What are the fatal flaws in screenwriting?
Articulating failure in terms of storytelling is a very elusive game, because you can defend almost anything. If you, for example, complain about lack of characters arcs, I might list a whole slew of famous characters that never arc’d. If you complain about an unsympathetic protagonist without a goal, I might ask you if you rooted for Michael Corleone to order the execution of his own brother. If you complain about a plot hole, I might show you dozens of films with gaping plot holes that have been excused because, darnit, people love the movie. If you complain about a passive protag, I might explain how there was a point to passive protags in classic film noirs. If you complain about how a story's just a bunch of characters sitting in a room debating, I might remind you of a film called 12 Angry Men. If you complain about a story not following the three act structure, you better believe I’ll list many sensational films that made mountains of money and never followed the three act. If you say, “this really upset me and made me angry,” I might tell you, “that was the point.”
Are there fatal flaws in screenwriting?
There are, of course, flaws in technique. If some newbie gave me a screenplay that's 300 pages long, I’d say that’s a fatal flaw, and I won’t read it. If I’m given a screenplay filled front-to-back with huge blocks of ridiculously overwritten paragraphs, I’d say that’s a fatal flaw, and I won’t read it. If the grammar is so poor that it’s downright indiscernible, I’d say that’s a fatal flaw, and I won’t read it. I know I've said this before, but dammit, a writer ought to know how to write and a screenplay ought to look like a damn screenplay.
In terms of craftsmanship, the working screenwriter has an article in which he lists numerous hiccups that he would deem fatal flaws, such as being non visual, dreadfully dull, over writing, on-the-nose dialogue, etc. Terry Rossio has a good article in which he called certain fatal flaws One Hundred Million Dollar Mistakes. He talked about delivering the best ending for the story, of course, getting the basic approach right (a comedy should be funny), using situations to unfold the narrative (in other words, keeping your characters active and moving from one situation to the next as opposed to laying low and doing nothing), and finally, addressing the need for a theme or organizing idea throughout. For that, he gave an example from Shrek:
“On SHREK, we were insistent that the story had to be about an ogre who was happy the way he was -- if the world rejected him, then he would reject the world. It was about putting up emotional barriers as an inappropriate reaction to rejection. Surrounding Shrek, all the main characters were dealing with similar inappropriate reactions to issues of self-worth, exploring all faces of the theme, and giving the film a sense of unity. At one point, the production team decided to throw that out and explore the notion that Shrek's real problem was that he wanted to be a Knight, so people would like him (we called this the 'woe is me' or Hunchback version of the story). That change screwed everything up, and you could see a hundred million $1 bills flying out the window. Happily, the production team, after seven months of brutally hard work, abandoned the 'woe is me' approach and came back to the emotional barrier theme. Now of course nobody can see the film any other way. Essential battle won, and the One Hundred Million Dollar Mistake narrowly avoided!”
God, the “I want to be a Knight” idea makes me cringe. The over-zealous pursuit of sympathy in a protagonist has lead to so many cornball ideas. That is at the root of so many bad films because ridiculously preposterous concepts get shoved down our throats all in the name of a sympathetic protagonist with goals we can root for.
I’ve also been reading Ebert’s new book, Your Movie Sucks, which is full of so many favorite reviews of mine. The badder, the better! If you get a chance, you should read his zero-star review of Deuce Bigalow from which derives the book’s title. There was also his classic confrontation with Vincent Gallo over the Brown Bunny. But the review I treasure most (and the debate that followed and lessons learned) was over an unknown, brutal, 2005 film called Chaos.
In the review, Ebert wrote:
“Chaos is ugly, nihilistic, and cruel -- a film I regret having seen. I urge you to avoid it. Don't make the mistake of thinking it's ‘only’ a horror film, or a slasher film. It is an exercise in heartless cruelty and it ends with careless brutality. The movie denies not only the value of life, but the possibility of hope… There are two scenes so gruesome I cannot describe them in a newspaper, no matter what words I use. Having seen it, I cannot ignore it, nor can I deny that it affected me strongly: I recoiled during some of the most cruel moments, and when the film was over I was filled with sadness and disquiet.”
Then the filmmakers ran an open letter to Ebert in the Sun-Times:
…Natalie Holloway. Kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq shown on the internet. Wives blasting jail guards with shotguns to free their husbands. The confessions of the BTK killer, These are events of the last few months. How else should filmmakers address this "ugly, nihilistic and cruel" reality -- other than with scenes that are "ugly, nihilistic and cruel," to use the words you used to describe “Chaos.”
Mr. Ebert, would you prefer it if instead we exploit these ugly, nihilistic and cruel events by sanitizing them, like the PG13 horror films do, or like the cable networks do, to titillate and attract audiences without exposing the real truth, the real evil?
Mr. Ebert, how do you want 21st Century evil to be portrayed in film and in the media? Tame and sanitized? Titillating and exploitive? Or do you want evil portrayed as it really is? "Ugly, nihilistic and cruel," as you say our film does it?
We tried to give you and the public something real. Real evil exists and cannot be ignored, sanitized or exploited. It needs to be shown just as it is, which is why we need this s—t, to use your own coarse words. And if this upsets you, or "disquiets" you, or leaves you "saddened," that's the point. So instead of telling the public to avoid this film, shouldn't you let them make their own decision?
Ebert replied:
Your film does "work," and as filmmakers you have undeniable skills and gifts. The question is, did you put them to a defensible purpose? I believed you did not… In a time of dismay and dread, is it admirable for filmmakers to depict pure evil? Have 9/11, suicide bombers, serial killers and kidnappings created a world in which the response of the artist must be nihilistic and hopeless? At the end of your film, after the other characters have been killed in sadistic and gruesome ways, the only survivor is the one who is evil incarnate, and we hear his cold laughter under a screen that has gone dark…
I believe evil can win in fiction, as it often does in real life. But I prefer that the artist express an attitude toward that evil. It is not enough to record it; what do you think and feel about it? Your attitude is as detached as your hero's... While it is true, as you argue, that evil cannot be ignored or sanitized, it can certainly be exploited, as "Chaos" demonstrates. You begin the film with one of those sanctimonious messages depicting the movie as a "warning" that will educate its viewers and possibly save their lives. But what are they to learn? That evil people will torture and murder them if they take any chances, go to parties, or walk in the woods? We can't live our lives in hiding…
You use the material without pity, to look unblinkingly at a monster and his victims. The monster is given no responsibility, no motive, no context, no depth. Like a shark, he exists to kill. I am reminded of a great movie about a serial killer, actually named "Monster" (2003). In it, innocent people were murdered, but we were not invited to simply stare. The killer was allowed her humanity, which I believe all of us have, even the worst of us. It was possible to see her first as victim, then as murderer. The film did not excuse her behavior, but understood that it proceeded from evil done to her. If the film contained a "warning" to "educate" us, it was not that evil will destroy us, but that others will do onto us as we have done onto them. If we do not want monsters like Aileen Wuornos in our world, we should not allow them to have the childhoods that she had…
As the Greeks understood tragedy, it exists not to bury us in death and dismay, but to help us to deal with it, to accept it as a part of life, to learn about our own humanity from it. That is why the Greek tragedies were poems: The language ennobled the material… What I object to most of all in "Chaos" is not the sadism, the brutality, the torture, the nihilism, but the absence of any alternative to them. If the world has indeed become as evil as you think, then we need the redemptive power of artists, poets, philosophers and theologians more than ever. Your answer, that the world is evil and therefore it is your responsibility to reflect it, is no answer at all, but a surrender.
I’d say that’s a fatal flaw.
So what do you think? Are there any other fatal flaws in screenwriting?
Articulating failure in terms of storytelling is a very elusive game, because you can defend almost anything. If you, for example, complain about lack of characters arcs, I might list a whole slew of famous characters that never arc’d. If you complain about an unsympathetic protagonist without a goal, I might ask you if you rooted for Michael Corleone to order the execution of his own brother. If you complain about a plot hole, I might show you dozens of films with gaping plot holes that have been excused because, darnit, people love the movie. If you complain about a passive protag, I might explain how there was a point to passive protags in classic film noirs. If you complain about how a story's just a bunch of characters sitting in a room debating, I might remind you of a film called 12 Angry Men. If you complain about a story not following the three act structure, you better believe I’ll list many sensational films that made mountains of money and never followed the three act. If you say, “this really upset me and made me angry,” I might tell you, “that was the point.”
Are there fatal flaws in screenwriting?
There are, of course, flaws in technique. If some newbie gave me a screenplay that's 300 pages long, I’d say that’s a fatal flaw, and I won’t read it. If I’m given a screenplay filled front-to-back with huge blocks of ridiculously overwritten paragraphs, I’d say that’s a fatal flaw, and I won’t read it. If the grammar is so poor that it’s downright indiscernible, I’d say that’s a fatal flaw, and I won’t read it. I know I've said this before, but dammit, a writer ought to know how to write and a screenplay ought to look like a damn screenplay.
In terms of craftsmanship, the working screenwriter has an article in which he lists numerous hiccups that he would deem fatal flaws, such as being non visual, dreadfully dull, over writing, on-the-nose dialogue, etc. Terry Rossio has a good article in which he called certain fatal flaws One Hundred Million Dollar Mistakes. He talked about delivering the best ending for the story, of course, getting the basic approach right (a comedy should be funny), using situations to unfold the narrative (in other words, keeping your characters active and moving from one situation to the next as opposed to laying low and doing nothing), and finally, addressing the need for a theme or organizing idea throughout. For that, he gave an example from Shrek:
“On SHREK, we were insistent that the story had to be about an ogre who was happy the way he was -- if the world rejected him, then he would reject the world. It was about putting up emotional barriers as an inappropriate reaction to rejection. Surrounding Shrek, all the main characters were dealing with similar inappropriate reactions to issues of self-worth, exploring all faces of the theme, and giving the film a sense of unity. At one point, the production team decided to throw that out and explore the notion that Shrek's real problem was that he wanted to be a Knight, so people would like him (we called this the 'woe is me' or Hunchback version of the story). That change screwed everything up, and you could see a hundred million $1 bills flying out the window. Happily, the production team, after seven months of brutally hard work, abandoned the 'woe is me' approach and came back to the emotional barrier theme. Now of course nobody can see the film any other way. Essential battle won, and the One Hundred Million Dollar Mistake narrowly avoided!”
God, the “I want to be a Knight” idea makes me cringe. The over-zealous pursuit of sympathy in a protagonist has lead to so many cornball ideas. That is at the root of so many bad films because ridiculously preposterous concepts get shoved down our throats all in the name of a sympathetic protagonist with goals we can root for.
I’ve also been reading Ebert’s new book, Your Movie Sucks, which is full of so many favorite reviews of mine. The badder, the better! If you get a chance, you should read his zero-star review of Deuce Bigalow from which derives the book’s title. There was also his classic confrontation with Vincent Gallo over the Brown Bunny. But the review I treasure most (and the debate that followed and lessons learned) was over an unknown, brutal, 2005 film called Chaos.In the review, Ebert wrote:
“Chaos is ugly, nihilistic, and cruel -- a film I regret having seen. I urge you to avoid it. Don't make the mistake of thinking it's ‘only’ a horror film, or a slasher film. It is an exercise in heartless cruelty and it ends with careless brutality. The movie denies not only the value of life, but the possibility of hope… There are two scenes so gruesome I cannot describe them in a newspaper, no matter what words I use. Having seen it, I cannot ignore it, nor can I deny that it affected me strongly: I recoiled during some of the most cruel moments, and when the film was over I was filled with sadness and disquiet.”
Then the filmmakers ran an open letter to Ebert in the Sun-Times:
…Natalie Holloway. Kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq shown on the internet. Wives blasting jail guards with shotguns to free their husbands. The confessions of the BTK killer, These are events of the last few months. How else should filmmakers address this "ugly, nihilistic and cruel" reality -- other than with scenes that are "ugly, nihilistic and cruel," to use the words you used to describe “Chaos.”
Mr. Ebert, would you prefer it if instead we exploit these ugly, nihilistic and cruel events by sanitizing them, like the PG13 horror films do, or like the cable networks do, to titillate and attract audiences without exposing the real truth, the real evil?
Mr. Ebert, how do you want 21st Century evil to be portrayed in film and in the media? Tame and sanitized? Titillating and exploitive? Or do you want evil portrayed as it really is? "Ugly, nihilistic and cruel," as you say our film does it?
We tried to give you and the public something real. Real evil exists and cannot be ignored, sanitized or exploited. It needs to be shown just as it is, which is why we need this s—t, to use your own coarse words. And if this upsets you, or "disquiets" you, or leaves you "saddened," that's the point. So instead of telling the public to avoid this film, shouldn't you let them make their own decision?
Ebert replied:
Your film does "work," and as filmmakers you have undeniable skills and gifts. The question is, did you put them to a defensible purpose? I believed you did not… In a time of dismay and dread, is it admirable for filmmakers to depict pure evil? Have 9/11, suicide bombers, serial killers and kidnappings created a world in which the response of the artist must be nihilistic and hopeless? At the end of your film, after the other characters have been killed in sadistic and gruesome ways, the only survivor is the one who is evil incarnate, and we hear his cold laughter under a screen that has gone dark…
I believe evil can win in fiction, as it often does in real life. But I prefer that the artist express an attitude toward that evil. It is not enough to record it; what do you think and feel about it? Your attitude is as detached as your hero's... While it is true, as you argue, that evil cannot be ignored or sanitized, it can certainly be exploited, as "Chaos" demonstrates. You begin the film with one of those sanctimonious messages depicting the movie as a "warning" that will educate its viewers and possibly save their lives. But what are they to learn? That evil people will torture and murder them if they take any chances, go to parties, or walk in the woods? We can't live our lives in hiding…
You use the material without pity, to look unblinkingly at a monster and his victims. The monster is given no responsibility, no motive, no context, no depth. Like a shark, he exists to kill. I am reminded of a great movie about a serial killer, actually named "Monster" (2003). In it, innocent people were murdered, but we were not invited to simply stare. The killer was allowed her humanity, which I believe all of us have, even the worst of us. It was possible to see her first as victim, then as murderer. The film did not excuse her behavior, but understood that it proceeded from evil done to her. If the film contained a "warning" to "educate" us, it was not that evil will destroy us, but that others will do onto us as we have done onto them. If we do not want monsters like Aileen Wuornos in our world, we should not allow them to have the childhoods that she had…
As the Greeks understood tragedy, it exists not to bury us in death and dismay, but to help us to deal with it, to accept it as a part of life, to learn about our own humanity from it. That is why the Greek tragedies were poems: The language ennobled the material… What I object to most of all in "Chaos" is not the sadism, the brutality, the torture, the nihilism, but the absence of any alternative to them. If the world has indeed become as evil as you think, then we need the redemptive power of artists, poets, philosophers and theologians more than ever. Your answer, that the world is evil and therefore it is your responsibility to reflect it, is no answer at all, but a surrender.
I’d say that’s a fatal flaw.
So what do you think? Are there any other fatal flaws in screenwriting?
