From: johna@intacc.uucp (John Allen)
Subject: Re: Any Screenwriters out there?
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:58:09 GMT
Organization: Inter/Access' Matrix BBS

In article <57680024@hpscit.sc.hp.com> fish@hpscit.sc.hp.com (John Fisher) writes:
>
>John, I appreciate your disdain for the formula approach to
>screenwriting, but...perhaps I don't understand your position
>completely.
>
>You seem to be making several points.  Your post seems to assert that
>great scripts don't have inciting incidents, and that all bad ones do.
>That, on the face of it, doesn't sound like a reasonable position to
>take.  Did I misinterpret?  
>
Yes i think you did.Of course great scripts have inciting incidents but they
are unique to the story unfolding and they do not dictate the throughlines of
the script. I'm a big fan of the writing in The Unforgiven and that is a case
in point. The cutting up of the whore of is in a sense an inciting scene but
so are all the scbes which follow. The genuis of the story telling is that at
any time during the story any chracter could change the course of events by
choosing to do something different. each scne works against the other scenes
and in a sense every incident is an inciting one;in that they all push the
story forward. In Tender Mercies Horton Foote also shows the fallacy of the
inciting incident. Yes the Duvall character shows up at the motel to kick
start the story but then Tess harper's character "incites" the story by
getting him to stay and work because he has no money (yet another incident
which moves the narrative forward.

Most scripts which follow the formula school ogf inciting incidents have taken
this idea to absurd lengths. The only real action in the script is the first
inciting one. All that follows is  just conflict over the orginal action. A
good example of this are the disease, or tragedy films(movies and TV: woman
gets raped about ten minutes into the story after we have the formulized
establishment of family and minor charcters and then the rest of the film
deals with the rape. All movement is linear from the first action.Sitcom
writing also follows tthis logic of course. Great films do not move linearly
the first incident but instead move the story ahead by telling it from
different positions or using allegory. The story always goes from A to B but
you can tell it from various angles.

>You also seem to eschew using an outline.  I agree that its a good idea
>to know where you're going, and that sometimes it's not possible.  But,
>"the thrill is the trip there" doesn't seem to support your point.  The
>Formula Folks (TM) may suggest using an outline, but their main tenent
>is the structure of the finished script, not the process.  It's also
>been my experience that outlines can change while a work is in progress.
>
>
>John Fisher at Hewlett-Packard |
>in Santa Clara, CA             |  Indecision is the key to flexibility.
>fish@hpscit.hp.com             | 


No I don't eschew using an outline. I do think that using an outline before
you know the stiory or charcters is facile and produces shallow work. The
first few drafts have to be a discovery of what it is you want to write about
and who you want in the script. this is a process of discovery and is where
the questions which I harp on should be asked constantly. In improv theatre we
call this following the heat. Your stomach knows when you onto something.

Its fine when you have some idea of the various turns of the story to outline
it but I think the formula folks stress outlining before a word is put on
paper. I think this is a big mistake because the story will be created from
the outside and will not develop organically from the inside;from charcters
and action. When a story is created from the outside you are will naturally be
stringing arbitrary events together because you have no idea what happens in
any of the individual moments of scenes.Structure comes from rewriting from
editing and will only be there if the foundation is solid.

For example I tell people never to look at old drafts when they rewrite(as
opposed to edit) because theyw ill invariably be putting together a
Frankenstein monster. They're take on the story will have changed since the
old one was written. And so, they'll be tryingto work off an old structure
with a fresh take. All that is accomplished is that the writer invariably
makes the same mistakes he made in the old draft. The underlying structure of
a piece comes out of the discovery of events and actions. Enough John...
Newsgroups: misc.writing