I've received a few critiques on a sports/comedy/drama screenplay. Most of the readers critiqued the "by the numbers" approach to a sports film. Up until last week, I'd never learned the sequences structure or considered the three act structure when writing a script. Most of the time I wouldn't care much because the critiques have been positive to an overwhelming degree, but I'm using the screenplay as a writing sample for an M.F.A. screenwriting program. Should I be concerned about following generic storylines? What are ways to keep screenplays original?
Screenwriting : Stereotypical Beats: Should I Be Concerned? by Tony Cella
Other topics in Screenwriting:
Check out Trending Discussions
Register / Log In
3 people like this
Hi Tony, it's incredibly hard to answer that question in a short post. I think you should absolutely learn act structure and learn it well. As William Goldman says, "Screenplays are structure." (Structure is NOT formula. Structure is shape and form and narrative spine.) You should be concerned about "by the numbers" critiques because I'd think an MFA program would place importance in seeing your original voice come across. I think lots of people can learn to hit all the beats, and others can come up with a story with "voice," and there are far fewer people who can do BOTH, and they are the ones who might really distinguish themselves.
3 people like this
In terms of "keeping screenplays original," look within your genre, and try to meet your genre expectations, and then try to exceed them! Break a leg!!
1 person likes this
@ Regina. Thank you for the thorough advice as always. I've read a lot about voice. How would you define it? @Michael Selby. I'm a firm believer in well paced storytelling, which often relies on a solid structure. I've been praised on the structure, but also that the form is typical for a sports movie. I'm not sure how to take that.
2 people like this
It's an interesting question - it's like, " compelling story with a traditional/commercial structure or compelling story with a non-traditional structure?" Just based on my past experiences, I'd always try to fit my compelling and evocative story into the generally-accepted structure practices that, in general, most commercial filmmakers embrace and adhere to. I'd imagine that, in general, most MFA programs work that way, too. The key words there are "compelling and evocative story." I can write a compelling and evocative story by following the structure route I've been trained in/conditioned to utilize/embrace. I am also not, at this point, able to freely and easily "think out of that box". I don't think my brain/consciousness/subconsciousness can even go that way at this point. I'd probably stroke out in the desert, get eaten by coyotes and eagles, and nobody would ever know what happened to me. Missing from this conversation is character development. It should almost go without saying at this point, and no disrespect to you or anyone, but I'll say it anyway....story is about well-rounded characters that things happen to, and how those well-rounded characters respond to those things. That story could be told in the traditional/commercial way, or the non-traditional/non-commercial way. I guess it's whatever way you are most comfortable with in telling your story, and I wish you the best in whichever way you choose.
1 person likes this
When you learned and know the basics like the back of hand... then you can BREAK the rules.... but not before. xo
The last line of Richard Brody's review of Queen of Earth: “Queen of Earth” is a rare feast of performance, of emotional experience, of artistic smarts, and of the very essence of cinematic creation at a time when the cinema itself is being challenged by the proliferation of mere storytelling. http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/the-best-cinema-goes-beyo...