s wrong, just my opinion, sorry.
In the novel, Crawford’s role was expanded (as was everyone’s including the bug guy who got to sleep with Clarice at the end) and Crawford had evidence of a relationship with Lector (a note when his wife died) but the character tying them all together is Clarice - in fact, there’s an interesting dynamic between her scenes with Jack and her scenes with Lector . . . two father figures fighting for prominence . . . it wasn’t as apparent in the film, but hints are there.
But to suggest that SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, the novel, is more Crawford’s story than Clarice doesn’t hold water. She’s the protagonist, not Crawford.
After all, Clarice is the one who hears the lambs screaming.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Nick,
I’d disagree that Dahl’s story isn’t cinematic. While I wasn’t a fan of the remake (sorry, John), the original adaptation is quite cinematic and a well-loved classic.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
If one were to make said movie. Say. The Einstein. The character Einstein should wish to confirm in his mind that the Universe is open/closed. Confident that his E=MC2 is correct he would return to his equation to conceive the answer to his need but, believing he is beyond E=MC2, he declares it as finished. In his life, he does not make this declaration and consequently does not find the answer to his question open or closed. Exiting life. Clueless to that which he truely needs, the answer to his soul’s haunting question of himself; open or closed. Not realizing he himself is his own equation. As all other matter becomes it’s own equation. Why then does he not realize that all is complete and closed as his equation has proven to be? He inevitably believes he is the author of E=MC2 when in truth he is merely the screenwriter of E=MC2. The author gives the final say. He is the final say. He is the closer as he was first, the opener. The screenwriter is the disciple to the creator.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Pardon me for being persnickety, but the race in Snow Dogs was called the “Arctic Challenge.” The Iditarod name was used in Chilly Dogs, featuring Cuba Gooding’s Chill Factor co-star, Skeet Ulrich.
Also, the only five-time champion of the Iditarod is a dude, but this is fiction we’re talking about.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
John -
Thank you for the clarification. You weren’t being “dishonest” in your earlier post to begin with; I was not understanding where to place that lens in the process of developing the characters (versus understanding them, versus reading them, etc.). Very insightful, and much clearer now.
March 25th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
John: When will you begin teaching (in a classroom) and where can I sign up?
Also, Grumpy: it is immeasurably satisfying to see that not only was someone willing to set the record straight on dog races, but you also knew that A) there is a five time champion of the Iditarod, and B) he is a man. My tail wags to you, sir.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
@Joshua James:
I was going off what Ted Tally said in “Screenwriters on Screenwriting”; as I recall, he said that he had to make the main character Starling instead of Crawford so that the story would work as a movie. Perhaps I misquoted/misinterpreted.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:51 am
On the other hand, “want vs. need” implies character development, while the simple “why” doesn’t.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:15 am
@Nick
No worries . . . Ted Tally’s a great screenwriter (and decent playwright), no doubt about it, but I think if you read the source material, you’d probably agree with me. Clarice gets the most face time in the novel, and she does the majority of the action . . . maybe Ted’s just being clever, heh-heh. Look one way, go another. Crafty screenwriter . . . Tricks are for kids!
March 26th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Interesting but kind of puzzling.
“Why is the character doing what he’s doing?” So you start by “designing” the action and then you read into the action to figure out what the motivations of the characters are?
Maybe I’m way off but it occurs to me that your sensibilities as an author may be theme-driven (or action-driven or plot-driven) and that your characters are kind of malleable. By which I mean you don’t start out with “fixed” characters (who they are, what their motivation is etc), instead you allow them to develop or keep evolving throughout the writing process.
March 26th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Thanks, John, for this. It’s exactly what I needed to get my main character off his ass and moving through the story. Unfortunately, I’m having to attack this problem after writing the first draft, but at least it’s being fixed.
One thing, though…What do you think about the following combination of the questions you mentioned:
I could see this working primarily on the scene level, but I guess it could also be used at the overall story level as well.
Thanks again!
March 26th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Why does the character think he does what he does….and why is he really doing it?
March 26th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I like the “Why is the character doing what he’s doing?” question better. If movies are event or action driven, this question forces you to think about the character’s motivation and desire through the context of their actions.
I don’t think want vs. need is the only way to approach character development, nor do I believe that a good movie requires its characters to have an arc. I read an interesting opinion recently about character arcs, and I will post the link if that’s ok. It makes sense to me that it’s more important to have emotional relevance to the character’s choices.
John, please don’t be deterred to publish a post about how damaging screenwriting books can be
One thing I noticed about screenwriting books is that, for the most part, they cover the same concepts in a similar format/organization, but they don’t target any screenwriters with a particular level of experience. A book about the tricks and proper formatting methods of screenwriting should probably be separate from a book that discusses advanced theories on character or story. Maybe I have not read enough screenwriting books…
March 26th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
@Walidk:
My experience with screenwriting books has been very reminiscent of Mark Twain’s quote about his father — “As a boy of 14… I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much he’d learned.” When I was working on my first script, the books seemed utterly useless, completely inapplicable to my own work. But as I’ve learned and matured on my own — through teachers, peers, and my own sweat — the same books have become infinitely more useful. No, the problems I am having are not unique and occurring only because I’m attempting a truly original story that has never been told; they’re actually textbook story problems that can be overcome through knowledge of the fundamentals of screenwriting methodology.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Why do you talk about screenwriting as if it is a noun when it is the mover of the noun? The horse that pulls the product to market. Does he become the ‘go to guy’ when the buyer looks at his non-shoed hoof and says “You carried this load without being shod yourself? The product is unacceptable for consumption. Is this any more rediculous than logic having anything to do with a product that is finished and must be packaged to try to sell it in any venue? Screenwriting is packaging. Satisfy the prospective buyer market and get on with it. If you didn’t create it why would one attempt to concieve they might re-create said. The writer of origin created the character development. Unless the screenwriter is one in the same the writer of origin. ‘Chew your bazooka, blow your bubble and pop the darn thing. There is nothing in it but air. Nothing.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
After I have written or developed the skeleton of the main characters into the story (pre-planning), I find myself asking three questions, or variations of them, to establish the character basics. It somewhat plugs into your idea of “why.”
I try to allow the character grow and develop while I write, using those questions to keep him in line.
I think the character “motivation” will shine through once his existence and role are put into perspective, but it’s all subjective though. This is just one of the ways I look at character development and it may be no better or worse than the “wants vs needs” process.
There are so many way to approach character development.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
“for fear of sparking of an enraged tangent about how damaging I think most screenwriting books are. “
John, I am completely new to screenwriting and have yet to write even a single word. I have a few ideas for some great movies but wanted to get a bit more of an understanding of screenwriting and what its all about. So i have been reading every screenwriting book i can get my hands on. And then I read this quote from todays posting. Why is it exactly that you think that screen writing books are so damaging? For a Nube like myself who has no connection to any other screenwriter and honestly no idea where to even begin (other then these books) are they not a great place to begin to understand the art of writing? I’m confused.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
@ Nick:
As a completely inexperienced screenwriter, books have helped me get started by introducing me to the fundamentals. They certainly have been/are very useful to me, and I am in agreement with you on that (although I did find them useful as a starting point). I think the danger in screenwriting books is when they present ideas or concepts as golden rules that can not broken. Sure there are fundamentals to forming a screenplay, but I think there’s also the danger of being told how to think (i.e. character development must be approached by the “what they want vs. what they need” method, every character must have an arc, etc…). Please keep in mind that a lot of this is new to me, so I am only presenting opinions for the sake of discussion and feedback (and your feedback is certainly valuable).
@ Andy: As said above, I personally find screenwriting books a good starting point and guide (I was just speculating how they may be damaging, but I guess that depends on the quality of the book). I find reading lots of screenplays and analyzing movies in both their filmed and written forms to be extremely helpful. Of course, there is no better way to learn anything than by actually doing it.
@ H.I. Beane: I think your method is a very good example of what is considered a screenwriting fundamental approached using your own creative thought process. I am in line with letting the character grow and develop as I write, but some would argue that’s because I haven’t plotted my story and characters in detail :]
March 27th, 2008 at 2:58 am
Nick, Puzo was a terrible screenwriter. I spoke with Tom Mankiewicz a while back (discussing Superman) and he agreed that the novelist was brilliant with prose but not when it came to writing a picture. Robert Benton told Tom that he shouldn’t bother reading Puzo’s Superman script.
Godfather the film is attributed to Coppola and probably “uncredited” writers rather than Puzo, who was a great novelist!
I was reading Truby’s book and he writes that if the character knows what he wants too soon then the film won’t be that compelling. An example:
Mr Bloggs needs to be rich so he’ll be noticed by aristocrat neighbours, so he robs a bank. He wants money to keep up with the Joneses. By the end, he realises he was rich all along, he didn’t need the money — just live a rich life.
Sorry, it’s a crap example.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:03 am
I just love this entire conversation. My first semester at USC was filled with Want vs. Need, and try as I might, 85% of the time, it failed to benefit me as a development tool. However, after reading my work, I would usually find them, much like the “Big Fish” and “Go” examples.
After half a semester in my current analysis class, I can pick out those wants, needs, life dreams, main tensions, culminations, etc. from films screened each week without blinking an eye, but the fact remains that I still haven’t used Want vs. Need as development tools in anything I’ve created recently.
I think my “new” attitude about Want vs. Need is that it’s little more than a great analysis tool.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:26 am
I think the want vs. need dichotomy is interesting bc, ime anyway, it’s true to life. It’s been true in my life, put it that way, but then again I’m neurotic. Hmm. Another way of looking at it is “illusion” vs. “reality”. For instance, at the beginning the character believes that her fiancee is the man of her dreams and the story arc involves her realizing he’s really an ass and she needs to dump him. Or: a character spends the movie trying to win his father’s approval and in the end realizes that it’s this futile quest for approval that is leading him to sacrifice his real dream. (Typically, most movies would end with the father giving the hard-won approval anyway, which always drives me nuts bc those kinds of parents never change. But I guess that’s another function of the movies: wish fulfillment.) Anyway, this premise also operates in real life, yeah? At least I think so. And I’d love to read a rant on screenwriting books. I read them and enjoy them, btw.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:02 am
@ Andy:
My advice to you is to read a lot of produced screenplays by established writers. There are hundreds of them freely available online to read and download etc. Read the screenplays, compare them to the finished films - especially if the finished film is a masterpiece. That way you’ll get an idea of what translates best to the screen. You might also be interested in the screenplays to bad films - because usually that’s not the fault of the screenwriter, and you’ll learn from those scripts too.
The “How To” screenplay textbooks are didactic garbage. They offer a template, and a template will not inspire you to write something amazing - it will inspire you to join the dots and fill the gaps.
Just write out all your ideas in any kind of random order, read lots of produced screenplays until you find a style you identify with, then try writing in a similar style. Your style will change as you go along, but it helps if you base it on another writer’s style to start with.
For god’s sake don’t get yourself tangled up in mind-numbing “theories” and “rules” of screenwriting. They only exist in the minds of the small-minded. (No offence to anyone like that here)
March 27th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Hey John,
Thanks for mentioning the want vs need. I’m around 70 pages into my script and “gasp” ran into a blank. I know how my script is going to end, but I need a few more scenes to get to that. However, I’m on a deadline and by posing that want vs need, I hope i can get back on track.
cool,
Mark
March 27th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I loved this post, John.
@Anna As a clinical psychologist turned screenwriter, I can vouch for the notion that we often behave without clear motivation, but that doesn’t mean our behavior isn’t motivated. In other words, it sometimes takes some problem-solving to determine the function of our behavior–why we’re doing what we’re doing.
What I loved about “Go” was exactly this recognition: the characters were often completely unclear about why they behaved a certain way. Which is true to life. And which we don’t often see in movies with clear “wants” and “needs”. Another great example of this ambiguity was in “Y Tu Mama Tambien”.
@Nick As God is my witness, when you’ve written half a dozen or more produced scripts, I will track down your blog and malign at least one. Dude! Why would you do that? Is it just the anonymity?
March 27th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
@Carrie:
How long have you been a screenwriter, exactly? I politely explained why the movie didn’t work for me; if anything, the only person I maligned was Roald Dahl (whose books I love, incidentally). If that kind of constructive criticism is too severe for you, I fear for your well-being as a writer.
P.S., the link to my blog is up there. Make sure you give me your email address so I can let you know when I sell a script and you can diss me. Looking forward to working with you!
March 27th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Nick,
She was just saying it’s a dick move to be wrongly brutal about a movie on the writer’s blog.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Thanks everyone. I think thats what i was shooting at from the beginning.. not that they were always the “golden rule” but more of a introduction to screenwriting. I believe that its important to learn from others who know the trade, but also to learn the concepts behind why they write the way they do and be able to use that to develop my own unique style. I just wanted to make sure that i wasnt scaring myself for life by continuing to read those books… so far no real damage.. just a minor twitching….
March 28th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Great post. Perfectly verbalized. Thank you.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
@Andy:
I think you’re exactly right — the larger the variety of sources one learns a trade from, the more likely he/she is to be successful at it. Screenwriting books are one of those sources… not the only one by any means, and not the best one either, but definitely worth taking a look at, if nothing else because they can help you see the same things in a different light that you already know intuitively but haven’t quite been able to put into words. For me, I think I shunned the books at the right stage of my development as writer (i.e., when I didn’t know enough for them to be useful), and am now coming back to them at the right time.
March 29th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I’m coming very late to this so, frankly, I sped past through the latter posts, but even if Nick made a few good points about not all books working as well on film, but that goes for many type of stories, adapted or not. Which is why those how-to books are, in one way or another, like having a car salesman, not a mechanic, fix your vehicle. Which is why the whole motivation soul-searching is dangerous, beyond merely picking out one out zillions of alternatives. I’m interested in the issue of screenwriting books, though, as traps, bait, illusion-inducing, etc.
March 29th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
sorry for the mangled english above, but I have a six year old son of a friend of mine badgering me about progressing through a chess game, so my apologies for the more than a few words missing in the last post (as I keep apologizing for rushing to print whenever I post here)
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:44 am
The “want” side of the equation makes sense — it’s important to be able to track a hero’s motivation from one scene to the next, even if said motivation is largely reactive — but I agree that an understanding a character’s “need” is b.s., the sort of nickel psychoanalysis that came into fashion in the ’50s (both on the stage, and the couch), and is still beloved by execs because it allows them to use their Ivy-league English degree. (In the execs’ defense, they usually don’t ask for a deeper understanding of need unless you’ve been unclear as to your character’s want.) All of that said, it can sometimes be a worthwhile exercise to give some thought to how a character attacks (or avoids) life, which might be defined as a kind of “need,” i.e. “I need order, which is why I became a cop, and also why I bark orders at my five year old twins as if I’m making a traffic stop.” Or the surgeon who chose the profession because she likes action, not navel-gazing, and needs always to feel in control, which bleeds over (pardon the pun) her private life…” But this kind of speculation about character is of secondary importance to their scene-by-scene M.O….