Reality vs. Motivated Drama vs. Contrived Drama

[Jijenji]

Hey everyone, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this and see where the discussion goes. I was just reading a chapter from Mckee's "Story" about the Gap and how every sequence of beats in a scene should revolve around action / reaction / the gap...and on and on. Anything non-dramatic should be cut out, etc.

I guess some of what is written I find to be intuitive page filler. But it did get my thoughts going with regard to the topic. When dealing with story, what is wrong with reality? Why don't we see more motivated scene drama that 100% follows the course of the story? Why do I have to keep sitting through movie scenes where the characters spontaneously do something dramatic just for the sake of making the scene "interesting", and worth putting in the film?

Maybe I'm in the minority here. I am not a gossip person, and I guess I correlate that into also not liking pointless dramatics. So I believe there is a place for reality in story. I believe that all drama should go exactly where it needs to go, and not just be written in for the sake of being written in. Am I missing something here?

I understand the necessity for good drama, and when it is truly a part of the story and of the characters, THAT is good writing. So why do we see drama, which isn't necessarily out of character, but isn't necessary? A character does something, and instead of getting an expected reaction, something unexpected occurs and creates conflict. That's great, a lot of the time. Too many times though I see it happen for the sake of keeping interest, rather than for the sake of telling the MAIN story. I could be wrong here, but it seems to me that when these things happen it's to cover up for plot holes or to fill screen time. What do you guys think?

 

[clive]

There is room for "reality"... in fact there is a whole film movement called "social realism"

I suggest you rent "Poor Cow" "Bicycle Thieves" "Look Back In Anger" and "La Haine" and see if these are the kinds of movies you want to make.

I love these movies, but trust me, they are a bitch to sell these days... I've also read hundreds of very, very, very bad scripts where realism was used to explain just plain bad writing.

It's very hard to match realism and drama... and one of the few people who gets it right most of the time is Mike Leigh in films like "Secrets and Lies" ... and to a lesser extent Ken Loach in "Land and Freedom"

 

[Spatula]

I'm pretty sure your own intuition has answered your questions. It boils down to the viewpoint of the individual. There's no "way" other than that which you are on, which is always relative, and thus, always "correct".

It depends on what kind of movie you're trying to write/make. If your characters are believable enough and your plot interesting, a simple raise of an eyebrow could be the most dramatic thing necessary to the scene. Or perhaps the pace of the movie DOES need a jolt of action and drama from time-to-time.... I wouldn't take theory so seriously. Absorb the ideas the theory presents, allow it to reside in your subconscious, and then write the screenplay however you feel comfortable doing. It's like acting- you keep the "actor thinking about the script/character" in the back of your mind and allow YOU to become the character. With writing, I try to let the words flow as they come naturally (from the aether) and figure out the structure afterwards. But if it comes down to a dilemma between the "scene" and the "structure", then fuck structure... because if the "scene" works, maybe one day people will be using your movie to write a new book on structures.

But as with all "things", follow your own intuition and let your hairy nipple be your guide.

 

[Jijenji]

Thanks guys...good insight. I'll have to look into those films Clive, thanks for the tip. I guess the best way to know theory isn't to KNOW it, but to know it to the point where you don't really think about it, the parts of it that work, work, and the parts that don't for that particular scene/story, you throw out.

 

[devhaven]

I totally see everyonse points here. What seems to make a good script is one where every line of dialogue progresses the story...where as in real life - you may dwell on something much longer than would be dwelled upon in a movie conversation -

Also, Most viewers need to be entertained. Therefore, if soemthing unexpected happens, it catches their interest, but if something normal happens, it will bore them - because they live it every day.

There are films everyone. Good topic to discuss though.

 

[Unknown Screenwriter]

As long as it's not boring...

Hey everyone, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this and see where the discussion goes. I was just reading a chapter from Mckee's "Story" about the Gap and how every sequence of beats in a scene should revolve around action / reaction / the gap...and on and on. Anything non-dramatic should be cut out, etc.

I guess some of what is written I find to be intuitive page filler. But it did get my thoughts going with regard to the topic. When dealing with story, what is wrong with reality? Why don't we see more motivated scene drama that 100% follows the course of the story? Why do I have to keep sitting through movie scenes where the characters spontaneously do something dramatic just for the sake of making the scene "interesting", and worth putting in the film?

Maybe I'm in the minority here. I am not a gossip person, and I guess I correlate that into also not liking pointless dramatics. So I believe there is a place for reality in story. I believe that all drama should go exactly where it needs to go, and not just be written in for the sake of being written in. Am I missing something here?

I understand the necessity for good drama, and when it is truly a part of the story and of the characters, THAT is good writing. So why do we see drama, which isn't necessarily out of character, but isn't necessary? A character does something, and instead of getting an expected reaction, something unexpected occurs and creates conflict. That's great, a lot of the time. Too many times though I see it happen for the sake of keeping interest, rather than for the sake of telling the MAIN story. I could be wrong here, but it seems to me that when these things happen it's to cover up for plot holes or to fill screen time. What do you guys think?

Jijenji,

I think the overall consensus is that most reality is predictable when it comes to films. Nobody wants predictable and when they do, it's usually a setup for something very UNpredictable to follow.

Most people looking at screenplays are also going to tell you that reality is boring... While that may be, there's plenty of ways and angles to look at an action to reaction. I think it is very possible to find a good compromise between reality and good drama.

Having said that... I also think it comes down to concept. The more outrageous the concept is, the more reality related to THAT CONCEPT you can include and get away with.

For instance... I had a neighbor once who had his home burglarized several times when he was at work. He called the police a few times.

Nothing.

The last time he was robbed, he set animal traps inside his home...

He caught a burglar with one.

Now that's reality but not the usual reality one might expect.

Just another angle but an angle that I'd rather see in a film over the usual boring precautions one might expect from the average home owner... i.e., change the locks, fortify the windows, etc.

filmy

 

[Jijenji]

Jijenji,

I think the overall consensus is that most reality is predictable when it comes to films. Nobody wants predictable and when they do, it's usually a setup for something very UNpredictable to follow.

Most people looking at screenplays are also going to tell you that reality is boring... While that may be, there's plenty of ways and angles to look at an action to reaction. I think it is very possible to find a good compromise between reality and good drama.

Having said that... I also think it comes down to concept. The more outrageous the concept is, the more reality related to THAT CONCEPT you can include and get away with.

For instance... I had a neighbor once who had his home burglarized several times when he was at work. He called the police a few times.

Nothing.

The last time he was robbed, he set animal traps inside his home...

He caught a burglar with one.

Now that's reality but not the usual reality one might expect.

Just another angle but an angle that I'd rather see in a film over the usual boring precautions one might expect from the average home owner... i.e., change the locks, fortify the windows, etc.

filmy

Thanks for the feedback Filmy. I completely agree, reality is boring, and people see movies to get away from their real life. They don't pay lots of $$ to go watch the same stuff they see every day for free.

After thinking about it some more, I think I figured out my problem with contrived drama (not the obviously contrived, but the stuff that just isn't quite right and you don't know why). I think it has two causes...over doing it, and writing to advance the plot, rather than the story (I think there's a difference).

 

[wcmartell]

deadlines

No character should ever do anything just for the sake of drama - that's contrived.

All actions and reactions should be motivated, and exactly what the average audience member would do if they were in that same situation - whether the situation is a stolen bicycle or an asteroid headed toward earth.

Newton's 3rd Law should govern everything in your screenplay.

Now, *reality* is that I sit on my ass all day and type. No one wants to see that. It's boring.

But what if my mobile phone rang, it was a stranger at a nuclear missile silo who had mis-dialed. He was trying for his wife - and he gives me her name - but also tells me that missiles are heading toward the USA and he has been given the order to push the button... we only have a couple of hours of life left on earth before it becomes a nuclear wasteland. Then the phone goes dead... and all phones go dead. I maybe have a couple of hours left to live... but do I try to find his wife? Do I try to contact the people I love and tell them I love them? What do I do?

Now, you may say that's a contrived situation - but it's completely possible. What happens next should be "real" - what people would do in this situation. You get one "coincidence" or manufactured event in every script - something to take mundane life and make it dramatic. That may be: teen girl gets knocked up, decided to keep it. Or it may be something more extreme. Here's the thing - if I have maybe two hours to live, those are going to be two very dramatic hours where I try to compress my whole life into 2 hours. And that knocked up girl gets 8 or 9 months of drama.

But I have to sit at my damned keyboard for an eternity.

- Bill

 

[Jijenji]

No character should ever do anything just for the sake of drama - that's contrived.

All actions and reactions should be motivated, and exactly what the average audience member would do if they were in that same situation - whether the situation is a stolen bicycle or an asteroid headed toward earth.

Newton's 3rd Law should govern everything in your screenplay.

Now, *reality* is that I sit on my ass all day and type. No one wants to see that. It's boring.

But what if my mobile phone rang, it was a stranger at a nuclear missile silo who had mis-dialed. He was trying for his wife - and he gives me her name - but also tells me that missiles are heading toward the USA and he has been given the order to push the button... we only have a couple of hours of life left on earth before it becomes a nuclear wasteland. Then the phone goes dead... and all phones go dead. I maybe have a couple of hours left to live... but do I try to find his wife? Do I try to contact the people I love and tell them I love them? What do I do?

Now, you may say that's a contrived situation - but it's completely possible. What happens next should be "real" - what people would do in this situation. You get one "coincidence" or manufactured event in every script - something to take mundane life and make it dramatic. That may be: teen girl gets knocked up, decided to keep it. Or it may be something more extreme. Here's the thing - if I have maybe two hours to live, those are going to be two very dramatic hours where I try to compress my whole life into 2 hours. And that knocked up girl gets 8 or 9 months of drama.

But I have to sit at my damned keyboard for an eternity.

- Bill

I agree with a lot of that, and I think whether or not something is contrived comes down to where it happens in the script most times. If it's early on...it's usually more believable. Especially if it's an initial coincidence, or part of the basic premise of the film. Without it, you have no story. But if something extreme happens later on in the script, the chances of it seeming contrived are a lot higher....unless it's properly set-up.

 

[wcmartell]

Yes - after that first thing that sparks your story, everything else is Newton's 3rd Law. No one gets to pull a rabbit out of a hat and that dependable friend doesn't suddenly reveal that he has always been an evil enemy agent just waiting for the story to slow down before he reveals himself.

And that makes that thing that sparks your story the most important thing there is.

- Bill

 

[wcmartell]

You Need A Spark

After writing that last post I went to a screening of my friend's new movie... and left early.

Here's the problem - it takes place at a workplace over a single day. But there is no spark (no inciting incident - in screenwriter talk) - so it's just a typical day at work. Nothing different happens. That means that all of the drama has to be artificially induced. So one character gets a phone call from their doctor that they have cancer. Another character decides - for no reason - to attempt suicide. There's a big chunk of exposition about their life outside the workplace falling apart. One character may have AIDS... they get a phone call, too. There are a bunch of dramatic elements that come from *outside* the office and *outside* the story. They just come from nowhere to create a scene. And, though things like this *do* happen in real life, on the screen it seems completely forced. You can see the writer-director off camera forcing the drama. None of it is connected to anything in the workplace. Just an out of the blue phone call that creates a false dramatic event. The film was contrived and fake.

Here's the irony - I'm sure my friend thought it was more realistic because there was no big inciting incident. That it was more natural and less contrived... but it seemed 100 times more forced than DIE HARD. Because in DIE HARD, once the terrorist take over the Christmas party, everybody does exactly what a real person would do - even the terrorists. They react naturaly.

Now, that doesn't mean the workplace drama would have been better with terrorists, but he needed *some event* that made this day *different* than any other day. Look at GLEN GARY GLEN ROSS - this is the last day of the sales contest - someone will win and someone will be fired. That changes a normal day of selling into *the* day of selling - you can lose your job if you fail. So everyone is hustling on *this day* and maybe backstabbing their fellow employees and maybe having a melt down when things go wrong. Okay, now that we are in this pressure cooker situation at the workplace, the differences between characters can easily explode into drama without any outside phone calls. That's not the end of the world - but it is the end of a career for somebody. There are stakes. There is a deadline.

My friend's film would have been a million times better if the story had begun with them getting a new boss. Now you have people kissing up in all kinds of ways, people dealing with new authority, etc. No phone calls required - the drama would come from that spark - that change - that thing that alters the status quo. But you *must* have something that alters the regular world and creates a dramatic situation... or else you end up grafting on drama from the outside.

- Bill