Book Review of Telling Stories: Postmodernism and the Invalidation of Traditional Narrative by Michael Roemer (1995)

Telling Stories: Postmodernism and the Invalidation of Traditional Narrative. Michael Roemer. Landham, MD: Rowen and Littlefield, 1995. 499 pages.


By Patrick Charsky


Telling Stories: Postmodernism and the Invalidation of Traditional Narrative by Michael Roemer is a truly unique book. I don’t think I’ve encountered anything quite like it. Telling Stories is a book full of profound meanings, excellent analysis of classic literature, and deep insight into the psychology of humans. It reveals the Postmodern condition and its implications for creating literature in the twenty-first century.

Michael Roemer is an award winning filmmaker and Professor at Yale University. I found his book through a list of texts I received as a Graduate student in Creative Writing. I read the book a few years ago, perhaps too lazily, to really give it it’s due. I returned to the book as part of a study project about Screenwriting books. I read the book twice and still think another read might be necessary for me to grasp the larger meanings in the book. Still, I think I comprehended the book well enough. Like Adam and Eve eating the apple, I tasted the sweet fruit of Roemer’s book and longed to taste more.

Telling Stories is deep into Philosophy. From Nietzche to Levi- Strauss, the book is replete with quotations and references to the great thinkers of the European tradition. Roemer says Literature and Art have become political statements rather than venerated works of religious significance. Roemer is similar to other Postmodernists when he writes that God is Dead and so is Man. His critique of Positivism is a running theme throughout the book. Through this theory man has sought to control his own destiny, to control the World. Roemer, writes that Positivism seems to be humanity’s only recourse to satisfy necessity and come to terms with mortality. Despite the advances that Human Civilization has made, we still blame God for catastrophes having no other recourse to explain why they happen. God is dead, but he is responsible for anything we can’t explain. Really deep thoughts about our current state of affairs. I was really moved by his ideas.

Further on in the text Roemer discusses the Creation myth of the Judeo-Christian Bible. I was moved by his analysis of the myth of Adam and Eve. He writes that consciousness is the original sin of man. An idea I had come across before, but never was it so elucidated as by Roemer. It opened a wellspring of knowledge about human psychology, the origin of humanity, and the meaning of religion.

Another excellent aspect of Telling Stories was Roemer’s analysis of Classic Literature. He writes about Oedipus Rex extensively. He writes about the character of Oedipus and how his fate is predetermined like so many characters in literature. Roemer says “every story is over before it begins.” Most audiences in Ancient times had seen the play of Oedipus or any other play enough times to know the story. So it became essential to create literature that people didn’t know how the hero was going to succeed. True to this day of Hollywood movies. We know that the hero will win, the only question is how will he win? What obstacles will he overcome to triumph?

Roemer goes deep into 19th Century Literature. I learned a lot about Madame Bovary, Crime and Punishment, King Lear, and Roemer’s favorite author Henry James, He calls Madame Bovary the first Modern novel. He cites Bleak House as Dickens’ most complicated, freest novel. And in one of the last chapters of the book, devoted entirely to Henry James, he writes a mini-biography of James as a Postmodernist. These novels and plays serve as the primary sources of the text. Anyone looking to get deeper into Literary theory would be wise to check out the references of Telling Stories.

Telling Stories also has deep insights into character psychology. Relying on examples and references from Freud, Jung, and the Judeo-Christian origin story, Roemer fleshes out the female psyche in famous stories like Madame Bovary. He writes about how Madame Bovary was scandalous at the time it was published for showing a woman who has affairs and runs up debts.

In the concluding chapter Roemer talks about how the couple is the most important human relationship of contemporary times. He also relates the theory that Men are taught empathy and how to relate emotionally by their Mothers. Roemer’s use of psychology shows that Literature and Art are heavily influenced by the feminine.

In another disclosure of his immense knowledge Roemer describes the Postmodern story in contrast to traditional narrative. Roemer asks; is plot dead? In my own studies I have come across a debate about which is more important; character or plot? In Telling Stories, Roemer says character is everything and plot is an “ideological construct.” I found this piece of information to be a revelation. Never before had I heard someone so unabashedly condemn plot or call it an “ideological construct.” It was an excellent piece of writing which showed how little pieces of a story add up to big meanings.

As Orwell has said “All Art is Propaganda” Roemer agrees and writes that the only subject Art has left is politics. Religion has become obsolete. Mythology has lost it’s effect. The only thing left, according to Roemer, is to make a political statement. And I agree. So many of the popular films in theaters these days are about some type of political conspiracy or power struggle. It seems Roemer is very right indeed.

I didn’t find this book on any list recommending books about screenwriting. So I asked myself, why should I read this book? Will it make me a better Screenwriter? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Since Literature has been consumed by philosophy in so many ways, the value of its information would be most relevant in a setting like a classroom. Creative Writing, Comparative Literature, Literary Theory, and Philosophy students would profit the most from reading this book. Screenwriters and Authors in general would find it very theoretical and not very practical. There are no instructions about how to write a Postmodern film or novel. I would not recommend this book to anyone who does not like philosophy. There is just too much theory to be of much worth to anyone who doesn’t like complex ideas.

This book led me to more books and really ignited a flame to comprehend more Literary Theory. And I think it will do the same for motivated students, particularly Graduate students. And that is one of the reasons I went to Graduate school; to think about the big ideas, to have time to contemplate something more than just the latest Marvel Studios Movie, Chick Lit novel reviewed in the New York Times Book Review, or the point of existence itself. Telling Stories is just that; a work full of big ideas that will open your mind to new ways of thinking. An excellent book.

Book Review of Alternative Scriptwriting: Beyond the Hollywood Formula (2013)

Alternative Scriptwriting: Beyond the Hollywood Formula. Ken Dancyge and Jeff Rush. New York, NY: Focal Press, 2013. 474 pages


By Patrick Charsky


Dancyger and Rush’s Alternative Scriptwriting is a very unique book among Screenwriting textbooks. It is far different from Syd Field’s Foundations of Screenwriting and goes in directions that Russin and Downs’ Writing the Picture fears to tread. It is a great book for independent filmmakers. Alternative Scriptwriting is an excellent criticism of the Hollywood formula. Not only does the book break down the mainstream way of making films, it offers methods to make alternative films that are more creative, personal, and innovative than movies made in the classical way.

Ken Dancyger and Jeffrey Rush are both film professors. Dancyger teaches at NYU and Rush teaches at Temple University. Both have published widely in the fields of scriptwriting, Film, and Media Studies. I read Alternative Scriptwriting after reading books that were more classical; like Foundations of Screenwriting by Field, Story Sense by Paul Lucey, and Writing the Picture by Russin and Downs.

Alternative Scriptwriting is at it’s best when it is criticizing the three act restorative screenplay. The book makes clear that since the Napoleonic Wars this has been the structure of dramatic works. The question that Dancyger and Rush raise is what next? What to do about the tired formulaic ways that Hollywood depends so much upon? The answer they have is to go beyond the traditional three act structure that books like Syd Field’s Foundations of Screenwriting propound as the answer to screenwriters’ problems.

The two books may disagree about how a screenwriter should structure their script, but they do agree that screenplays, for better or worse, are all about structure. In Alternative Scriptwriting there are six chapters devoted to a discussion of structure. In the best chapter comparing classical filmmaking to alternative filmmaking, the authors compare Steven Spielberg to Steven Soderbergh.

They write that Spielberg is the epitome of classical filmmaking style. In contrast, Soderbergh is the poster boy for alternative filmmaking. By analyzing these two Auteurs and their films, the details of each way of making classical or alternative films are elucidated in clear terms that every reader can understand. From here the authors develop their analysis of alternative scriptwriting throughout the book.

With so many people writing screenplays these days, how do you stand out from the crowd? How do you write a screenplay that is turned into a film? Dancyger and Rush push readers to veer away from the Hollywood formulas that are so prevalent in action/adventure films. To do this, the authors say, is to write scripts that focus on background or character. They say that character is more important than plot. And to have a successful screenplay, the writer must think deeply about character.

The book is replete with examples about how to structure a film that emphasizes character. I was turned on to numerous films and found myself watching a few films the book talked about. The Constant Gardener was one such film. It is definitely an alternative film. It has shots of poverty in Africa, a non-linear structure to the film, and deals deeply with the character of Ralph Fiennes. This was one film among many that the authors referenced or offered as a case study.

Prior to reading Alternative Scriptwriting I had seen a number of Alternative Films. But never before had I encountered such insight and intelligent analysis of the differences between Hollywood and films from Indiewood, Europe, or Asia. The authors also showed how mainstream films and alternative films have blended together over the past decades. This has made films newer and fresher than the staid, classical way of filmmaking.

Whether one way is better than the other, I suppose, is a matter of opinion. Whether you prefer American films made in Hollywood or Art Films made in Europe or Asia, this book will show you the differences between them and cause you to reconsider your understanding of filmmaking.

The next point Dancyger and Rush make is to write films that are infused with personal experience. They write that personal films make better films. How does one do that? How does one write a personal film? Dancyger and Rush talk quite a lot about genre. The relationship between personal films and genre is an important topic. They write that most people have boring and relatively normal lives where not much happens. So, with this in mind writers must resort to genre. From here writers can infuse their stories with personal attributes while working within a genre.

Alternative Scriptwriting analyzes many films that use genre and further on, those films that mix genre. This was a new concept for me and I’m sure it will be for other writers. The best example they write about is Blade Runner. Blade Runner is a combination of two genres: Film Noir and Science Fiction. Ultimately, Dancyger and Rush say Blade Runner is a failure because using both genres undermines either one. Their analysis of Blade Runner is insightful and revealing. I took a new view of the film I had seen many times, but I never considered the fact that it is a blend between genres.

Another point Alternative Scriptwriting makes is about innovative screenplays. Screenplays that go beyond the three act structure. A great example the book cites is Quentin Tarrantino’s Pulp Fiction. The authors write about its unique structure in the chapter about non-linear films. It also comes up in the chapter about character. For sure, Pulp Fiction has many colorful characters.This is another area where scriptwriters need to think and think hard to make their scripts innovative.

A prime example of an innovative character is Bernardo Bertolucci’s The Conformist. In this example, Dancyger and Rush write, is a main character that is not likeable. Yet the film is still an interesting study of Italy during the Fascist years. The character of Marcello is made more empathetic by his background story. He was raped as a child and his family life is in shambles. So he turns to Fascism. Not a very likeable character, but a character with distinctive traits. There are countless examples that the authors of Alternative Scriptwriting use in thinking about character. The chapter is good as a reference when thinking about how to create a main character for a script.

Structure, Theme, and Character are the big issues according to the authors of Alternative Scriptwriting. They truly do go beyond the Hollywood Formula and present new ways of thinking about scripts. They reference many different films and television shows, breaking them down, analyzing each way to reveal their structure and explaining why they work or why they don’t.

The writing can get quite academic and philosophical. I would recommend reading the book at least twice. Filmmakers looking for a new way to consider writing scripts would want to consult this book. It is the opposite of many books in the market about the Hero’s Journey and other formulas that are the bread and butter of the big studios.

Alternative Scriptwriting has great references, profound insights, and much advice about how to write scripts. It stands in the same class as Robert McKee’s Story, Syd Field’s Foundations of Screenwriting, and other books that greatly add to the instruction and discussion of how to write screenplays. Although not a breezy memoir filled with anecdotes about making films, it is a great book that delves deeply into questions about the process of writing screenplays.

Book Review of Screenplay: Writing the Picture by Russin and Downs (2012)

Screenplay: Writing the Picture. Robin U. Russin and William Missouri Downs. Los Angeles, CA: Silman- James Press, 2012. 424 pages


By Patrick Charsky


    In the history of textbooks about screenwriting, Screenplay: Writing the Picture by Robin U. Russin and William Missouri Downs ranks among the best. In fact it might be the best. It is more authoritative than Syd Fields’ Foundations of Screenwriting and updated and more current than Paul Lucey’s Story Sense. It is a toss up between Story Sense and Writing the Picture about which book is the better textbook about screenwriting. Screenplay: Writing the Picture is one of the best, most recent books about screenwriting accessible to both beginners and professionals.

This review will consider why Writing the Picture is so highly recommended on the internet and among teachers of screenwriting. Furthermore, it will talk about how it’s the most recent textbook about screenwriting, its use of contemporary films to illustrate it’s points and its introduction of source material for further study. Finally, this review will examine any shortcomings the book may have. It will also consider who the book will most appeal to.

Russin and Downs are a famous pair of writing teachers who have written extensively. Writing the Picture is their masterful text about Screenwriting. They have also written a book about playwriting called Naked Playwriting. Robin Russin is a produced screenwriter and playwright. He has many degrees and teaches Creative Writing at UC Riverside. William Missouri Downs is a playwright, director, screenwriter, and author.

Screenplay: Writing the Picture is full of great information. Its chapters flow with suggestions about how to write, format, and sell screenplays. Right from the start Writing the Picture brings the reality of Hollywood to the novice screenwriter. The book talks about screenplay development and how a screenplay will end up in front of a reader who will judge the screenplay before it gets to someone with the power to greenlight the script. Russin and Downs make clear the reality of screenwriting; that you may slave away for months or years to write a great screenplay only to have it read and discarded in a matter of hours by a reader.

Particularly good is the section about Story Structure. Writing the Picture emphasizes the importance of structure in screenplays. According to Russin and Downs, Hollywood executives and independent producers are always looking for a new way to structure screenplays. The chapters about structure delve into the history of dramatic structure from Aristotle to more contemporary writers like Joseph Campbell and Chris Vogler who revolutionized screenplay structure with their ideas about the influence of myth on stories.

Writing the Picture is an extraordinarily erudite book that uses many recent examples from film history, like James Cameron’s The Terminator, to illustrate its points which are well made. The book is excellent because it is authoritative and an exceptional reference for a writer who is writing the first draft of a screenplay or who is rewriting a script. Its chapters about Marketing the screenplay are informative and very helpful for someone contemplating a dive into the business of screenwriting. It’s chapters about the basics of writing a script are also valuable to a beginner or as a refresher to a veteran.

Russin and Downs give off great advice about sending out screenplays, finding an agent, scheduling a pitch meeting, and how to copyright a screenplay. All of this may seem accessible through some google searches, but Russin and Downs cover everything a novice would want to know better than any internet writer. It also addresses important questions like should a screenwriter move to Los Angeles? Or New York City?

As a Screenwriter myself the book talked about methods of writing that I found extremely helpful. The chapter about using notecards and about how many sequences there should be really got me thinking about planning my next screenplay. Some writers eschew using notecards, but for a beginner it is an easy way to organize and plan a screenplay before writing. It is a useful method, perhaps more useful than writing a treatment, because most writers will get stuck.

In the crowded marketplace for screenwriting books, Writing the Picture is the most recent, best textbook on the market. To my knowledge the only comparable book is Paul Lucey’s Story Sense. The big difference between the books is that Story Sense uses mostly films from the 1980’s. It’s information, structure, and advice are very similar to Writing the Picture.

The major drawbacks of Writing the Picture is that it lacks information about the streaming revolution that has taken over the movie business. The style of writing is very academic which suits its purposes. This book is definitely not a memoir about screenwriting like Millard Kaufman’s Plots and Characters. Yet it is better than Syd Fields’ book Foundations of Screenwriting. Field touches on some topics but doesn’t come close to Russin and Downs’ exhaustive knowledge about the screenwriting game. Writing the Picture doesn’t sugar coat Hollywood in any way. As it states in its introduction, this is a no nonsense book. That may be true and it surely deflates the egos of many who aspire to screenwriting success.

The book is ideal for a College screenwriting course. It is also great as a reference tool and secondary source about screenwriting topics like dramatic structure, how to create a “World” for your screenplay, and types of conflict in screenplays. I would recommend the book to serious students and practitioners of screenwriting. It is a heavy book with challenging chapters. Yet it holds the keys to writing a great screenplay.

Book Review of Story Sense by Paul Lucey

Story Sense: Writing Story and Script for Feature Films and Television. Paul Lucey. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, 1996. 398 pages

                                      By Patrick Charsky


    If you are looking for a textbook about Screenwriting, Paul Lucey’s Story Sense is the best. It contains everything a beginner might need as well as being an easy reference guide for advanced screenwriters. All screenwriters complain about getting stuck. Story Sense is a book that can help you get unstuck. Paul Lucey’s Story Sense is often overlooked as a great text about how to write screenplays. It should not be. It is one of the best books about the mechanics of writing a screenplay. With detailed explanations and lucid examples the book is the best in a market crammed with books that are long on promises of easy solutions or fortune and fame, but short on the hard work and struggle that goes into writing a screenplay.

Professor Lucey had a long and distinguished career as a Professor at UCLA, USC, and other schools. Story Sense is Dr. Lucey’s magnum opus gleaned from a long career writing for the industry and teaching. He has won several awards.

Why is Paul Lucey’s Story Sense overlooked? When I did internet searches about the best screenwriting books, I found that not one list had his book on it. Instead Blake Snyder’s Save the Cat and Writing Movies for Profit were on each list. These books get bad reviews of Amazon.com as they should. They are not the best books for screenwriters to read. In fact Writing Movies for Profit looks like a terrible book that shouldn’t be on anyone’s list of screenwriting books to read. I would advise screenwriters to avoid these books and read Story Sense.

Story Sense is structured like a textbook. It is very detailed in its explanations of a wide variety of topics important to writing screenplays. It covers things like kinds of stories; is it a Medea or a Faust? In addition Lucey writes about dramatic engines to keep your screenplay moving forward without losing the audience. Story Sense is not like Millard Kaufman’s Plots and Characters. It lacks humor and anecdotes that are so well used in Kaufman’s book on screenwriting. Story Sense is also unlike Syd Field’s book The Foundations of Screenwriting. Field uses mostly screenplay analysis to make his points. Lucey’s book is better as a textbook than both of these books. They lack the authority of Lucey’s book.

Lucey’s key film is The Verdict written by David Mamet. Lucey does an excellent job of showing how well written The Verdict screenplay is. In a scene study segment in the book, Lucey breaks down all the components of a scene. The dialogue, the setting, all the way until the end of the scene with Paul Newman standing alone, fighting against the legal hierarchy in Boston. In another example, Lucey breaks down why the conclusion of The Terminator is done so well. He makes obvious the repeated attempts to kill the machine. But the machine keeps coming back. It is the use of examples like these along with excellent analysis that makes Story Sense not only edifying, but also a pleasure to read.

The book does have some drawbacks. It is a textbook, so it lacks the informal style of books like Millard Kaufman’s Plots and Characters. Perhaps it is too schematic. Not enough creativity. Another negative is its film references have grown older. With the exception of Sleepless in Seattle, the other three study films are from the 1980’s. So a reader from the present might have trouble connecting with them because they were made in a different era.

Story Sense helped me to write two screenplays. I used it as a reference. It was easy to access and always had some advice, examples, and solutions about how to proceed to the next topic be it creating characters, stories engines, writing the second act, or coming up with a great conclusion. Story Sense is an underappreciated book about screenwriting.

Book Review of The Foundations of Screenwriting by Syd Field

 Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting. Syd Field. New York, NY: Bantam Dell, 2005. 319 pages.

By Patrick Charsky


    “Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.” Those unforgettable words at the end of, perhaps, the best written movie of the New Hollywood form the centerpiece of Syd Field’s Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting. Field says that Chinatown is a film to be appreciated, studied in detail, and learned from. Syd Field’s book is a pace setting text about Screenplay structure. Through his use of examples both contemporary and classic he illustrates each aspect of his paradigm. In doing so he makes writing a screenplay not an impossible task, but a “journey with its own rewards.”

    Field wrote Foundations of Screenwriting in the late 1970’s. A time of radical reinvention of Film as an art form. According to Syd, there were no books about screenwriting at the time he was working as a story analyst for Cinemobile. So he set out to write a book that would make screenwriting less painful and more systematic. Of course, Aristotle’s ideas about dramatic form have been around for centuries, but Field was the first to write about dramatic structure for Cinema.

    In addition to being a story analyst and author, Field also taught Screenwriting. Teaching and writing were his life’s work. Although not widely produced as a writer, teaching was his metier. He has written several other books about Screenwriting and has aided many writers in successfully writing produced screenplays.

    At the time of publication of The Foundations of Screenwriting there was no Amazon; no plethora of Screenwriting books, seminars, etc. Field’s book was a breakthrough. He was the first to come up with a paradigm for screenwriters. While some books talk about character or story citing ancient plays like Oedipus Rex or Macbeth, Field creates an adaptable system easily employed by writers to complete a screenplay. Many people set out to write a screenplay, and many don’t finish what they set out to do. Field’s book can be a helpful aid. It states that screenplays need a beginning, an ending, and two plot points. It makes the process of writing a screenplay easier by following a structure that has been inherent in films since the earliest days of Hollywood.

    The Foundations of Screenwriting contains many great examples of how to write beginnings and endings. Field analyzes Chinatown, American Beauty, and Basic Instinct, among others. He breaks down each beginning and shows how it sets up the rest of the film. In his analysis of Chinatown he talks about how Screenwriter Robert Towne wrote the first ten pages. He shows how Towne sets up the dramatic premise, the water scandal, and reveals the complication of the real Evelyn Mulwray showing up at Gittes’ office to radically change the direction of the film. Field’s analysis is excellent and his writing flourishes when talking about a film he says he has seen “more than thirty times.”

    Field talks about other films that use an action opener like Basic Instinct. He analyzes the first ten minutes of the film and shows how it lays out the conflict for the rest of the film. Another film Field writes about at length is American Beauty. He writes about the opening monologue where Lester Burnham says how his wife and daughter think he’s a “gigantic loser” and that he will be dead soon. Field uses excellent examples to illustrate his point that the first ten pages of a screenplay are crucial to its success. He writes about how readers will simply discard a screenplay that doesn’t work after the first ten pages. It is a lesson that screenwriters must learn.

    The Foundations of Screenwriting is replete with examples that show how Field’s paradigm works. The Lord of the Rings, The Matrix franchise, Cold Mountain, Thelma and Louise are all broken down into their parts and fitted into the paradigm Field lays out as the central idea of his book. Field is an excellent story analyst. He knows these films inside and out. He proves that his method works. Like nature all films have a beginning, middle and end. Field writes that a screenwriter must know his or her ending before starting to write. He writes in bold letters, “KNOW YOUR ENDING.”

    In addition to using his paradigm, Field writes about methods Screenwriters can use to map out a story. He says writers should know not only the ending, but the beginning and plot points I and II. Furthermore he talks about using notecards to block out the story before putting one word on paper. Some writers might not like these methods, but Field says they work. He divulges countless anecdotes about writers getting stuck, not finding a strong enough story to last into a feature film, or not being able to write in screenplay format. Field shows his experience and expertise in helping writers complete projects or get over blocks and continue to write.

    His methods might seem simple or boring, but they are there to use. Field gets past a lot of superstitions about inspiration or creating films that don’t make sense. His advice is grounded and applicable to all kinds of situations a screenwriter might encounter on the journey to write a screenplay. Field says the more you write, the easier it gets.

    The Foundations of Screenwriting succeeds at exactly what it says it is; a foundational text in screenwriting. Over the years publications about screenwriting have proliferated and have taken over from Syd Field’s text. Criticisms could be made that Field’s paradigm and advice are too schematic and devoid of creativity or lacking in organic creation. A system like Syd’s becomes too rigid for some. But before you can break the rules of screenwriting you have to know what they are.

    In addition to his theories and analysis about screenplays, Field also imparts much valuable advice about the competitive business of screenwriting. Field says to not think about how much money you will make when writing screenplays. His most valuable piece of advice is that writing a screenplay is a journey that has its own rewards. So read Field’s book and enjoy the journey of writing screenplays one word at a time. 

Book Review of Plots and Characters: A Screenwriter on Screenwriting

Plots and Characters: A Screenwriter on Screenwriting. Millard Kaufman. Los Angeles, CA: Really Great Books, 1999. 265 pages.


By Patrick Charsky


Millard Kaufman’s memoir is scholarly, laugh out loud hilarious, and edifying for aspiring Screenwriters. Through his anecdotal and free form style, Kaufman divulges essential advice about the Screenwriting business and how to make a good screenplay great. Plots and Characters is all about Hollywood as seen over the course of Kaufman’s career as a Screenwriter. Like William Goldman’s Adventures in the Screen Trade or Joseph McBride’s Writing in Pictures, Kaufman’s book talks about his many interactions with studio heads, actors like Montgomery Clift, and his opinions of current Cinema which he thinks is too violent.

In the first two sections of Kaufman’s book he talks about the business of screenwriting and writing in Hollywood or anywhere else. There are many great bits of advice about meetings with moguls and movie stars. Harry Cohn, former head and founder of Columbia pictures, figures quite prominently in Kaufman’s early days trying to make it in the Studio System. Kaufman calls Cohn “a monster.” Plot and Characters relates many a story about up and coming screenwriters who were fired for the tiniest infraction. In Kaufman’s tale the Studio System was brutal; a continuous revolving door for scribes new and experienced.

Which begs the question, is it worth it to pursue a Screenwriting career? According to Kaufman, “if you don’t enjoy writing, abandon it, for it is at best a hard hustle.” Kaufman pulls no punches. He lets you have it right in the gut. Further on in Plots and Characters Kaufman talks about the success rate of screenplays. He states that only a few get some kind of a deal, and only a rare selection of those make it to production. After that if it’s a flop a screenwriter’s career is at stake. In another piece of advice Kaufman says “after three flops” a screenwriter’s career is dead in the water. All is not lost. Screenwriting can be a very rewarding career. Sometimes Kaufman tells a tale that is laugh out loud funny. The journey can be enjoyable even if the ends are not.

In the fourth section of the book Kaufman talks about ways to make the screenplay “rich.” Most interesting to me was the chapter about “plants and payoffs.” I’m sure I’ve heard of the technique of planting something to be used later on in a screenplay, but, I’ve never had it explained as well as Kaufman does it. Kaufman defines planting as “the insertion of a line or lines of dialogue or a brief action subordinate to the mainstream progression, introducing an idea or a theme that will pay off later.” Kaufman uses a plethora of examples from Bull Durham to The Maltese Falcon and Sleepless in Seattle. Each film uses plants and payoffs to heighten the drama and make audiences more intrigued by what the payoff will be. It is a widely used technique that anyone with an interest in movies should recognize. For screenwriters, it is an essential tool.

Perhaps the best part of Plots and Characters is Kaufman’s discussion of character. He talks about the complete range of characters from Oedipus and Hamlet to Rambo and John Wayne. He also describes different kinds of characters in a theoretical sense. Whether it’s a reluctant hero, mysterious hero, or a hero with a fatal flaw, his writing shines with erudition and wit.

Kaufman compares Rambo and Hamlet and states that “Rambo is explicit, unambiguous; in contrast, an element of mystery surrounds and enhances Hamlet.” Kaufman has no sympathy for bombastic characters like Rambo who indulge in gratuitous violence. He sympathizes with classic characters from the pantheon of Literature. Another memorable deconstruction of not only the Rambo character but another classic hero of Hollywood movies, the Duke or John Wayne shows the “excessive beastliness of these rotters is such that Sly and the Duke must kill, kill, kill them all to preserve goodness and mercy, godliness and decency in the World.” Kaufman does an excellent job at tearing down these characters showing how they are cartoons at best.

He addresses audiences' need for characters who are invincible and ultra-violent. Fear has become ever present in contemporary audiences and the need for violence soothes that fear. According to Kaufman we live in a time of repression and violence in movies. He says there is too much foul language and instant gratification for blood and more blood. He sides with films like Rebel Without a Cause and it’s screenwriter Stewart Stern. Kaufman advocates for a cinema with deeper empathy. More like Oedipus and less like a hero without an achilles heel. An excellent analysis.

Plots and Characters is a great success. It does in a much shorter length and funnier style then some textbooks do in much more length without any humor. The book succeeds in acting as a career guide and manual for writing screenplays. It’s analysis of films from the 1980s and 1990s is relatively new. So many books focus on classic movies that are fast becoming relics of a bygone age. Not to be forgotten, understanding the classics is vital. Plots and Characters is replete with references to Oedipus Rex, Hamlet, and many others. Kaufman’s knowledge is exhaustive.

In addition to his film references and analysis, there are multitudes of anecdotes about not just his life in Hollywood, but also from his time as a Marine, and from his personal relationships. Kaufman is a memorable character with great opinions and spot on analysis of not just films, theater, and literature, but also of the History of Hollywood. He was a screenwriter of the top rank. His book stands as a testament to decades of working in tinsel town. Pay heed to his advice it will act as a guide and curative to the hard struggle of being a writer.

Book Review of On Filmmaking by Alexander Mackendrick (2021)

On Filmmaking: An Introduction to the Craft of the Director. Alexander Mackendrick. New York, NY: Faber and Faber, Inc, 2004. 291 pages


By Patrick Charsky


Alexander Mackendrick was one of the best Directors in Hollywood when he decided to leave the industry and become Dean of the newly formed California Institute of the Arts. There he assumed the role of sage of filmmaking for twenty-five years. Those years of teaching resulted in his magnum opus about the craft and art of making films. On Filmmaking is a series of short chapters that were handouts or lectures in Mackendrick’s classes. His book is not for the lay reader looking for Hollywood gossip or results of box office returns. On Filmmaking is a deep foray into not just theoretical questions like editing theory or how to direct actors, but also little details about how to write and direct movies.

Through his use of scenes from famous works of drama Mackendrick illustrates his ideas about filmmaking that proves edifying for Film students. It is a rigorous, enlightening, study that is often referred to as one of the best books about Film production.

On Filmmaking is replete with examples about dramatic devices. One of the most lucid is Mackendrick’s explanation of Dramatic Irony. In the short chapter about the topic, Mackendrick cites, perhaps, the most prolific user of dramatic irony; Alfred Hitchcok. Hitchcock has used dramatic irony as a cinematic device countless times to great success.

Mackendrick uses a quote from Hitchcock/Truffaut. In the quote Sir Alfred talks about a film in which a bomb is placed under a table without the actors knowing where the bomb is. It is a simple definition that shows how dramatic irony can be employed to raise the tension of a story from stasis to explosion. There are countless films of Hitch’s that use dramatic irony; Psycho, Saboteur, Rope, and many others. Mackendrick’s lesson about dramatic irony is exceptionally well done.

The next lesson Mackendrick imparts to readers is about a concept that is largely taken for granted in contemporary Film or Theater. Lev Kuleshov was foremost in theorizing about the use of montage in Film. Kuleshov was adamant about Film being unique compared to Literature or Theater. This difference was because Film didn’t have to adhere to what Aristotle defined as “unity of place” or “unity of time.” Mackendrick writes that Aristotle’s theories are obsolete. In contemporary times, Film, Theater and Literature all navigate time and place without regard to linearity or a rigid story logic. Today Kuleshov’s theories seem simple. When they were in their infancy, they were revolutionary.

Another excellent tutorial Mackendrick instructs readers on is “shot to shot” relationships. In On Filmmaking Mackendrick writes about David Lean’s version of Charles Dickens’ Great Expectations. Mackendrick analyses the pivotal scene where Pip discovers Magwitch for the first time. He describes how Lean and his editor created a sense of relief in the audience before the shocking appearance of Magwitch. Mackendrick recommends students to study the scene in depth for it’s superb scene construction and editing.

On Filmmaking seeks to educate. In many ways it does. Some lessons fail to accomplish this task. The King Solomon exercise, in particular, doesn’t seem to hit home with me. It is there, but what is its purpose? It is merely a short scene without any real impact. The chapter about William Archer has some wisdom to impart, but comes off as obscure and dated.

Mackendrick intends the book for film students. I think he has discharged his commission with success. I only warn casual readers to beware. As Mackendrick says at the beginning of the book; anyone who wants out should leave now. Mackendrick prided himself on maintaining a high standard. Clearly the book is meant for serious students who want to learn about film production.

Filmmaking is all about doing. One can learn all about theory, history, and technique, but until one does it, it will never take hold. Mackendrick makes this point abundantly throughout his book. Mackendrick provides a basis from which to learn, but to act must be combined with the lessons to really understand how making a film is done. Only by actually making films will this book prove it’s ultimate usefulness.

On Filmmaking succeeds where so many other books about film production have failed. The myriad of books about filmmaking on Amazon.com and other booksellers offer cheap solutions and lessons to make millions in the business. Mackendrick’s book is not a cheap substitute. It is firmly grounded with lucid examples and well reasoned explanations. Mackendrck was one of the best teachers of the craft. His book will stand as a testament to his genius.