Form vs. free form

The other day, I posted this quote from screenwriter David Seltzer in the week's Screenwriting 101:

"I think if people try a few screenplays and they just fall apart in the middle, or people say, 'It was great until this happened or that happened,' then maybe they can read one of those [screenwriting] books, but there are not three acts in a screenplay. There may be seven, there may be two... I think it's a huge mistake. If you go in with formula, you come out with formula. The whole thrill of being a writer is to do a prototype every time out. And you can do it, something that nobody ever wrote before. If you confine yourself to three acts, you'll find yourself writing something you've seen already."

That elicited this comment from CrashDaily:

I love quotes like these from established writers. They are inspiring. Justify our existence as "artists." They're also complete bullshit. Maybe David has convinced himself that his work transcends that of a three act structure. The problem, David, is that your work is of public record, and your screenplays are textbook three act structures with all the formulaic trimmings. And if you didn't structure them that way, maybe the writer that got paid to fix them did. And if you did structure them that way then you are either full of crap, or you've found some way to "free yourself" as an artist, while subconsciously writing within a very defined structure (i.e. formula). Wow. Even I think I sound like a jerk at this point, but the reason Scott has one of the best blogs on writing is that he tempers this kind of esoteric gobeldygook with the hard reality of becoming, and working as, a professional writer. I'd love to be a fly on the wall listening to someone who has taken this advice to heart try to explain to the VP of production at (name a friggin studio) how their take on fixing said script is to just "let it happen" ... "The structure will come to me while being an artist" ... "might be 2 acts, might be 6" ... *insert joint whiffing sound*

That hilarious scene, however, will never happen because a writer that actually thinks like this will never get in that room. The most freethinking (working) writer we have right now is Kaufman, and maybe his best work is the one about an "artist" relenting to the necessity of structure in movies. Irony anyone? And he did what we all need to do -- make that an awesome, original ride, on the rollercoaster that we know takes X amount of time, and has X amount of big drops, etc.

Guys like Sheldon Turner, Gilroy, Helgeland, and the 6 other fixers that get 95% of the rewrites in town love hearing advice like Seltzer's, even give it themselves from time to time, because they know that anyone that thinks like this will be writing scripts for themselves, or their mommies, until they figure out the business. Does that mean these guys are lesser writers? Absolutely not. If you want to be a pro, and actually get paid to be a screenwriter, you need to figure out how to bring something really interesting to the table within the confines of the structure. We are not writing novels. We have 120 pages or less to tell a compelling story. The art, the profession, is knowing that certain things must happen at certain points and then filling in the pages in between with compelling story and characters. You want to be an artist and just let it happen... write some poetry, maybe a stream of consciousness short story with no punctuation, but if you want to get paid to write movies then you need to pull your head out of your artistic tookus and get to work. And please don't take my word for it. Read any of the specs that are selling -- they'll have great concepts, at least good, decent characters, decent structure. Then read the production draft that lists the fixers on the cover -- usually more than one -- and compare scripts. Did they mess with the formula? No they did not. They probably made it more structurally sound, and then they amped up the characters and the scenes those characters are in. That's the job, that is the profession. You don't want to do that? Bohemia Cafe' has open poetry readings on Wednesday nights. Maybe you can pass the hat after.

I knew two things from reading this post. First, its author works in the business - which as it turns out is right (he's been a professional screenwriter for more than a few years and has a number of credits). Second, the central point he made is correct. Again to drive it home:

If you want to be a pro, and actually get paid to be a screenwriter, you need to figure out how to bring something really interesting to the table within the confines of the structure. We are not writing novels. We have 120 pages or less to tell a compelling story. The art, the profession, is knowing that certain things must happen at certain points and then filling in the pages in between with compelling story and characters.

There are many reasons why CrashDaily's assertion rings true:

* Believe it or not, there are many people who work in the film business who do no really 'get' how and why stories work / don't work. Many do, of course, but many don't -- and we're talking agents, managers, studio execs, producers, directors. However even if they don't understand story, almost all of them know the basics of 3-act structure, major plot points, a protagonist's goal, a worthy nemesis, and so on. So if you expect to have a functional conversation with them in a notes meeting, you -- the screenwriter -- have to speak their language. This is especially true if you're trying to do something different in your script. For example, if you've decided that the writing assignment you've landed can best be told with a non-linear narrative structure. You have to be able to break down the story's structure in a way that the buyer can understand, i.e., even if it's non-linear, there is still a 3-act structure, there are these major plot points, etc.

* It's more than just the fact that everyone in the movie business knows about ideas like 3-act structure, major plot points, and so on: They are an established part of professional screenwriting nomenclature. This goes way back to movies deriving many of their earliest stories from the world of theater. For instance, here is a quote from arguably the most influential screenwriter in American history Paddy Chayefsky:

"The three-act structure is the form that I grew up in the theater with. You generally present a situation in Act I, and by the end of Act I the situation has evolved to a point where something is threatening the situation. In Act II you solve that problem producing a more intense problem by the end of Act II. In Act III you solve that problem, either happily or unhappily, depending on whether you have a comedy or a tragedy or a drama: you work out the final solution accordingly."

Three-act structure is embedded in the very fabric of movie storytelling. You may say, "Well, that doesn't mean it's right." Which is true. But what it does mean is that it is, it exists, it's the basis upon which movies have been developed, analyzed, and written for decades and decades.

* I happen to think there's a solid experiential reason for this: We experience so many aspects of our lives as little 'stories' with a Beginning, a Middle, and an End.

-- We wake up. Go to work. Come home.
-- We say hello. We have a conversation. We say good-bye.
-- We have foreplay. We have sex. We pass out.

Stories just seem to have an innate 3-act structure with a Beginning, Middle, and End. And life itself reflects that.

But in the larger scheme of things, whether you choose to look at screenplay structure as having 3 acts, 4 acts, 8 sequences, 27 plot points, 40 beats, or whatever, the simple fact is no matter what, a screenplay is at its core about structure. In his wonderful book "Adventures in the Screen Trade," William Goldman flat out wrote, "Screenplays are structure." And that stands to reason - because a script is a blueprint to make a movie. Actual human beings with actual movie jobs -- production designer, set decorators, special effects supervisors -- take a shooting script and break it down in order to do their jobs and make the movie. The reason why Primary Sluglines have an INT. or EXT. is because it reflects the historical function of telling the filmmakers which shots need to be inside -- which means a scout is going to have find an interior location or someone is going to have to build a set -- or outside.

As CrashDaily suggests, a working screenwriter understands and accepts the importance of a script's structure. The magic or 'art' comes with what happens within the structure, "filling in the pages in between with compelling story and characters."

In fact, I have long ago come to peace with story structure. In a way, it's my friend. Once I figure out the broad perimeters of the major plot points, I feel pretty confident that I can actually write and finish that script -- and that's a really comforting feeling to have when typing FADE IN.

I'm reminded of that story about the great composer Igor Stravinsky. Noted for pushing the boundaries of classical music -- for example, he would sometimes change time signatures in a piece 50 or 60 times, an unheard of thing at the time -- Stravinsky was speaking to some music students, when one of them asked if he felt "restricted" by being "forced" to compose on a piano, "limited" by its 88 keys. And Stravinsky was reported to have said [paraphrasing]: "Of course not! With these 88 keys, I am given a structure. And within that structure I am free to do whatever I want."

And that's the way it is with screenwriting. No matter the lingo or theoretical underpinnings, structure is at the core of a screenplay. But given whatever paradigm or formula we may use as an approach to crafting a script's structure, that does not mean we have to write a formulaic story. On the contrary, within the confines of a script's structure, we are free to do whatever we want with our characters and the plot.

What about you? What's your 'relationship' with story structure? Are you a 'form' or 'free form' type of writer? If the latter, do you agree that it's important to at least understand the screenplay lingo that gets batted around Hwood ala 3-act structure, major plot points, etc?

By the way, I forgot to attribute the Seltzer quote. It comes from the great screenwriter interview DVD set The Dialogue Series.