Whats the best way? putting this out there for debate

DannyG · Jun 6, 2004

To elaborate on my previoius post in the not-so-fitting cinematography forum, heres a couple bits from that book I mentioned:

It would be bad enough if the Syd Fields and Robert McKees were just swiping money from those who don't know better. But they are also spewing a simplistic dramatic theory that has wreaked havoc on the state of writing in Hollywood. By emphasizing the three-act-and-two-plot-point structure über alles, Syd Field has, more than anyone else alive, strangled dramatic writing in Hollywood. Sure, three act structure is a proven template for dramatic storytelling. But it's not the only structure, and a good writer knows that structure is dictated by content, not the other way around. It is because of Fields' simplistic teachings that Hollywood executives now read screenplays by glancing at page 30 (the first plot point) and page 90 (the second), and then tossing them away--anything that departs from this structure is dismissed as bad writing.----Pop quiz:

Q: How many acts are there in Hamlet? Romeo and Juliet? Julius Ceasar? King Lear?

A: Each has five acts.

Q. How many acts in Long Day's Journey Into Night? The Crucible? Waiting For Godot?

A: Four, four and two.

Clearly these hacks, these so-called writers named Shakespeare, O'Neill, Miller and Beckett know nothing about dramatic structure. If they were real dramatists, like Syd Field, they would know that a drama can only be in three acts. It's a shame this Shakespeare guy isn't alive--if he were he could plunk down a couple hundred bucks and learn from Robert McKee the correct way to write a drama. ---Not that Mario Puzo and George Lucas aren't reasonably good hacks--it's just that Ibsen and O'Neill and Shaw are a lot better. Why bother to learn from the B-student (Puzo or Lucas), or from the B-student's B-student (McKee or Field) when you can learn directly from the master? And best of all, on top of being the best teachers, the masters won't charge you a cent.

Credit goes to Karin Kelly and Tom Edgar for the above clips from the book Film School: Confidential 1997, Berkley Publishing group.

Anyway, my point being, we've all gotta be careful when we go to school. How do we keep a mindset of learning what we need to without constraining our minds to what we are taught? It can be a dangerous scenario. If I knew nothing, and saw that Syd Field software (which I did) I'd likely be pretty convinced. There is the same potential for something similar to happen in any classroom. I guess its all about training your own brain to stay out of the box.

MarkG · Jun 7, 2004

Yeah, I agree, the by-the-numbers plot outline method has certainly done a lot of damage to Hollywood, and makes many movies extremely predictable when I watch them (in 'Sixth Sense', for example, I got the infamous plot twist within ten seconds of the pivotal line). That said, I'm not convinced that it's really as bad as the writer makes out, and impossible to sell a script which doesn't do the 'right things' on page 30 and 90.

DerekEastham · Jun 8, 2004

However,

While I agree that the "by the numbers" guideline hasn't helped writing too much... it's not the guideline that's wrong, but the industry perception of these guidelines as "rules."

These "guidelines" were meant to be a starting point for new writers. It's a great way to get started, and begin writing small.

However, what a good writer will do is expand on that.

For instance, just count how many acts are in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Arc. Thirteen!

Everyone needs a starting point, and that's what "by the numbers" is all about. Where people have and continue to go from there is up to them. It dosen't mean the Syd and Robert are clueless...
it means that their suggestions were lost in translation by the people who need to understand it the most.

That's my 2-cents on "by the numbers"