Some interviews with arguably the world’s most notable screenwriting ‘guru’ — Robert McKee. This StoryLink interview offers an excellent distillation of the core principles upon which McKee has built his overarching theories re story and screenwriting. Here is an excerpt:
Q: Are there basic components to what makes for a compelling story?
Robert McKee: This question literally takes 500 pages of my book Story to answer. It is the equivalent of asking a question such as, “What are the basic components of music?” or “What are the basic components of painting?” Trying to determine what is basic is very difficult. Some people, for example, think dialogue is a basic component of story. But not in a silent film. Not in ballet. There are various forms of story told beautifully in various media that have no common elements with other forms. So determining exactly what elements are basic depends on the medium of expression.
But let me try to answer that question by making a simple and clear definition of story itself. Story begins when an event, either by human decision or accident in the universe, radically upsets the balance of forces in the protagonist’s life, arousing in that character the need to restore the balance of life. To do so, that character will conceive of what is known as an “Object of Desire,” that which they feel they need to put life back into balance. They will then go off into their world, into themselves, in the various dimensions of their existence, seeking that Object of Desire, trying to restore the balance of life, and they will struggle against forces of antagonism that will come from their own inner natures as human beings, their relationships with other human beings, their personal and/or social life, and the physical environment itself. They may or may not achieve that Object of Desire; they may or may not finally be able to restore their life to a satisfying balance. That, in the simplest possible way, defines the elements of story – an event that throws life out of balance, the need and desire to restore the balance, and the Object of Desire the character conceives of consciously or unconsciously that they can pursue against the forces of antagonism from all of the levels of their life that they may or may not achieve.
What McKee calls “balance of life,” I refer to as Unity.
What McKee calls Object of Desire, I split up:
Object = Want (External World)
Desire = Need (Internal World)
Despite the differences in semantics, the underlying principles are the same. The Protagonist is going about their life. Something happens that upsets the norm. Events build which propel the P out of their Ordinary World into the Extraordinary World, where they are tested and undergo Deconstruction / Reconstruction and eventually a big Final Struggle which they either succeed at or not, resulting in Unity or not.
And for those who can access YouTube, here are two parts of an interview with McKee in an Australian TV show “One on One”:
Part One
Part Two
Interview aired June 21, 2009.
Read McKee's book ONCE. Interesting, a little TOO indepth, perhaps, but good stuff to think about and come to grips with.
Scott, are you a big believer in McKee?
- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA
P.S. Script decompression complete. Between the five of use that went out we caught 3 salmon Monday: 2 silvers, 1 king. Caught 10 salmon Tuesday: 8 silvers, 2 kings, + two flounders. Kinda windburnt today, a little tired. Not used to all this WEATHER behind at my seat before my computer.
I enjoy McKee's stuff, but your right E.C. Henry, his book is not for the faint of heart, but if you really want to delve deep into the story,I think he is one of the best.
I like using McKee's book as more of a reference, or when i get stuck on something, I usually crack open "Story" and it usually helps me out.
A couple others I like going to:
1. Save The Cat
2. Screenplay Writing The Picture
3. The Writers Journey
I have found, for whatever reason, that a pronounced backlash has befallen Mr. McKee in the past few years. Most of it I see in various scriptwriting talkbacks such as this, but in other arenas as well.
Perhaps it's because of Brian Cox's caustic (yet certainly no less hilarious) portrayal of the man in Adaptation, a film I'm sure all screenwriters love to watch and cringe to. Lord knows I do. Or perhaps, like the Kaufman version of McKee, the people dumping on him went to one of his seminars thinking they knew everything there was to know about scriptwriting and left 48 hours later, devastated that their magnum opus wasn't going to pay their outstanding charge card bills.
Or maybe McKee just theatrically lashed out and called them a "hapless, ill-informed, talent-free rube." (My friend Ron got that one zinged his way from McKee back in '02!)
However, I must say, the usually sarcastic dismissal of the man and his theories is mostly baseless. And if you delve into STORY (in dribs and drabs, please… anybody who sits down and reads it cover to cover gets what they deserve!), especially at a time when you feel there's no hope for you or your screenplay, you will find sagacious wisdom beyond anything anyone out there has to offer. (er, no offense, Scott!) Within STORY is the riddle of the Sphinx, screenplay-wise, as far as I am concerned. He deconstructs what makes an audience tick (something WE should be nothing less than passionate about from day 1, right?) down to the most miniature model and then is actually able to formulate a solid working methodology for guidance.
He plants seeds from which our tales should grow.
Is the man himself a bit a pompous blowhard? Probably.
Sorry to get so long in the tooth on this one but he's saved my bacon more than once and I felt I needed to return the favor!
What I have to say about McKee matters not. How about what the godfather of contemporary American screenwriting William Goldman. In his book, "Which Lie Did I Tell," there's this about Goldman attending McKee's seminar:
"It's four full days over a single weekend, and no one feels cheated when he's done. I wish he had been around when I started writing CUT TO for a living."
Good enough for Goldman, good enough for me.
Like 'em or not we need gurus. They give creatives a basis for arguement and a way to break stories down. A common language when things get heated.
And I'll second good buddy. "Good enough enough for Goldman. Good enough for me!"
I checked out the audio tape from the library yrs ago. Don't remember too much about it other than Mckee made everything sound way more complicated than it should be.
Too much jargon and convoluted ideas. I never read the book.