Some decent advice from Mamet

[Gary Huff]

yet people think theat the science (or art) of screenplays is merely a couple of books and some minor practice...

Yet it's Randall telling us:

I respectfully disagree. I think it takes more training (books, courses, or both) than what Mamet says to master writing a screenplay.

And I don't consider continuously writing screenplays to be "minor" practice. Writing a full-length screenplay is a lot of work, and you don't just write it once then put it away.

I'm telling you to save your money. Read a script that was turned into a film, watch that film, and read this note from Mamet and you'll have a great start. You don't need to go wasting your time and money on books and courses galore. Those mostly seem to serve as a way to let people excuse themselves from doing actual writing anyway.

 

[Batutta]

I understand where Randall is coming from, but I also believe there is no greater teacher than experience. I have no problem with someone understanding just the basics and then learning through practice. Writing is like golf, easy to learn, hard to master, and something tells me Tiger Woods didn't master his sport by reading a lot of books.

 

[USLatin]

I have to add that although Mamet's memo is excellent advice almost all the way through, I'm sure getting lectured to like a bunch of idiot schoolchildren probably went over like a lead balloon with the writing staff of The Unit.

PERHAPS THE WRITERS WERE ALREADY IN DEEP DOO-DOO BEFORE THE MEMO, AND THAT IS WHY HE WROTE ALL CAPS. PERHAPS HE ALSO WANTED TO SUBLIMINALLY DRIVE HOME THE FACT THAT ALL THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT IS contrast through visuals.

 

[lambert]

"You don't need to go wasting your time and money on books and courses galore. Those mostly seem to serve as a way to let people excuse themselves from doing actual writing anyway."
I have a friend with a nomination, he might have gone to college for a semester (no screenwriting classes).
I can think of at least half a dozen off the top of my head who have nominations who have no formal training. Not that a nomination necessarily makes you a great or even a good writer.
The really great writers I know figured out a way to be able to make writing the number one priority above family, sex, drugs, booze, whatever. Most aspiring writers aren't willing to go to those lengths and really never work hard enough to be really good.

 

[Gary Huff]

And to further add to lambert's point, I've heard a lot of advice from a lot of well-known writers and do you know what is common among all of them? They say write, write, and then write some more. They don't say to go out and buy a book on how to write, or take someone's 19-disc video course, or to enroll in a writing class.

They say to go write something. And when you're finished, go write something else.

 

[polfilmblog]

"They don't say to go out and buy a book on how to write, or take someone's 19-disc video course, or to enroll in a writing class.

They say to go write something. And when you're finished, go write something else."
​

There's an anti-intellectual bias here. Without constant education, and an open mind to learning, the writing will remain sophomoric and stilted.

Bill Martell had a great tip yesterday that touches this point.

http://www.scriptsecrets.net/tips/tip325.htm

"6) Be willing to learn. I don't understand why so many writers think they are right and the rest of the world is wrong. That's just crazy. Everyone can learn something - and there's something we all *need* to learn. You never reach the point where you know everything. When I was at Santa Fe teaching I took two classes during my free time. And I learned something. I know the learning thing has nothing to do with craft, per se, but it really has *everything* to do with it. If you aren't on a quest for knowledge you aren't doing the things that will improve your writing. You aren't reading scripts, you aren't studying films, you aren't reading novels, etc. The quickest way to becoming creatively dead is to think you know everything. I've been guilty of this in the past, and my writing suffered. The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."
​

Some comments border on: sit in a room and stew in your own ignorance with your word processor.

Isn't there way too much of that, already?

 

[Gary Huff]

Interesting...and what does Bill Martell do besides sell material about how to write scripts?

Some comments border on: sit in a room and stew in your own ignorance with your word processor.

So how do you account for the examples of successful writer after successful writer who doesn't go for those courses? Nobody is saying to be ignorant...but what the hell else are you going to learn from a screenwriting book or course if you can look at a script to see what the format is and then follow Mamet's advice?

 

[texvanwinkle]

Then how do you explain those masterful screenwriters who excelled in the craft before this kind of training was available?

They consumed books like oxygen, were steeped in a far more literate popular culture than we have today, and many were playwrights or novelists already.

In addition to all that, they were also learning quickly by experience in having to churn out films every few weeks.

I've been reading Frank Capra's autobiography lately--The Name Above the Title--and I cannot recommend it enough. READ THAT BOOK. Find it online, in a used bookstore (like I did), whatever. It's one of the best books I've ever read, of any kind. It's fall-down funny throughout, but also deeply poignant and a master lesson in how to just get out and make it happen, and learn by doing. They learned on their feet back then, and while today's situation in so many ways is far different from theirs, when it comes to the basics, so much is still the same.

Read it.

 

[Gary Huff]

It's fall-down funny throughout, but also deeply poignant and a master lesson in how to just get out and make it happen, and learn by doing. They learned on their feet back then, and while today's situation in so many ways is far different from theirs, when it comes to the basics, so much is still the same.

So how is this NOT what I've been saying all along?

 

[texvanwinkle]

Interesting...and what does Bill Martell do besides sell material about how to write scripts?

So how do you account for the examples of successful writer after successful writer who doesn't go for those courses? Nobody is saying to be ignorant...but what the hell else are you going to learn from a screenwriting book or course if you can look at a script to see what the format is and then follow Mamet's advice?

Bill Martell has sold at least a dozen scripts to various cable nets and straight-to-DVD ventures. He's a great guy making a nice living handing out the advice that works for him.

That said, I tend to take a middle road through all this.

Books and instruction can certainly help. I've bought probably a dozen books on screenwriting over the last fifteen years. Some were froth that I couldn't figure out why I'd paid money for, others were quite helpful. So much of screenwriting--writing in general--is knowing what questions to ask to generate the characters who'll drive your story. Lessons and books can be instrumental in helping you learn those questions, how best to approach your material to generate a strong narrative. Reading scripts, good ones and bad, can actually be one of the best ways to learn; I can't count the number of pros who've said they've been readers in the past and learned from what they read.

That said, those same pros also say three things more than anything else:

1) Watch lots of movies and *study them*--take them apart piece by piece to figure out what makes them work.

2) Read read read, everything you can get your hands on. Reading story helps you learn story.

3) Above all, write. Write constantly. Write as many scripts as you can. The general advice you see is that it will take around ten years or ten scripts before you get your first sale. Not always--the trades are full of exceptions--but for someone just starting out, someone who's not already a writer in some way already with that base of experience, that seems to be the average. You learn as you go, so you just have to persevere. Be the person who takes it one more step than the rest.

If anyone's curious, the best sources I've found for learning how to be a better screenwriter:

a) any official shooting scripts for the kinds of films you want to write;

b) Story by McKee;

b) So Your Mama Loves It by Sheila Gallien (now an e-book on the author's website; seriously);

c) Directing Actors by Judith Weston (it gets you thinking far more about how actors come to a character);

d) and the Wordplayer.com website screenwriting columns written by Terry Rossio (mostly) and Ted Elliot (Pirates of the Caribbean 1-3, Shrek, Aladdin, Mask of Zorro). The forum archives there are a goldmine as well, chockful of working screenwriters, some for many years, giving practical, lived advice on everything from options to step deals to if and when to move to L.A.

ADDITION: I'm quite confident in saying all of those will help someone learn to think more precisely about story, whatever training you have, and get a better feel for screenwriting in particular. But I don't think anyone needs much if any beyond those. After those, it's pretty much just practice.

 

[texvanwinkle]

So how is this NOT what I've been saying all along?

It's not so much. Did I say it was? I was buttressing your basic point.

 

[texvanwinkle]

EDIT: The hero's journey structure of course mimics our own life, which is why it works in crafting a story-- we relate to it has humans because it is a story of our life, so perhaps some gifted writers just latch onto that naturally? Just a thought.

Beware trying to make the hero's journey be an end-all, be-all. I've been advised on occasion to apply the hero's journey narrative to a story it really didn't fit, just because that narrative appeals to so many people and has worked so well in certain instances. But it's a very specific sort of narrative, and definitely isn't a universal one. If you ask the right questions, your story will begin to tell you which archetype/genre best fits it.

 

[texvanwinkle]

It's not so much. Did I say it was? I was buttressing your basic point.

Subtle, I should clarify a bit: I was mostly playing off Randall's question about which master screenwriters had no training. My point was that they had plenty of training, but of a different sort than he seems to be focusing on.

 

[Gary Huff]

Okay, thanks for clarifying, texvanwinkle. I think you posted some good resources in your larger post.

 

[Randall_Oelerich]

I am not talking about the HJ being an end-all, be-all, but I am talking about the HJ being a template to use for writing a successful story that sells and that leads to a produced film that is successful at the box office. You can certainly veer away from the HJ, many European films do. But as for American popular films (95+ percent which I would say utilize the HJ), how about listing ten blockbusters or at least very financially successful (profitable for the prodco) films that do not employ the hero's journey? It is hard enough writing a script that sells, I will stick to the hero's journey, as I believe it has the best chance at making a sale. I am talking a core HJ-- protagonist, inciting incident (catalyst), goal (visible, to resolve by the end of the story), midpoint, climax, resolution; three acts by virtue of those plot points; protagonist travels physically or emotionally from an ordinary world to a special world where the obstacles against the goal exist. One can of course expand on the HJ elements to enhance the HJ, add in a flawed protagonist that relates to theme, add in a protagonist sacrifice, death physical or emotional and then followed by resurrection. But the core HJ is what I am speaking of.

So again I throw the challenge to you-- list ten financially successful (made a profit) American produced and theatrically released films that do not use the hero's journey. Are you up for it?

Beware trying to make the hero's journey be an end-all, be-all. I've been advised on occasion to apply the hero's journey narrative to a story it really didn't fit, just because that narrative appeals to so many people and has worked so well in certain instances. But it's a very specific sort of narrative, and definitely isn't a universal one. If you ask the right questions, your story will begin to tell you which archetype/genre best fits it.

 

[Chamber005]

I'm curious if any of you take any cues from Shakespeare? The film I'm shooting right now, within the confines of this particular story's process, song, poetry, extended monolouges and general commentary on the human condition exist alongside the more traditional (or, current) structure of plot/scene/conflict.

I find it interesting that very rarely do screenwriters feel as though they have anything of any merit to say anymore, they only have something of merit to show.

It feels like the majority of writers have taken "show don't tell" to mean not just "exhibit your story for the viewer, don't tell them your story" but that we should actually remove any notion of enlightenment if it's manifested in a fashion that doesn't fit into a certain structure.

What I find wonderful about independent film is that we as writers aren't constrained to put things in the kind of format that large studio movies are forced into for saftey's (or, profit's) sake. We can be brave because we've got nothing much to lose.

I just wonder when writers stopped being educators, trend-setters and became creatures who spend their days reading books on how to get published, how to format something so that it mimics and mirrors something that someone else did.

Maybe a little off topic, though.

lol

 

[Batutta]

I just wonder when writers stopped being educators, trend-setters and became creatures who spend their days reading books on how to get published, how to format something so that it mimics and mirrors something that someone else did.

Maybe a little off topic, though.

lol

Because there's money to be had. The big studios want to minimize their risk by copying a template. Writers who copy that template get paid. Those that don't, don't, and their work is never seen. That's sort of the difference between screenwriting and writing a novel. A novel that goes against the grain can still get published and fulfill its potential. A screenplay that goes against the grain, most likely won't even get a chance, especially if it requires the kind of budget only a studio could pull off. Corporate financed art generally re-inforces the values of mainstream culture. Independently financed art usually questions and criticizes the values of mainstream culture. There's a lot more money to be made doing one versus the other, which is why more people pursue that path.

 

[Cranky]

People should stop posting their comments before the quotation they are supposedly answering to. This format is sometimes used in emails, but this is not an email reader, this is a discussion board.

THOSE WHO HATE READING IN ALL CAPS, drop the text into MS Word, select it and hit Shift+F3 three times.

 

[Randall_Oelerich]

"If the original message is to be quoted in full, for any reason, top-posting is usually the most appropriate format — because the reader sees the reply right away, without having to scroll past quoted text." ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Choosing_the_proper_posting_style
Top or Bottom Posting are both widely accepted and accepted as proper posting etiquette.

People should stop posting their comments before the
quotation they are supposedly answering to. This format is sometimes used in emails, but this is not an email reader, this is a discussion board....

 

[texvanwinkle]

But as for American popular films (95+ percent which I would say utilize the HJ), how about listing ten blockbusters or at least very financially successful (profitable for the prodco) films that do not employ the hero's journey? It is hard enough writing a script that sells, I will stick to the hero's journey, as I believe it has the best chance at making a sale. I am talking a core HJ-- protagonist, inciting incident (catalyst), goal (visible, to resolve by the end of the story), midpoint, climax, resolution; three acts by virtue of those plot points; protagonist travels physically or emotionally from an ordinary world to a special world where the obstacles against the goal exist. One can of course expand on the HJ elements to enhance the HJ, add in a flawed protagonist that relates to theme, add in a protagonist sacrifice, death physical or emotional and then followed by resurrection. But the core HJ is what I am speaking of.

But Randall, that "core HJ" you describe is little more than the standard three-act structure as old as film itself, if not story itself. Open Syd Field's book Screenplay and you'll see almost the exact same structure. Heck, open Aristotle's Poetics and you'll pretty much find that.

I presume you're aware, since you've brought it up, that the hero's journey is a specific type of narrative with many unique steps differentiating it from other types of narrative. Certainly you can generalize from it like you do, but at that point it applies to most any story and lacks any descriptive power as a unique narrative. Concepts, just as words, have meaning.

Campbell lays out in detail in The Hero with a Thousand Faces what comprises the traditional, mythical hero's journey. Lacking those defining steps--the call to adventure, the refusal, supernatural assistance, crossing the threshold, the belly of the whale, the trials, temptation, atonement, the boon to help all, refusal to return, the return threshold, duality, freedom to live, among the several others--you don't have the mythical hero's journey. That universal myth--Campbell's monomyth--represents more of a rites of passage, child to man, story, with the hero's ultimate success being one that benefits not just him but his whole group, whether local or global. Lacking that, you've lost the point--and usefulness--of the paradigm.

A script analyst once urged me to apply the hero's journey to a war story I was rewriting, because that's what she knew. So I pulled out my copy of Hero with a Thousand Faces--I've had it for almost twenty years, before it became a screenwriting touchstone--to figure out how in the world she thought it applied to my story. It didn't. And yet my story still adheres to traditional structure and is universal--just not in that particular universal sense. The hero's journey, properly understood, only applies to its particular type of story.

So, sure, you can list a whole lot of movies with what you call the "core hero's journey," for the same reason you can list a whole lot of movies that follow Aristotelian story structure. You can list a lot fewer to which the hero's journey proper--the one representing the universal myth of the hero, as theorized by Campbell and evidenced by Jesus or Moses or Buddha or Prometheus--applies. Find the 95+% of films that follow that and I'll grant your point.

A good summary of the universal hero's journey, as found in world mythology: http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/smc/journey/ref/summary.html