PRO PARADIGMS: When writing my first projects, I was giving only consideration to my story. The rewrites and rewrites made me learn that most of the time, there are smart solutions to make things better for everybody. So by now, I work for the others from the beginning, while outlining my story. My equation is something like (target + genre)*concept => budget => actors + settings + SFX, and I try to compare what I want to do with released movies. I didn't choose this way just to be a produced "schmuck with an Underwood" (I'm now a retired man earning a good living and I don't need to sell anything). I do this to write better. that's like rewriting: that helps me to find better ideas, doing things simpler, removing clichés, deus ex machina, or finding better developments ... fixing all these little defects we do while sketching a first draft, and that are very hard to fix into a 110 pages script. Tell a story is a writer's job. You just need a printer or the internet to share it. Making movies is a collective job. Unless you are a one-man-band cinematographer + actor, you share the creative process with a director, a technical crew, actors ... and you need to find money to make it born and the audience to make it live. So you may be an artist, but you're not a screenwriter if you disregard this, IMO. And most of the time, this helps you going further into your story and improve it. This doesn't mean that you can do only simplistic things, quite the opposite. You can write sequences or monologues of ten pages (YES!), give your story a non conventional structure (YES!), make the water red and the sky green (YES!) as long as it serves your story... This remains your own domain and this is your personal choice because technicians and actors know how to realize it. However you're like a composer: you can compose jazz, rock, classic, etc. but you must write differently pieces for a trio, a quartet, a brass band, a chamber orchestra, a symphonic orchestra ... and you must respect what each instrument can do: excepted for bagpipes, wind intruments can play only one sound at a time, a violin cannot be played on more than two nearby strings at a time, etc... and the composer must know what each instrument can do and what the best human performer can play on each instrument. I'm convinced that Dave Brubeck, Gershwin, Stravinsky, Bach ... respected this. Were they not great artists? ANTI PARADIGMS: To carry on with this comparison, Dave Brubeck, Gershwin, Stravinsky and Bach didn't compose the same music: - Brubeck and Gershwin used piano, saxophone, clarinet ... Gershwin and Stravinskty used symphonic orchestra. Today, composers use computers... All of this didn't exist at Bach's Time. - The four played claviers, but very differently: at Bach's time, performers were used to play with only four fingers of each hand. This is Bach who added the use of the thumbs. Then, performers and composers found many other ways to improve claviers playing. So today, Bach could not compose or play music without some additional training (for him, a few days should be enough, I think). IMO, creativity is there: trying new tools and new ways, to produce things different provided that it leads to something. Do you imagine Leonard Bernstein, the Beatles or Pierre Boulez composing and playing the same music as Bach? This would not be a progress, this would be a decline. This is why I don't like manners like the three act structure, the hero's journey, the flawed hero... when being set up as compulsory patterns, just as it is taught by consultants, doctors,... since Campbell, Field & Co created this new religion. What makes a story good is its ability to captivate. What makes a good story great is what makes it different, clever, innovative.
Screenwriting : Artistic creativity vs compulsory paradigms by Jean-Marie Mazaleyrat
Other topics in Screenwriting:
Check out Trending Discussions
Register / Log In
2 people like this
I agree with your quote.. What makes a story good is its ability to captivate. What makes a good story great is what makes it different, . new, fresh ideas are great. Also thanks for the interesting post :)
1 person likes this
Jean-Marie, your post caught my eye if for no other reason it made me think back to research methods class and my schoooling. Anyway here is my feeble attempt being profound understanding artistry and paradigms. Paradigms and pulses are the vehicle of standardization; artists either drive parallel or diverge but probably are always aware of the other vehicles that travel with them or park in the same lot. If they don’t pay attention they can easily crash but if they do pay attention they can always find an alternate route, if for no other reason the scenery. LOL Michael L. Burris "I want to believe nothing is pointless."
Hello Michael, Well said and with a few words. Great reply! I agree that artists know where they are and where they go or try to go (IMO, this is what distinguishes them from disorientated people who dream they are artists). I'm sure your nursing experience taught you that there are times and places to go our own way, and other times and places that require teamwork, wich don't affect our quality as artists.
1 person likes this
I liked the analogy of music, Dave Brubeck and Bach etc...
Thanks K.
1 person likes this
My good friend, I must disagree with your thoughts re the 3 Act structure, I think you do a disservice - there are countless permutations, one can have a turning point within minutes or much later for example, the set-up brief or in detail, etc. - let's look at it as rules in sport, take soccer - you have a playing field, a referee and linesmen, equal number of players on both sides, the same rules for all - but not every game is the same, nor is it played in the same manner, coaches may play a 4-4-2, 4-3-3 or another system - the "ending", or outcome, may be a loss, draw or win - the 3 Act structure is your field-of-play within certain rules and constraints - the 3 Act structure allows plenty of scope to express the story you wish to tell - re The Hero's Journey and the flawed hero, I agree with you, so many films use that as a religion and too many films appear contrived and tired, and I mean big Hollywood films follow suit - hope all this makes sense, LOL.
1 person likes this
Hello Chanel, I'm not against the three act structure, the character's arc, the flawed hero... I'm against raising them as compulsory patterns, as taught by 90% of movie teachers, doctors, consultants... (as well as too many other "rules"). Some comparisons: 1- About the three acts structure: Your example is very good because sport is also entertainment. Soccer is a two periods’ game. What if Soccer's gurus decree that all sports games should be played in two periods? (without evoking other interesting differences like the score count) - Tennis = two sets of two games? - Baseball = two 45minutes innings? - Golf = two holes (Uh?)? - Ice Hockey = two 45 minutes periods? (half of each team could be dead before the end of the first period) - Etc... Now, what is exciting in Tennis or Ice Hockey is that the game can continue over the basic length (or shorten in Tennis) depending of the score, which happens very often. A Soccer match just can be extended with two 10 minutes periods then 10 shots at goal only if it's a draw, which not happens very often. All these sports exist because people like to play and watch things different than usual. American football derives from Rugby which derives from Football... Baseball derives from Cricket, etc... People like diversity. What about movies? This is exactly the same: people like diversity. - In a different topic, I was saying that 2001 a Space Odyssey is a series of three three-acts-structure movies. I was partially wrong. Actually, the second one (Journey To The Moon) has a four acts structure. The act one is the setup of the movie and the act three is the setup of the act four. - Psycho is a two acts movie. - Etc. 2- About the Hero's journey: There are many genres or subgenres in witch you normally have no character's arc or hero's journey for a very simple reason: These - are - not - about - transformation: - FRANCHISES: apart from some movies which are based on a new facet of the hero's personality, it's difficult to give him each time a character's arc. Do you imagine how complex would be James Bond personality if he has accomplished 24 hero's journeys? - CHRONICLES: chronicles are about the life of one or several heroes during a long interval, many times in witch the subject is just about surviving: The Pianist, The Anne Franck Diary. What are their hero's journeys? Are these heroes different at the end of the movie? No if they are still alive (The Pianist), yes if they are dead (The Anne Franck Diary). Is Campbell's hero's journey about this difference? Probably not. - HORROR/ZOMBIE MOVIES: What is more popular with teens? These are just a subgenre of chronicles. We just want blood, screams and fear, and maybe one survivor at the end. - ACTION MOVIES: close to Horror/Zombies, same target. The difference is that they are characters driven. We don't care about the Hero's transformation. We only want them to knock, fire, shoot, jump, etc... being strong from the beginning to the end. - SAGAS: these are stories about several generations of the same family or community, and most often there is no hero's journey. Sometimes, there can be some hero's journey or community journey. - EPICS: close to the sagas, but about historic events or periods, involving lots of characters. - BURLESQUE: With some exception, this is a genre in witch a hero’s journey is impolitic. - Etc... - And of course great dramas like “No Country For Old Men”, “Psycho”… lots of comedies… This is non exhaustive of course; and this make a lot of genres and movies which don't match with the Hero's journey isn't it? Nota bene: HORROR/ZOMBIE and ACTION movies are the modern versions of the Roman circus games: - HORROR/ZOMBIE = martyrs served up to lions, - ACTION MOVIES = gladiator fights. You know what? Campbell just forgot them because they didn’t exist as a theatrical/poetic genre in ancient Greece when Aristotle's Poetics were written! 3- About flaws: unless I am mistaken, flaws are hero’s personal defects they must overcome and that make their journey harder. So being of interest only if related to the hero’s arc isn’t it? ... when this one exists. Typically, fear of open water is sheriff Brody’s flaw in Jaws, because he must struggle to overcome it and kill the shark. But Norman Bates’ madness in Psycho is not a flaw, because he does nothing to overcome it in order to change anything. Is it? The rule of the flawed hero was introduced less than thirty years ago as a lever to strengthen the hero’s arc, due to the inputs by Syd Field and his successors. Prior to this, most of the heroes were not flawed, and very often were most sympathetic. The most recent stupid input in the genre is to affect with a flaw a hero without any character’s arc! Lol! That’s why James bond is given a new flaw at the beginning of each episode since Licence To Kill (1987, 16th episode, starred by Timothy Dalton) in witch JB break in his persistent flaw: thirst of revenge: - While the openings of earlier movies were pieces of bravery showing Bond succeed in killing, robbing, escaping villains (remember Bond escaping via a Union Flag parachute in The Spy Who Loved Me)… - The opening is then the place to introduce the cause of his flaw for the current movie: His best friend is half eaten by a shark; he is defeated, jailed, wounded, fired… and he is always the same man at the end of the movie! Pfff! … IMO, this adds nothing good, neither to his character nor to the story. Flawed heroes are controversial and less sympathetic than non flawed ones. - Do you remember of John Wayne, Cary Grant, Paul Newman, Sean Connery… first as flawed heroes? Probably not. In most of their movies, they played strong, non flawed heroes; and they still keep a strong, clear image. - Do you remember of Robert Mitchum, James Stewart, Al Pacino… first as non flawed heroes? Probably not too. They often played flawed heroes struggling harder against themselves than against their antagonists; and they still keep a garbled image. So in agreement with myself, I think and I maintain that the three acts structure, the hero's journey, the flawed hero... should be considered and taught as elements of subgenres and never as compulsory rules. ;o) Best. JM
Jean-Marie, that was a long answer, remember we were ALSO taught "economy of words" - "less is more" - LOL - I get what you are trying to say and agree with much of it, but you give examples of where something may not have fit - "flaws" are character traits and this is an excellent avenue to explore/exploit in the hands of a good writer - you mentioned Al Pacino, well he had an excellent arc in the Godfather, an excellent movie in excellent hands - all those actors you named in the end, I've seen them in countless movies as flawed hero's, the difference being in the older movies these "flaws" were more "subtle", example, there may have been an element of vanity in the character that needed to learn a little humility - minor, but flaws/lessons nevertheless - I completely agree with the film "education" - filmmakers seem to have gone to the same school, read the same books, taught by the same teachers and make very similar films - this especially applies to current French directors/writers, your movies are as boring as everyone else's, not a unique/original voice like your filmmaking in the 70's, 80's 90's - but you still have good acting talent, Juliette Binoche was wonderful in Chocolat, which incidentally had multiple flaws and arcs to sort out and succeeded superbly, outstanding writing/acting/filmmaking - Jean-marie, there is nothing wrong with the tools at our disposal, it's the quality of work in the right hands that makes the difference.
Hello my good friend Chanel, Sorry for the long answer. IMO, you need to give explicite references when you argue against popular opinion, trying not to be ambiguous or contreversal. Obviously, that's hard to find where you should stop giving precisions: - The Godfather is an example of saga featuring a main hero with a great arc (Phew! I clarified this case), - Al Pacino acted good flawed characters in many dramas like Dog Day Afternoon, Insomnia, Scarface, Righteous Kill... as well as some good non flawed characters in The devil's advocate, Simone... (Oops! I ommited that). You're right when you say that French movies are as boring as any one else. I don't remember having told something different. Usually, I don't speak about bad movies either these are French or not (I mean those I don't like agreeing with the consensus: IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo...). Obviously, there are some good Directors/writers today in France (among many mediocre) but you probably don't know most of them, just like I don't know many good Australian cinematographers (I know Jane Campion, George Miller, Peter Weir, Baz Luhman, Chris Noonan...): because international sales favor box office potential. Do you know Bertrand Tavernier, Mathieu Kassowitz, Jacques Audiard, François Ozon, Régis Wargnier, Michel Hazanavicius, Agnès Jaoui, Luc Jaquet, Cédric Klapisch, Olivier Dahan, Jean Becker...? Sorry about your answer because this means that you only retained the tone and not the content. So if it is, I apologize. Best. JM
1 person likes this
Jean-Marie, you appear to have excellent knowledge re films, I admire this about you - I was only joking about the long answer, couldn't resist teasing re "economy of words" - I'm not suggesting there are not good French directors, I'm sure there are and I'm not familiar with the names you put forward, but I used to love past French films, they were original, innovative and had style - the new breed make so, so films, but that's only my opinion - the Australian names you mentioned all had international success - I do retain the tone of a film, if I fail to retain the content then that doesn't say much about the quality/impression of that film.
2 people like this
Thank you Chanel, I'm a 60 years old movie fan. Can you imagine this? I knew the world B.C.! (Before Campbell) I watched about 5000 movies since 50 years, maybe 500 to 1000 of some interest, some of these two or several times. This is not so many. I bet you'll have been watching and writing many more movies when you're sixty! (And maybe directing). I'll be unable to remember Alzheimer's name and you'll be an internationally awarded cinematographer broadcasting her holos via the starnet... I wishes you'll see the world A.E. (Anno Emancipationem = Post Campbell). ;o) Best.
1 person likes this
Jean-Marie, did you like Citizen Kane?
1 person likes this
Jean-Marie, did you like Chocolat? - I'll use a line from the wonderful movie, "it's one of my favourites".
2 people like this
Jean-Marie, I look forward to your well thought out and meaningful postings. I too come from the B.C. era although I don’t recall this Mr. Al Zheimer to whom you refer but I’m a great fan of Jacques Tati.
Hello my Good Fellows, Sorry for my (unusual) silence. K. gave me the idea of taking Citizen Kane as an example for an other post, so I spent a few days reviewing it as well as some other movies, The Hero With A Thousand Faces, etc.. Of course I like it. As well as Chocolat witch is full of poetry and magic. Juliette Binoche is amazing and Johnny Depp is less shady than usual. Gypsies on barges is a beautiful poetic licence. This is also one of my favorites. And Mr. Hulot could be a good friend of mine! I don't like to use French references because there is straight away someone who tells "Yes but French movies are boring". I don't understand how Jacques Tati's movies could be boring. These are marvelous burlesque in the vein of Buster Keaton's, I don't know if English versions exist, but you don't need to speak French to understand and appreciate. Please watch (or rewatch) all Tati's feature movies (6), and if you cannot, at least "Mr. Hulot's Holiday", "My Uncle" and "Jour De Fête".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IWqrwC8Ntk&index=1&list=RD3IWqrwC8Ntk
The movie that inspired jaws: ;o) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGUIpdc0i4
And the movie that was inspired by Buster Keaton's The General: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MocOt8xBjo
Jean-Marie: I’m always on the prowl for Jacques Tati’s films. I have M. Hulot’s Holiday, Mon Uncle and a short called Soigne ton gauche. Tati films are difficult to find here. I have been told that his wife refused to allow release of his films after he passed away – maybe you can tell me if that was true.
1 person likes this
I thinks that he was bankrupt due to the cost of Play Time. His production society and the rights on his films were sold. Soigne Ton Gauche is the first feature-length movie by René Clément (Battle Of The Rail, Forbidden games, Is Paris Burning? ...), starring Jacques Tati. You can find all Tati's movies on Amazon. I think that the English title for Jour De Fête is "Big Day". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqkZgEurrcM&index=8&list=PLim0WI0oS2t8zD...
Jean-Marie - Thanx.
Happy New Year!