Near Myths

dwarf star 

(Dwarf guy from Lang’s SIEGFRIED)

Longterm Shadowplayer Elver Loho emailed me some while ago with a query for the blog, which I’ve been meaning to get around to. But it’s a toughie:

‘I come from a background of computer science and we had plenty of
great academic journals in the field. A lot of research was happening
all the time and academic journals are a great way to keep up with it.
Now that I’m making the switch to screenwriting, I find that there are
a couple of guru-written books on the subject that everyone likes
and… that’s pretty much it.

‘Hell, the biggest works about on one of the most important aspects of
screenwriting — story structure — were written more than 50 years
ago by Propp and Campbell and don’t even mention movies. I haven’t
come across anything that would even begin to rival the research that
those two guys did.

My name is Propp and I love to shopp!
(Vladimir Propp & his magic lamp)

‘This is depressing. Surely, there’s academic research going on in the
field, right? Because I was browsing the online database of academic
journals that my local university library has and there’s a ton of
journals on literature. I even found an issue that was wholly
dedicated to the phenomenon of text in Ancient Roman wall paintings.
Surely if there are people who care enough about text in Ancient Roman
wall paintings to write research papers on the topic, there must be
people who care enough about film to write research papers on the
topic. But where are they? Where do they publish their research? And
is there even research going on in the field or are we trapped in a
New Age type of guru worship?’

Elver’s right, firstly, in that practically everything to do with screenwriting is depressing! Most good scripts don’t get filmed, many lousy ones do, and even the good ones that make it through often get mangled in the process. (I’ve been part of this process as both re-writer – for my sins – and re-written.) The research situation being depressing is consistent and unsurprising.

Magazine-wise, these are probably the best shows in town:

http://www.creativescreenwriting.com/index.html

http://www.scriptmag.com/

Expensive, but pretty good as I recall.

But they’re clearly industry rags rather than academic journals. I must admit I have a hard time picturing an academic journal on screenwriting — I think it would end up containing historical research rather than scientific principles because I don’t entirely believe there ARE any scientific principles in screenwriting. The Robert McKee / Syd Field approach is about as “scientific” as it gets, and much of the time those guys are just passing off opinion as fact or industry norms as universal principles. (Also, Field is a horrible writer, who apparently thinks “sets up” is one word: “setsup”, which sounds like a SAUCE.) Most of the gurubooks contain some insights I find useful, so I do read them, but I think it’s wise to take what resonates for you and discard the rest.

I've lost McKee

(For instance, I think knowledge of mythic structure is fantastic to have at the back of your mind as you’re shaping a story, but it’s a terrible point to start from, and no guarantee of anything, as George Lucas’ extremely variable storywork on his STAR WARS saga shows. I think Umberto Eco’s essay on CASABLANCA maybe gives a better clue to the success of STAR WARS than Joseph Campbell — think of it as a mass restyling of clichés rather than a New Myth for Our Age. Mythic structure starts from the point of universally recognisable archetypes, which is really the same as stereotypes. Whereas I’d rather start with real human qualities and then maybe connect them to myth as I go.)

I just don’t think there’s a science to study, so what we’re left with is criticism, which isn’t something you can pilot a spaceship on, as this blog probably proves. Writers work on a combination of craft and instinct: a competent beginner can learn craft, but you can’t make it work for you worth a damn without the right instincts — which you can develop by writing a lot, if they’re there in the first place.

It’s very good that there are so many screenplays available online now, and many many books on screenwriting to pick and choose pearls of wisdom from (while hopefully discarding all the plastic beads of received wisdom).

Incidentally, the book that sparked Preston Sturges’ glorious writing career was A Study of the Drama by Brander Matthews. The differences between stage and screen-writing are so obvious as to scarcely need enumeration, so I’m wondering what gems it contains… it seems to be a little expensive to pick up secondhand though.

Splurge on Sturges?

6 Responses to “Near Myths”

  1. David Ehrenstein Says:

    I reccomend Backstory, Patrick McGillian’s series of books (I think he’s up to volume 5 by now) consisting of interviews with great scriptwriters.

    re. Sturges, my dear friend singer Ruth Olay worked for the great man as his secretary in the last years of his Hollywood career. She was amazed at the way he would take whole segments of dialoge and move them around the script as he was writing it — changing the speeches from one character to another as it suited his fancy.

  2. dcairns Says:

    Oooh, I’ve only read the first 3 vols of Backstory, didn’t know there’d been more. Excellent books. Screenwriter interviews are sometimes more revealing than screenwriting how-to books because they give you the thoughts of REAL writers. But they’re often partial and anecdotal, which is fun but not so helpful. A balanced diet is recommended.

    Fascinating re Sturges: I guess he populates his world with so many blowhards they can be swapped around, with casting keeping everything in place. Harold Diddlebock, his boss, and Buffalo Bill all have the same speech patterns, with only one-offs like William Demerest, and a few faux-naif cooks and porters varying the tone.

    I guess the nearest thing now is Tarantinoworld, where everybody talks like a glib hipster.

  3. David Ehrenstein Says:

    Also of incredible important to scriptwriters is Alexander MacKencrick On Filmmaking a posthumously published collection of his lecture notes and essays. With great precision MacKendrick discusses his masterpiece Sweet Smel lof Success noting how Clifford Odets turned what was a good script by Ernest Lehman into a really great one through compression and specificity of character and action. Needless to say MacKendrick didn’t see himself as an auteur at all. But he was only being modest. As great as the script was it took a great director to get it on its feet thanks to Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis at their most brilliant, James Wong Howe at his most sheer fucking I-don’t-know-what and Barbara Nichols at her most Barbara Nichols.

    The result is the movie you want to show to the Taratino wannabes and say “You’re dead, son. Go get yourself buried.”

  4. Elver Says:

    This should be the Eco essay on Casablanca that you mentioned in the post.

    As for screenwriter interviews, then there are a lot of those out there as videos nowadays.

    Regarding actual research in screenwriting, then I’ve seen two highly positive reviews (and no negative ones) by established filmmakers of Yves Lavandier’s Writing Drama.

  5. dcairns Says:

    Another book: The Screenwriter Looks at the Screenwriter by Bill Froug, who interviews IAL Diamond, Buck Henry, Nunnally Johnson…

    The Mackendrick book is one of the all-time greats. That and Lumet’s book are the best on film directing.

    I have some interview footage of Mackendrick where he uses some of his lecture material that’s NOT in the book, as when he talks about the Watergate hearings, and how the editor of the footage has decided what the story is, intercutting prosecutor and witness: one closeup means “Are you tellng the truth?” A rection shot says “Yes”, another close-up says “I don’t believe you” and a further reaction says “I don’t care if you believe me, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.”

    Thanks for the links, Elver. That screenwriting site looks good. Depressing how the comments only list US films though… this is where you can have the edge on these guys.

    Will check out Writing Drama, sounds promising.

  6. Myth Takes « SHADOWPLAY Says:

    [...]   A mystery Shadowplayer, who wishes to remain anomalous, dropped in to add some thoughts to the mythic storytelling discussion. ‘Part of the problem is that both Campbell and Propp have what seem to me v. mechanical [...]

Leave a Reply