Story. Robert McKee. York, U.K. Methuen, 1999. 466 pages.
By
Patrick Charsky
Simply the best. Robert McKee’s Story is an enlightening foray into every aspect needed to achieve Screenwriting excellence. I read Story as part of a study of Screenwriting texts. I had heard it was the best book on the market about screenwriting. So I decided to put it off to the last book I read from the books about screenwriting I had received in Graduate school. The book didn’t disappoint. It was full of great advice about how to write and filled with knowledge about what to write.
I first learned about Robert McKee when I was an intern for a Contemporary Film Analysis class. The course showed Charlie Kaufman’s Adaptation. The film features Brian Cox as Robert McKee in a memorable performance. This led me to his well regarded book. After several years of studying other screenwriting texts I finally read McKee’s Story. It was worth the wait.
The book is enlightening for several reasons. The first is the information about screenwriting. The amount of films he analyzes is substantial. The theories he expounds are thought through and well presented in a clear way. The second reason is the amount of writing advice he imparts. He talks about avoiding cliche or the “war on cliche that every screenwriter must struggle against.” Strong words that I had never heard before. He also expounds the law of diminishing returns. This cleared up my thinking about how I write. I hope it is easier to spot when I repeat myself
Furthermore he has deep insights into screenwriting. He touches on everything; dramatic structure, characters, how to write, what not to write, and so on. He also has deep insights into how movies work and how writers can avoid boring the audience or screenplay reader. After reading the book I had taken pages and pages of notes. It is impossible for me to go into every detail. At the end of the book McKee advises writers to keep Story accessible as a guide.
McKee covers all the bases. He talks about the three kinds of films; Archplot, Miniplot, and Anti-plot. He goes on to describe why writers must master Archplot before they get into the other two kinds of stories. He also says that many screenwriters choose to do anti-plot as a political statement against Hollywood. Furthermore McKee says screenwriters must learn to write in a genre or genres before doing anything abstract or original. This thought had occurred to me but I had never heard anyone write it in a book.
Many chapters impart advice about Films and genres and characters and how to write exposition. McKee says to save the best for last. And seventy-five percent of writing the screenplay is writing the climax. He says that Hamlet is the most complex character ever written. He talks about knowing your story. To be “God” or “authorial” to your story and characters. In addition he writes about not hating any of you characters. He says “to love them all.” In one of the last chapters he describes casting a film as creating a solar system where the sun is the star and the planets are minor characters revolving around the star.
McKee’s book is thorough and detailed. He writes incredibly well and is very intelligent. It’s no wonder people pay to go to his seminars around the World.
But how to write a screenplay that achieves excellence? McKee writes his principles out for us novices to follow hoping for celluloid glory. The first is the aforementioned “war on cliche.” Especially in action/adventure films because it seems that everything has been done and audiences expect something better than last time. McKee writes that the screenplay can’t be too original or not original enough. He goes on to write about pacing. The pacing of a screenplay can’t have too many scenes all the same length it will bore the audience to death. There has to be some variety in the scenes to keep things fast, then slow, then fast again, until the end. McKee also makes clear that the charge of the screenplay should change from positive to negative by the end. Each scene should change charge too. If not, the screenplay will be droll and monotone; boring.
I’ve heard it before, but McKee makes it crystal clear, the screenplay is only as strong as the forces of antagonism. I’ve heard it said that if you have a weak conflict it’s because the antagonist is too weak. McKee uses Empire Strikes Back as his example. Darth Vader is his antagonist. Vader is a great villain, maybe the most fearsome in Film History. It’s another great example McKee uses to illustrate his point. The way to a great climax is having the subplots conclude before the central conflict. Similar to his principles about exposition, writers should save the biggest climax for last.
My review is only a review. It couldn’t possibly reach the heights to which McKee soars in his book. The end of Story provides some great advice. As an aspiring screenwriter myself his way of describing a professional screenwriter really hit home for me. It laid out some habits that I plan to adopt in my own screenwriting. Making a step outline. Saving writing dialogue until the end. Bits of advice that I never knew before reading McKee’s Story. Great advice and valuable information. Worth reading all the way to the end of the book.
Of course I would recommend screenwriters to read Story. It is the best book about screenwriting I’ve read so far. Others have good qualities. They focus on specific aspects of writing, but none of them beats out Story. It is a great read and a great reference. Screenwriters new or experienced would benefit greatly from reading Story.
The Reel Truth: Everything You Didn’t Know You Need to Know About Making an Independent Film. Reed Martin. New Yori, NY. Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2009. 536 pages
By
Patrick Charsky
In writing The Reel Truth: Everything You Didn’t Know You Need to Know About Making and Independent Film Reed Marin set out to create a book that would show novice or experienced people in the film business what not to do and what to do to make an independent film. His project succeeds at every level. Critics and practitioners in the film business have praised his book as “indispensalble,” “neccessary for survival” and “an essential document for any one attempting to break into” Indie filmmaking.
The Reel Truth was published in 2009 right at the cusp of the ongoing revolution in film distribution spearheaded by Netflix. It was also published during the Financial Crisis of 2008-2009. Reed Martin is an accomplished journalist and has held a number of academic posts. He currently works in the industry as a marketing executive.
I found out about this book because I’m an aspiring screenwriter. I have a list of books about Screenwriting that I am reading and The Reel Truth was on it. The book is a long book, over five hundred pages, so it took me some time to read it. It is one of the last books on the list about Screenwritng books that I’m reading. My thesis is that Reed Martin’s book is and indispensable text that every aspiring filmmaker should read. The book focuses on Independent filmmaking or “Indiewood” and is chock full of advice about how to make an “Indie.” I will substantiate my thesis by providing instances and examples from the book.
Martin’s book has much advice to impart to aspiring indie filmmakers. He talks about avoiding legal troubles by hiring a lawyer to consult on contracts and other matters. He says hiring a lawyer early in the process is better than finding yourself in trouble somewhere down the line. In addition to legal advice, Martin is an expert at the business side of making an indie film. He talks about all the aspects of indie filmmaking; from financing to festivals, to selling the film for distribution, and to marketing the film the right way. He writes about how My Big Fat Greek Wedding was released slowly to an increasing number of theaters rather than directly to a large number of theaters.
Martin also imparts much advice about actually making an indie film. He recommends that you hire a line producer to manage the production of the film. He also has warnings about working with the wrong producer. He notes that the “wrong producer” is usually someone who knows nothing about post-production. Martin dispels the myth common among filmmakers that anything can be fixed “in post.” He cites examples from filmmakers who ran into problems that couldn’t be fixed “in post.”
Martin is the know it all of indie filmmaking. He writes about now famous filmmakers who struggled early in their careers only to rise to celluloid glory after years of poverty and obscurity. Martin interviewed the likes of Christopher Nolan and Jim Sheridan who have both found tremendous success after years of working low paying jobs. He also talks about lesser knowns like Kimberly Pierce who struggled for years to get her first film made. Martin also writes about Darren Aronofsky who was an Indie film sensation with his first film, Pi.
Sundance is the major film festival in North America. Martin makes it clear how difficult it is to be accepted at Sundance. It is harder to get accepted at Sundance than an Ivy League College. Martin writes about making your film “festival ready” as well as how filmmakers have gone on to success by securing a distribution deal at a festival. Martin warns filmmakers with dreams of fame and riches to put those aside and find a meaningful reason to make and screen an Indie film.
These chapters were the most informative and interesting in the book. The writing about securing a distribution deal, the successes and failures, and how to go about finding success in a festival were very informative. I knew little about the business of Indie filmmaking or the festival circuit. With Martin’s book, I now know what it’s like to have a film entered into a major film festival like Sundance.
The Reel Truth doesn’t paint a rosy colored picture for filmmakers. Even having success at Sundance is no guarantee that a filmmaker will be on easy street. In a memorable passage from the book, Martin cites Quentin Tarrantino talking about how to be a success in filmmaking. Tarantino says it’s not your first film that determines whether you will have a long career in film, it’s your second film. That’s the one that will determine if you can make more movies. Many people make one film and that’s it. Martin advises people to keep making films. And if you are stuck it’s a good idea to adapt literature into a film. He also advises filmmakers to be ready for the ultimate question; “what’s next?”
This book would be of particular interest to anyone in Indie filmmaking. Actors, Writers, Directors, Producers, and Film Executives, anyone aspiring to celluloid glory would all benefit from reading The Reel Truth. Even though some of the information is out of date, the book is still full of great advice and useful information. I can honestly say I’ve learned a lot by reading Martin’s book. And I’m sure you will too.
Storytelling in the New Hollywood: Understanding Classical Narrative Technique. Kristin Thompson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. 398 pages
By Patrick Charsky
Storytelling in the New Hollywood by Kristen Thompson will appeal to a select group of readers; screenwriters, film historians, and other people concerned with learning about how Hollywood makes films. Furthermore with her close analysis of Hollywood classics from the 1980’s she sets an example of how to understand the way movies were made in the late twentieth century. Thompson’s major argument is that the way Hollywood writes films in contemporary times is not altogether much different from how they were made in the Golden Age of Hollywood. By citing specific examples from the book I will show that Thompson has proved her argument beyond a doubt.
Kristin Thompson is a highly regarded author who has held numerous academic positions throughout her career. She has published several books besides Storytelling in the New Hollywood. One such book is called Film Art which was written with her husband David Bordwell. That book has gone on to thirteen editions.
The book begins with a long discourse about Screenwriting. Thompson talks about Syd Field and his three act structure theory. She says that for some Field’s book Screenplay has become the bible on screenwriting. She dismisses Field’s theories as all encompassing. Thompson cites many writers who don’t use the three act model to write screenplays. Her main argument is like any other art form, screenplays need a balance between beginning, middle and end. So with this in mind she writes about her way of structuring a film. She agrees that there is a setup. Next is the complicating action. Then the development. And finally the climax and epilogue.
After reading her introduction I was confounded. Which is the right way to structure a film? Is it ¼, ½, ¼? Is it some other way? Do there really need to be three acts? Why not more than three? If it's a very long film then there would have to be more parts. Thompson writes about long films needing more acts. And the only reason why the three act structure is so popular in Hollywood is that screenwriters don’t have the power to get longer films made.
Thompson knows a lot about structure and screenwriting. She writes about the growth of screenwriting manuals to explain the best or right way to write a screenplay. She even thinks that the quality of Hollywood films declined in the mid- 90’s possibly because of there being too many manuals.
The next device that has stayed with movies from the early days to contemporary times is what Thompson calls the “goal oriented protagonist.” She writes that this has become a staple of classic films and has not gone extinct. Her primary film substantiating her argument is Back to the Future directed by Robert Zemekis. Back to the Future features Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly. Thompson analyzes Marty’s character in detail. She shows throughout the film that Marty has goals. His goals might change or become more complicated but Marty is always working to accomplish something. This is a common character trait in Hollywood films.
Another example of the goal oriented protagonist is Ripley from Alien. Ripley is part of a group of employees on a business trip through outer space. Over time it becomes apparent that she is the protagonist. And like Marty McFly she has goals. She must kill the alien and save herself at the same time. Thompson writes that Alien was much scarier when it came out in 1979 then today’s audiences would receive it. The character of Ripley has become the norm in the giant action/adventure film genre of today’s Hollywood. Just like Humphrey Bogart in any of his films or Scarlet O’Hara in Gone With the Wind, the goal oriented protagonist is still in use by screenwriters today. Marty McFly must save his family and get back to the present. Ripley must kill the alien and save herself. Audiences crave characters that do something. Hollywood thrives on it.
Thompson makes many points about how the New Hollywood made attempts to change the system, but even Francis Ford Coppola admits that the changes, if any, were minor. The biggest constant from the Golden Age to contemporary times is the profit motive for Hollywood. Hollywood is an art and a business and has remained that way for many years. This is one of Thompson’s strongest arguments about the persistence of filmmaking methods from the early start of film to its latest releases.
Even auteurs like Martin Scorsese and Brian de Palma worry about box office receipts on a Friday night or minutes watched on Netflix. They know that if the numbers aren’t good their next passion project might be jeopardized. Thompson’s recurring question in her introduction is whether the New Hollywood really changed anything? Did they change the way films were made? Of course new technologies came along and changed film, but the way films are written have relied mostly on tried and true methods. And this is the way the studios want it. A bankable method to generate profits. It is also the way audiences like it and if a movie is missing something and veers too far into special effects the results are usually less than stellar.
Storytelling in the New Hollywood is a book for someone with a background in Film. I have read several books abou the New Hollywood including Peter Biskind’s How the Rock n Roll Generation Saved Hollywood and William Goldman’s Adventures in the Screen Trade. Both of those books deal with similar topics.
Many people see the New Hollywood as a major change in Film History. And some of those changes can’t be denied. Where Thompson makes a strong case is in pointing out that the big studios in LA are still in big business. It is those kinds of films that haven’t changed much from the Golden Age. Smaller films, Indie films have changed and continue to challenge our expectations about what film can be.
At the end of her book she divides film into two camps; the big, Hollywood film and the small Indie film. And she raises the question about what direction Hollywood will go; towards bigger productions or towards smaller more artistic creations. In today’s Hollywood it seems like the Studios are bent on finding the next franchise hit or a new Marvel movie. The New Hollywood seems like a distant memory
