Screenwriting : About Aristotle, Campbell, Field ... and their contribution to the progress of storytelling by Jean-Marie Mazaleyrat

Hello Peter, I'm always amazed by how you put your finger just on the most important thing! ;o)

That was one long one from Jean -Marie. I like the detailed analysis of Citizen Kane, as I have a personal relationship with Herman J. Mankiewicz (though I never met him :-)) . Reading scripts have been more beneficial to me than books on the topic-simply because they tell us about the better made movies, and how they were written, with frequent references to Chinatown, Citizen Kane, Double Indemnity, Stalag17, and many others of the same ilk. But books never tell us how to manage our own writing. That is something we are in it by yourselves. Reading scripts are more contextual, I felt, and teaching us the art of brevity.

Jean-Marie, While I don't agree with all you've posted (and there are as many opinions about writing as there are writers), I do appreciate the time and thought you've put into this post. Thanks for the great read.

IMO, watching movies, reading screenplays and reading bibles are all essential because bibles give you some keys to begin analyzing stories, and analyzing stories give you the keys to understand what is false, biased or missing in bibles. When you watch or read a great old story about an older time, you not only need to travel to the time when it was written; very often, you must also travel to the time when it takes place, because the writer did the same. e.g. - The Searchers (1956): John Wayne is Ethan, an ex Confederate soldier searching for his niece who was taken and raised by Comanches, telling that he would prefer to see her dead than living as an Indian - and trying to kill her -. The action takes place in Texas in1868 at the height of the Indian Wars, as the family of Ethan's brother was killed by the Comanches. Ethan as well as Scar, the Comanche chief, manifest their racism which was not considered as such at the time of the action. John Ford shows this conflict with objectivity, and adds the perspective from 1956: Ethan will earn to live with and appreciate Martin who's a Comanche metis, and finish wanting him as his heir; and while Ethan is the main character in the first half of the movie, they are both the heroes in the second part. Ethan doesn't kill Debbie and brings her back. The film ends on Ethan departing just like he has arrived, solitary, while Martin makes his life with Laurie at the Jorgensens.

Mon Dieu! Anyway, you can't see anything through 1941 or 1967 eyes, unless you lived it. Re: 1967, as a young thing, I could see at the time that a lot of movies were pure schlock . Even movies trying something new were pretty ridiculous. They were aimed at the populace that still was thought to consist of naive , childlike moviegoers , as in prior decades. The writers were just unable to put the words in scripts that they wanted . Someone in the midwest would have a cat. This continued until the 80's.

Hello Mary, My God! I'm very sorry the young thing you were could not watch anything else than "schlock" movies before the 80s. About 1967, you could have watch The Graduate, In The Heat Of The Night, Bonnie And Clyde, Cool Hand Luke, Guess Who's Coming To Dinner, The Jungle Book, We Only Live Twice, In Cold Blood, The Taming of the Shrew, To Sir With Love, The Samouraï, Beauty Of The Day, The Fearless Vampire Killers, Millie, Hombre, The War Wagon, ... At least one hundred very good movies of all genres, even by today's standards. You explicitly mean that movies older than the 90s are bad, and what was made then is good (at least partially). I read behind your words that Campbell, Field ... were of great help to save our culture from the schlock. You may be right and I may be wrong. But for now, that's only a statement. This post is not a place to maintain. This is a place to explain. As I disagree with you, I can only help you clarifying your ideas. So please develop. Best.

I watched neither My Favorite Wife, neither Penny Serenade. Thanks for the tip.

Hi Jean Marie. Re; Bonnie and Clyde. Shallow characters, lame acting other than Gene Hackman, and terrible accents. As I am from the Dallas area, had to laugh at the accents. This is just an example of the typical US movie of the day, and what was expected of screenwriters and producers of the era. Not much. They could not compete with cable tv writers today. I say, as a generality, that for decades , the US movie going public was thought to be simple minded folk who could not grasp real characterizations nor realistic dialogue. The censorship was intense. I was saying that this majorly improved in the 80's. Look at Working Girl. Multiple lines have been used in other films.

Hello Mary, I presume that Dallas series irked you. I'm not sure your opinion about Bonnie and Clyde is shared by many people, except in Texas maybe. Our own little area and its people appear very strange in movies from "foreign" areas. This is the same in France: The "sharp" Parisian accent and the attitudes of actors in stories set in the south of France seem always pretty ridiculous. I presume this is also the same for South Boston people who watched Good Will Hunting. Bonnie And Clyde is not a philosophical movie. It's pure entertainment. How about the characters' depth in Transformers, Furious ...? The censorship is exactly what I'm fighting against. At the moment, this is mostly about formating and storytelling "rules". .-=!=-. Thank you for all your suggestions. This will be my watching program for a few days. It seems like Cary Grant is not a good example of non flawed hero actor. I realize that I consider him mainly for his roles in To Catch A Thief and North By Northwest. A lot of great actors/actress used to play flawed heroes/heroines and were perfectly likeable of course. This is the case for Humphrey Bogart. Jack Nicholson is also a great one. IMO there are three kinds of "flaw" in current movies: - Used flaws related to a hero's arc: these are legitimate as they add an obstacle the hero must overcome. - Unused flaws: These are just an effect as they are not used in the plot to add any obstacle in front of the hero. That's the case in the last James Bond Movies: his need of revenge doesn't make him doing wrong things and he doesn't struggle against it. This is also the case in Captain America: his puny body is quickly changed for a muscle man's one. - False flaws: These seem to be flaws but actually are a strength as they help the hero accomplishing their journey (if this one exists) or their task. This is the case for Wall-E: it suffers of being alone and that's what pushes it into taking Eve's hand and following it. That's not a flaw, that's the engine of its behavior. This can be true also for Quantum Of Solace.

Please have a look here: http://othernetwork.com/2014/03/01/the-story-structure-countdown-how-dif... I just found a new (2012) screenwriting theory -totally biased- pretending to scientifically demonstrate that the best movie structure is a (copyrighted) 10 acts pattern... I don't say anything else about it as at the moment, this could only get advertising to it. I'll tell more if it becomes viral.

Jean Marie, I am constantly arguing many of the same issues in my screenwriting Masters Degree program: does it really matter if my theme is stated on page 7 rather than page 5?, or that the inciting incident occurs on page 16 rather than page 10? or even if my first act is 33 pages rather than 30?...my argument is : This is how my story naturally flows and opens. The response back is: They will throw away your script if it is more than 90 perhaps 110 pages long, if the inciting incident occurs later rather than sooner your audience will be bored, so will the reader who is typically an underpaid intern who could care less, etc etcetera...apply the hero's journey and everything changes too though it is a nice concept to see both intertwining and weaving a narrative; my plot points, pinches, and midpoint never line up exactly with a hero's journey, so therefore my story is flawed: i simply say it is designed in a different fashion BUT until I can make a name for myself I cannot break the rules...as more famous people can and do take liberties. What we are dealing with here in America as writers is competition and the piece of the ever so small pie; "they" will find any excuse to demerit or expel anyone...much of the same "rewriting process" occurs within every artistic venue as actress and actors go under pretty much the same microscope: there are too many workers and not enough enough work. The trend today is do your own thing; many people have left the Hollywood scene and found that they can produce and direct on their own without the constraints and hoops they jump through. I do admire the work that all these screenwriting people have put into their craft as everyone's opinion needs to be respected; If I saw something and elaborated on it like they do I would like it everyone else felt the same way as I do...but it's just an opinion, another insight. You forget to mention that even these authors say that the story can bend as the winds does just enough so that the spine of the story doesn't break itself...and that point is constantly reiterated as they write their books. There is a truth to some of what they say. How do you feel about the storyteller Robert McKee? Also Pulp Fiction is circular ... as the circle of abuse is circular...how do we break the chain? Isn't every movie narrative circular is some way as they live in the normal ordinary world, go out of it for a while as they learn about life and its inherent good vs. evil, only to come full circle back to their normal life hopefully a little bit wiser? I can name a few movies, Chinatown especially comes to mind, where this learning does not take place and the world is worse off...? As far a flawed goes...we are all flawed and to deny the human condition in any story is a lie...or we are living in Heaven or Pre-the Fall of Man. I hear your frustration. Screenwriters need to stand up and change the landscape of the director's mind and heart: the directors and producers are not the final decision of MY story. We writers need to become a part of the translation of my humble words and verbiage into the frames of the movie sequences, nuances of internal conflict and actions displayed, as they become the story in film. The books and rules are a set up to make me "obey" so to speak and not step upon the ever so pained toes of the higher ups - where money talks more than what I say - my message gets lost. Best- Linda

Yes, Jean Marie et al, screenwriting could be so much more, movies could be so much more without the 3 act rule etc., etc. When I first sat down to write a screenplay in 2010, my coach asked me what are the 3 acts? No one wants it without organization into 3 acts. Not to mention trying to sell a screenplay without the first page and and the other 9 initial pages being grabbers. No one of importance has the patience to look at the center of a script, it seems. I say, what is wrong with picking up a script and reading at the middle or at the end? If I were the reader, I would do that. I would like to know how well the script writer held up. That is exactly how I decide if I want to buy a book. We are seeing more creative films when money can be raised to make indies. And of course, Quentin Tarrantino did what he wanted to do.

Hello Linda, Hello Mary, 1- About the industry: You're right of course. The three acts structure, the hero's journey, etc... are basic rules, easy to apply... the grade school level of storytelling. The industry like this because it's a cheap way to use mediocre readers and to find new screenwriters: before hiring a Ma or a Ph.D, it's better to verify they have at least the pgrade school level. The industry also like consultants, contests, ... because this make the writers paying for the job of polishing and selling their work... And the industry also like these rules because these are military discipline rules, making good little soldiers, humble, obedient, servile... "scmucks with Underwoods"... But they don't like these rules because these are the best storytelling rules: I bet that if this were a done thing to break movies each 20 mins with ads in theaters, the best story structure would be a 5 acts one, and screenwriting gurus just would argue if this needs a switch at the end of act four and the climax in the middle of act 5 or something else... I am a "schmuck with an Underwood". I make my work proofread, I enter contests with standard three-acts-structure stories and flawed heroes with a character's arc (I may enter the same contest with two different versions of the same story to get relative feedback). Fortunately, I don't need to sell anything and this is only a personal challenge (what's good because like so many people, I'm better for theory than for practice). Then I read Tarantino, Lynch, Welles... scripts and I learn how to enrich my stories. I'm not fighting the industry. The industry is just opportunistic and that's normal. I'm fighting bad or pseudo gurus who invent bad rules with a cultural alibi instead of writing stories because they are not able (or gutsy enough) to do so... and because they give bad tools and bad reasons both to the industry and the students to make a weak job. Here is the new definitive 10 acts pattern I was talking about yesterday: http://storyality.wordpress.com/an-index-to-this-blog/ Read this: -The Research Question/Problem: What makes a great’ film story? 1. StoryAlity #18 - The Problem: 7 in 10 Feature Films Lose Money 2. StoryAlity #19 – How Many Movies Are There? 3. StoryAlity #20 – What Exactly is, aSuccessful’ Film? 4. StoryAlity #21 – What Makes A Film Succeed? – The Story. 5. StoryAlity #22 – So What Doesn’t Necessarily Make a Movie Successful? 6. StoryAlity #23 – Define “A Film Story” On Feature Films and RoI (Return on Investment): 1. StoryAlity #24 – On Feature Films and RoI (Return on Investment) 2. StoryAlity #25 – Possibly: Why 7 in 10 Movies Lo$e Money 3. StoryAlity #26 – “3 Acts”? …Did Aristotle ever say that? Synthesis: What makes a `great’ film story = RoI (Return on Investment). Admirable isn’t it? There is no more need of a cultural alibi! How do you think the industry would like this model? And most importantly, what this big lesson makes us learn? Based on the "analysis" of the 20 most profitable movies since 1968, the best pattern is: - A horror movie, - 90mins/scenes length, - With a two part structure, - And the 10 acts “xx” ™ story syntagm, - And a production budget = £1.9m, - With 3 main “good guys” and 1 main villain, - And no character’s arc, - Story driven, - In which the antagonist wins and the hero dies, - Set in present day, - Temporally linear, - With a love story, - About three primal themes: life & Death, Family, Justice. As saying that Schindler's List, Titanic, Wall-E... are not among good movies. (IMO, the only thing that might make some sense is the three primal themes stuff). Fortunately, this theory is so biased that I think it cannot succeed. 2- About the standard rules: I’m not against the “standard” rules; I'm against making them compulsory. 3- About Robert McKee: Plus: - He is not the most fanatic guru, - Most of what he says makes sense (as well as what the others say), - He really wrote and sold screenplays and teleplays (Abraham...) = he's not only a theorist + for now he did better than me. Minus: - He doesn't break the mold, just giving his own vue: it's about the three act structure and the protagonist's journey; so everything he doesn't talk about is missing, - I have neither read one of his screenplays nor seen one of the movies he wrote (not found them), - The references he gives in his Wikipedia page don't appear on IMDB. 4- Why you must struggle to gain freedom and save creativity: A great man struggled from his prison during 27 years and then he became the first President of the Rainbow Nation. Do you think the end could have occured without the beginning? This was a great hero's journey. If there were no cinematograph, no theaters, no actors, no books, no writing, there were always storytellers telling stories the audience needs. We are the only necessary thing to make a hero's journey living. What about our own? Are we only "schmucks with Underwoods"?

Jean-Marie...do you realize that this is fractal in nature? I brought this issue up with my first instructor when we discussed other forms for screenwriting other than linear ... I am amazed as this is the answer I was looking for. I specifically asked him if we can depart from the conventional pythagorean model of linear into the fractal nature of life, a more common naturalistic shape; this might account for the randomness that occurs within anyone's history and story. He of course said no...they fail at the box office...I don't feel he understood what I meant: Our sense of mathematics needs to change the common construct within our minds as we perceive this what is now called a 3dimensional realm, when in fact we exist exist somewhere in between the 3rd and 4th dimension...fractal concepts and math accounts for this departure, but it is more normal than we think: this structure you have shown the shape of a seashell and from the inception of the story to its conclusion it unfolds according to this pattern, much in the same way that a sea shell is formed. I have not read the article yet as I didn't need to...just seeing the formation was enough to let me know we are on the right track...I am sure of it. I support your view...now I will read the article and implement it into my thesis screenplay....truly this answers my first question I asked in this program. I was pursuing my degree in psychology at SUNY Albany many years ago when in a biology class of all places the notion of fractal shapes and how to mathematically describe them came up..even the common pattern for how we randomly walk in an "S" shape or form when we wander...the instructor brought us through the eye and its perception of dimensions from the different positions of POV: if we are in space our perception of dimensional realms changes and continues to change as we come up closer ad closer to the shape. I asked her to explain from the POV that we are in at that moment and tell me about my hand...what dimension is is truly in. She didn't have an answer, but then she thought a moment on it and thanked me for furthering her research because I gave her pause to think; her focus was on shapes outside of her own body, not on the body itself. She spent the rest of the class figuring it out from each perspective of sight within the body and outside of the body and concluded that we exist somewhere in between the 3rd and 4th dimension. Her name is Mrs Ghiardella. She and her partner are on the cutting edge of brain research at the college. I will get back to you later this afternoon after I have read it. thank you for stepping up and becoming the innovator. Truly I can't tell you how happy I am that someone else thinks and perceives the world like me....This is going to change the current constructs as we know them.

The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952), The English Patient, have the same structure.

The other notion that comes to mind is "What if death didn't exist?" How would our story patterns change?

Thank you so much Linda, I didn't discover or invent anything of course (what would mean that my analyse is false!). I was just frustrated by the "standard pattern", seeing how many stories, movies... don't match with it, and wanting to write the same way. There are infinite ways to tell a story, at the same time variable, close and very different. These are a perfect example of fractal objects. You can ever find new ones, mix different ones to create new structures... This would be a better way to teach storytelling than to raise some basic patterns as compulsory paradigms. Fractales were invented by Benoit Mandelbrot as a tool to analyze and control financial turbulences. But financial people are as childish as Hollywood people: they prefer being driven by adrenaline than by efficient tools... So these are scientists and artists who use them. They take a great place in SFX as they are one of the most powerful tool to design complex landscapes. In imaging and storytelling, what is closest to the basic fractal approach is the "Mise en Abyme", wich consists in putting an image in itself at a smaller scale and repeating this at the infinite. That's also the effect you obtain when seeing something between to opposite mirrors. This is quite the process used in Inception, and something close to what's used to make circular structures, as the confrontation between young and old James Cole in Twelve Monkeys. Up to now, I don't remember any script that exploit both the scale adapting and the repetitive abilities of Fractales. I think there is a great idea behind this, that could make some great plots.

I totally disagree with what Peter says of course: 1- Unless I'm mistaken, Linda was not talking about fractal stories but about the multiple facets and possible combination of story genres. 2- Nothing is impossible except if it's proved to be so, which needs some hypothesis and equations related to the limited field you are working on. So telling that hypothesis and equations related to mathematics field are not complient with the storytelling field cannot be true unless it's demonstrated. A fortiori when these hypothesis and equations match with economics and financials, biology, topography, imaging... 3- Benoit Mandelbrot (1924- 2010) and his successors use the Chaos Theory among other mathematical tools (geometry...) in order to enlarge the field and use of Fractals, but Henri Poincaré (1850-1912) never worked on Fractals. The Chaos Theory take a very important place in Mandelbrot works about financials, as well as in landscapes design. E.g. the firt fractal below which is perfectly repetitive as nothing to do with the Chaos Theory, the second one includes some random variables that make it unpredictable, in accordance with the Chaos Theory: http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/290/a/e/Spiral_Fractal_by_12CArt.jpg http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/065/6/c/Purple_Spiral_Fractal_by_... 4- as I just said before, finding good ways to tell fractal stories could make some great plots. Here are the Mise en Abyme scene of Citizen Kane and some more examples. The spiral structure which is one of the simplest fractals is used in horror stories. https://foreclectictastes.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/citizen_kane_7.jpeg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C0qH4pK7q4g/Trf6Sp629zI/AAAAAAAAAH4/0yMMmh7w7T... http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3B_woI7j7NQ/TagQLXwed-I/AAAAAAAAAZU/HXjOSFx8DH... http://www.smy.fr/apple/mise-en-abyme-de-steve-jobs_39.html https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4124/5062994879_10cb28e6d4_z.jpg http://blog.le-miklos.eu/wp-content/VermeerWien.jpg http://www.artdb.com/fr/oeuvre/david-teniers-le-jeune/l-archiduc-leopold...

Hem! I also totally disagree when Peter says that something not proven to be uncompliant with mathematics - even the Chaos Theory - is subjective. This needs to be proved.

Linda, I think you found a very interesting approach of storytelling analyzis . This idea about genres fractal range/combination could be something great. I think this needs to be worked on.

I don't like rules. I like methods, because these don't exclude what is not complying with them. And I like all these paradigms as well as others, as long as they don't become rules. IMO "I just want to leave my mind open to those who differ" is a very good mehod.

Steve Behling (Exeutive Editor oF Disney Publishing Worldwide) gave some really great advice recently in a discussion about heroes... and I quote "Each character should be unique. Because each character is unique, each story should be different. Because each character is unique, and each story is different, there are no hard and fast rules. Bottom line? HAVE FUN. Have fun, and there's a really good chance your audience will, too.

That's true, and that's what occurs when you are established as an insider, because the industry doesn't really care about these "paradigms"; some authors respect them (also making a great job: James Cameron,...) many don't: just search the hero's journey in Transformers, the linearity and the three acts structure in Pulp Fiction... Just analyze the AA and GG Best Movies and Best Screenplays awards year after year... Just check the number of horror/action movies with no characters' arc released each year!... However, amateur and newby writers are taught these paradigms, year after year, and these are eliminatory as well as controversial formatting details established writers don't respect in many contests (e.g. Reel Writers). I bet that all these rules are also a way to keep the flock outside and supply a big business!

Jean-Marie; I gotta say that for such a young ‘un, you seem to have a pretty good handle on the topic.

Peter – let’s just edit it a bit: Each character ought to be unique so as to make each story unique. Hard & fast rules tend to state absolute terms like “must, required, need to…” and unless you’re the King, you don’t get to proclaim them anyway. I'm okay with his use of "should be"

Well... Thank you Steve Behling. Respect! For once a guy who doesn't write doesn't say the same claptrap than those who are unable to write but take the liberty of dénigrate and correct those who write... I like this guy!

I must be completely out of the loop because the way I learned screenwriting is that there are only two hard and fast rules. Rule # 1 states that there are no rules and Rule # 2 says that when in doubt, refer to Rule # 1. Ignorance is bliss.

Happy New Year!