You are currently browsing the Creativity 101 category.
Today, Marc Scott Zicree related the description of story theory I’ve ever heard: “You start with a character with a problem. You continually throw shit at him in Act Two, until he is in the deepest shit possible.
“If it’s a tragedy, he doesn’t escape it.
“If it’s a happy ending, he or she figures out their problems and succeeds. That’s it.”
Were you looking for something more complicated?
Would-be professionals: take “writer” and put “director / actor / editor,” etc.
Matt Wallace’s Top 10 Points for Professional Writers
A good movie succeeds for its own reasons, but most bad movies tend to fail in the same ways. When the movie has an enormous budget, the actual creative mistakes become more clear: there can be no excuse of “we couldn’t afford it.”
Friend and composer Alistair Cooper turned me onto the 70-minute Phantom Menace, and having seen it, I think it’s a quintessential example of learning from a big-budget mistake. It should be required viewing for any storyteller.
You don’t have to have seen Phantom Menace to understand most of this, but it would help. It begins as an overview of the story and characters, and then delves deep into a beat-by-beat analysis of the film. Some of the later sections address specific character concerns (Qui-Gonn is a drunk), but there’s still enough important storytelling theory to make it worth anyone’s while.
(There are some “You Suck at Photoshop” author-as-character moments interspersed within the review, presumedly to break up the rhythm, so be ready for some weirdness. I can tell you the review is worth it. I also find it funny how the author has an excellent grasp of story structure and theory, and yet his own works ends with an awkward anticlimax. Nobody’s perfect.)
Part 1/7:
From TED.com: Chimamanda Adichie discusses the danger of having only one story about a person or place.
The video and my comments after the jump.
“In crook stories it is almost always the necklace and in spy stories it is most always the papers.”
- Alfred Hitchcock -
If you’ve ever taken a film class, you know what the MacGuffin is.
(I actually got into an argument once with a teacher who insisted the MacGuffin was the most important element in a film. While it’s important to the characters, it is almost irrelevant to the actual film, or to the audience’s experience.)
TVTropes.com has a great wiki set up about the MacGuffin and the sub-groups they’ve discovered. It’s a fun read, especially for avid story theorists.
(discovered this link courtesy of the lovely archives at JohnAugust.com)
Rian Johnson (director of “Brick” and “The Brothers Bloom”) did a great interview on MakingOf.com, where he puts into words something I’ve been formulating for awhile.
Key excerpts of his quote, and the full video interview under the cut.
Real problems from fake people.
Dear Earl,
I read your post about how screenwriters should become directors to protect their work. Isn’t that a bit much to ask somebody? It’s hard enough to learn one job.
In that specific case, I was referring to the screenwriter’s weakened position in the moviemaking system.
Directors have more power. Ergo, if screenwriters want the power to protect their stories, they should seek a position of power. I’m not saying every artist needs to study every field.
Oh, thank goodness.
But now that you mention it, it’s not a bad idea.
Real problems from fake people.
Dear Earl,
We just received an email announcing the open entry period for a big media award/film festival, and we’re going to enter!
Awesome, congrats. Why are you entering?
When you win, the trophy is amazing, it’s made of crystal and golden butterflies — wait, what? What do you mean, ‘why?’ It’s a big award/film festival!
How much is the entry fee?
Huh? I don’t know. It’s somewhere around ($50/$100/$200).
Maybe it’s just me, but if someone is asking for more than lunch money, I like to know why I’m doing it.
Found this blogpost on Twitter, courtesy of Matt F’n Wallace. It’s a piece by Kurt Sutter, a TV showrunner, and it digs into the little-mentioned world of television runners. It’s a world I’m currently fascinated by. Film directors brag about shooting a 2 hour film in 30 days. A television showrunner could be overseeing the production of between 13 and 22 hour-long features, each of which will be turned around in a matter of weeks. In short, these guys know the process, and they know how to multi-task.
Read more here: The Show Must Be Run
Scifi Wire posted this story (Warning: Sanctuary Spoilers) about a recent plot twist on Sanctuary.
What Really Happened To (Spoiler Deleted)
Here’s the excerpt I want to focus on (emphasis mine):
Creator Damian Kindler: “Once we know for sure about a third season, there is definitely an Ashley story in there that we’re developing…(snip) The intention was to never kill her off with any finality. It was always to kill her off in a way that was dubious at best and fraught with inconsistencies and fraught with mystery and isn’t completely solved even when they have to put her to rest and move on.”
Let’s start with some disclaimers.
adaptation apple creativity disconnect editing interview j.c. hutchins layman group marketing matt wallace mevio mur lafferty p.g. holyfield patrick mclean pure love real problems from fake people rejection sci-fi scott sigler screenwriting script secret project storytelling Stranger Things twitter
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck requires Flash Player 9 or better.
