Robert McKee's book on screenwriting - excerpt

C

combatentropy

Veteran
When I moved to Los Angeles, I did what many do to keep eating and writing --- I read. I worked for UA and NBC, analyzing screen and teleplay submissions. After the first couple hundred analyses, I felt I could write up in advance an all-purpose Hollywood story analyst's coverage and just fill in title and writer. The report I wrote over and over again went like this:

Nice description, actable dialogue. Some amusing moments; some sensitive moments. All in all, a script of well-chosen words. The story, however, sucks. The first thirty pages crawl on a fat belly of exposition; the rest never get to their feet. The main plot, what there is of it, is riddled with convenient coincidence and weak motivation. No discernible protagonist. Unrelated tensions that could shape into subplots never do. Characters are never revealed to be more than they seem. Not a moment's insight into the inner lives of these people or their society. It's a lifeless collection of predicatble, ill-told, and cliched episodes that wander off into a pointless haze. PASS ON IT.​

But I never wrote this report:

Great story! Grabbed me on page one and held me in its embrace. The fikrst act builds to a sudden climax that spins off into a superb weave of plot and subplot. Sublime revelations of deep character. Amazing insight into this society. Made me laugh, made me cry. Drove to an Act Two climax so moving that I thought the story was over. And yet, out of the ashes of the second act, this writer created a third act of such power, such beauty, such magnificence I'm writing this report from the floor. However, this script is a 270-page grammatical nightmare with every fifth word misspelled. Dialogue's so tangled Olivier couldn't get his tongue around it. Descriptions are stuffed with camera directions, subtextural explanations, and philosophical commentary. It's not even typed in the proper format. Obviously not a professional writer. PASS ON IT.​

If I'd written this report, I'd have lost my job.



--- Story, by Robert McKee (http://www.amazon.com/Story-Substan...1685/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297740059&sr=8-1)
 
It ain't holy scripture, but it's a great read, and he makes a lot of good points. The book will at least make you a less terrible writer. :)
 
The great thing about this book is that it's not just another how-to manual touting 'sure-thing' structure formulas. This is a story philosophy book similar to Linda Seger's works. IMO, a lot of beginning screenwriters whose scripts I read are in desperate need of starting from a book of this nature rather than the formulaic based ones. Not that I'm a proponent of distracting oneself from the process of creating by reading too many books on the process of creating. It's not a quick read, however, but it is available in audio form on iTunes!
 
The thing I appreciated most about the book was the description he provides for doing the actual work. You have your note cards, and outlines, and treatments...etc The bulk of the work of writing is the research and organization of the material long before FADE IN ever comes into play. Once you have all that it's so much easier in my opinion.
 
I purchased Kal Bashir's 510+ HJ pdf file. It is comprehensive, detailed analysis of the HJ beyond what you will ever see in any other book. That said, be warned it is a virtual product so no refunds if you do not like it. I also bought one of Kal's more specific templates, expensive and very very very thin (low page count)- in fact I asked for a refund but got none, so be warned and since it is a virtual product, PayPal will not intervene). I like the 510+ pdf for reference, but the specific templates I think are overpriced, imho. (510+ is also overpriced, but at least you get quite a few pages).
randall

Pene said:
Analysing the work of new writers is not going to help. You need to analyse films. I'm not a big fan of McKee. I prefer the hero's journey translations, such as Kal's at http://www.clickok.co.uk/index4.html
Click to expand...
 
Mckees book is good, but the more complex a theory of art gets, the less useful it is to a practicing artist. That's why I'm not a fan of following Heroes Journey either. Too paint-by-numbers. Occam's Razor: when two theories explain something equally well, choose the simpler.


This is the real secret kung fu manual, if you're looking for one:

http://www.amazon.com/Story-Sense-Screenwriters-Guide-Television/dp/0070389969


[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]
 
memento515 said:
Mckees book is good, but the more complex a theory of art gets, the less useful it is to a practicing artist. That's why I'm not a fan of following Heroes Journey either. Too paint-by-numbers. Occam's Razor: when two theories explain something equally well, choose the simpler.
Click to expand...

Definitely. None of the books out there are really going to tell you much of anything that you don't already know if you have some idea when it comes to story structure. Write the film you would want to see....maybe?
 
I'm sorry, but seeing major spelling/grammatical mistakes in a script is just as much of a hindrance in taking you out of the "moment" as it would be to see a car in the background of an 1800s period drama.
 
Gary Huff said:
I'm sorry, but seeing major spelling/grammatical mistakes in a script is just as much of a hindrance in taking you out of the "moment" as it would be to see a car in the background of an 1800s period drama.
Click to expand...

Well, a careful look at most films will reveal a number of such 'goofs'. In "Gladiator"(2000), there one memorable goof where a person in ordinary modern attire can be seen 'backing out of a shot' with his pant legs showing, as the rest of his body is covered with the head/neck of a horse... but it's there... In "Spartacus"(1960) there's a truck that drives behind some of the Roman Republic era lines of soldiers... to my knowledge most of these sorts of goofs do not result in people walking out of the theater in a huff.

And beyond those sorts of 'goofs', even when grammatically and spellingly correct, I found it difficult to watch HBO's "Rome" series because of the various 'goofs', such as the finale with Octavian's mother in attendance as he heralds his victory over Marc Antony. She had in the 'real story' died some years before... but the Rome series kept her around, in addition to adding a tendency to scheming, that was not noted in the contemporary records, although later roman women of status were noted for their tendencies in that regard.

I realize these are beyond the 'anachronisms' found in analogy, but they do take one 'out of the story', and for me more forcefully than a misspelt word.
 
Read the book, didn't find it incredibly useful when I was starting out, when it comes to theoretical scriptwriting books, id also read syd fields book http://www.amazon.com/Screenplay-Foundations-Screenwriting-Syd-Field/dp/0385339038
Mckee's writing is often pompous and it kind of irritated me at times, and anyway with these scriptwriting books i always ask the question, 'what did the author write which was so awesome to qualify as a scriptwriting guru?'
When you are done with theory, get practical and straight to the point with Pilas Alessandra's 'The Coffee break screenwriter' http://www.amazon.com/Coffee-Break-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1298446056&sr=1-1
 
I thought McKee's "Story" was excellent. Read it twice.

Equally excellent, and quite usefully different, is Dara Marks' "Inside Story".

In any case, McKee's point as illustrated in the OP's quote concerns the preeminent importance of storytelling, which IMHO he rightly isolates as the key shortcoming in most beginning (and not so beginning) screenwriters' work - my own earlier works included. I hope that I have adequately left those days behind me. I can certainly say that my awareness of the paramount importance of high-quality storytelling has risen about 1000% since then...
 
I've always thought books on writing were odd and possibly dangerous. Like, I understand how understanding language helps the writer, or brush techniques help the painter, or knowing that drawing the shapes of a thing before going in for the final pencils can help the artist; the science of lighting in film for the cinematographer, et cetera, but why would a writer want another writer to tell them (or suggest to them) how to write? I've always been repulsed by books on writing because they're always encouraging writers to write as someone else writers; and worse, sometimes suggest that the writer should write the way the writer of the instructional book writes. That's why most everything we read or see in the theatre is so similair and formulaic. It's not just because studios and publishers are saying "This works, let's keep doing the same thing!" it's also because that's what they're given to sell.

If you read books on writing by successful writers (Mamet, King, etc), I've found that they usually decide that they can't tell you how to write; they simply say, "This is what I do, this is what works for me and it probably won't work for you because we're different people," and it's always different. I think a lot of these books on writing are at best giving the writer some notion of collective and at worst are taking advantage of people who think that reading a book is going to make them a better storyteller. Books on grammar can make you a better writer, but I don't believe anything besides living and dreaming is going to make someone a better storyteller.

But then I'm not Robert McKee, I'm me.
 
Chamber005 said:
I've always thought books on writing were odd and possibly dangerous. Like, I understand how understanding language helps the writer, or brush techniques help the painter, or knowing that drawing the shapes of a thing before going in for the final pencils can help the artist; the science of lighting in film for the cinematographer, et cetera, but why would a writer want another writer to tell them (or suggest to them) how to write? I've always been repulsed by books on writing because they're always encouraging writers to write as someone else writers; and worse, sometimes suggest that the writer should write the way the writer of the instructional book writes. That's why most everything we read or see in the theatre is so similair and formulaic. It's not just because studios and publishers are saying "This works, let's keep doing the same thing!" it's also because that's what they're given to sell.

If you read books on writing by successful writers (Mamet, King, etc), I've found that they usually decide that they can't tell you how to write; they simply say, "This is what I do, this is what works for me and it probably won't work for you because we're different people," and it's always different. I think a lot of these books on writing are at best giving the writer some notion of collective and at worst are taking advantage of people who think that reading a book is going to make them a better storyteller. Books on grammar can make you a better writer, but I don't believe anything besides living and dreaming is going to make someone a better storyteller.

But then I'm not Robert McKee, I'm me.
Click to expand...

It's a fine line with these books. There is value in learning the basic structure of things. Most scenes and stories do share basic structural similarities, and l think one should understand them. When you build a house you have to know the basic elements you need to have a structure that doesn't collapse. But too many books do go beyond offering a framework and start telling you how you should write. Any book that offers more information than is found in Aristotle's Poetics is probably suspect. I found McKee's book way too schematic. The most valuable aspect for me was his chapter on theme. Personally, I got more out of this book, which isn't even about screenwriting--

http://www.amazon.com/First-Five-Pa...743X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298646625&sr=8-1
 
I confess that I did read the Writer's Digest series The Elements of Fiction Writing when I was in highschool. And I suppose at that age with a very limited literary background, it did help me start off in the right direction with regards prose. In the end, though, the only two books that have ever been of any real value to me as a writer are Grammar 101 by Claudia Sorsby (174 page pocket book) and Strunk and White's The Elements of Style (85 pages and the bible so far as I'm concerned). Again, though, to me, anything beyond grammar and basic structure is fluff.

HOWEVER, if you're writing sitcoms or episodic dramas, etc. then of course you should dabble in things like Straczynski's The Complete Book of Scriptwriting because there are some very specific expectations and formatting principles that are critical for presenting a professional front to potential buyers. I would be lost writing animation scripts if not for this book.

I've read the few books I've mentioned here cover to cover at least five times each (Elements of Style I've probably read fifteen or more). You're better off re-reading something imperative than searching new and strange material for some vague nugget of inspiration. Reading what other writer's say about how to write can be interesting and even thought-provoking, but I don't think it's going to make someone a better writer any moreso than if they'd read a book on photography. What we can gleam from reading what writers say about writing is how to develop good habits, discipline and professionalism. In the end, though, writers write and storytellers tell stories. That's it.
 
Chamber005 said:
I've always thought books on writing were odd and possibly dangerous. Like, I understand how understanding language helps the writer, or brush techniques help the painter, or knowing that drawing the shapes of a thing before going in for the final pencils can help the artist; the science of lighting in film for the cinematographer, et cetera, but why would a writer want another writer to tell them (or suggest to them) how to write? I've always been repulsed by books on writing because they're always encouraging writers to write as someone else writers; and worse, sometimes suggest that the writer should write the way the writer of the instructional book writes. That's why most everything we read or see in the theatre is so similair and formulaic. It's not just because studios and publishers are saying "This works, let's keep doing the same thing!" it's also because that's what they're given to sell.
Click to expand...

I don't think that degree of cynicism is at all appropriate.

What I've learned from screenwriting books has been enormously helpful, and the specific things I've learned have earned specifically-related praise from people who've read several of my works over a considerable length of time (and with whom little or no discussion of my training during that time took place). In other words, the stuff I learned from those books made me a better writer according to knowledgeable outside critics. That's plenty good enough for me.

If you read books on writing by successful writers (Mamet, King, etc), I've found that they usually decide that they can't tell you how to write; they simply say, "This is what I do, this is what works for me and it probably won't work for you because we're different people," and it's always different.
Click to expand...

But those are great writers, who as a group are by no means automatically great teachers.

Ever notice how almost all of the greatest film directors of all time are non-actors? Yet they excel at *directing* acting. Seems impossible, right? I mean, how can someone be a master at *directing* someone else at something they themselves don't do well? Or perhaps even *don't do at all*.

Same thing applies with teachers. The best of them may or may not be successful writers themselves, but conversely, the best writers may or may not be effective teachers. I sure know plenty of highly successful artists in a number of fields who are perfectly dreadful at explaining their process and how it works for them.

Teaching and 'doing' are completely separate skills, and we need both kinds of people in the world, regardless of how they are at doing the 'other thing'.

My $.02
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top