The Formula

[Freestyle]

It was explained to me, by someone I respect with a lot of experience in the industry, that most movies follow a very specific formula, and she knew what she was talking about. Now when I watch a movie I look for things like the all-is-lost moment and it's always there.

Of course there are exceptions, and mutations. But another thing she told me, which really bummed me out, was that movies that didn't fall into this formula were art films. And that if you write art films, you're basically burning bridges to mainstream movie writing.

I'd prefer not to write to formula and stay out of the mainstream game (not that I could get in anyway). But, having just discovered this forum, I'm interested in what people's thoughts were about this.

No specific question, just wondering if you all agree with the assertion that anything not written to 'the formula' is an art film.

If this is a sucky first post I'm sorry, but I'm curious. Peace

 

[Ernest Worthing]

Im a big believer in the power of film to bring changes in thinking and the world. And it can be the most artistic medium at times.

But the difference between generic movies and artful films is not as simple as whether it follows formula or not.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I don't think having an All-is-Lost moment should make a movie formulaic. I'd say that's just good storytelling, and I'd be willing to bet that any feature you write would very likely have an All-is-Lost moment, even if you didn't consciously choose for that to be the case.

I understand, though, that your friend was just making one example, and there are many other signature moments that can be found in "the formula".

Personally, I don't think one needs to be so scared of the formula. Just because you understand the conventions that some other people might follow, that doesn't mean that you're destined to follow them yourself. For example, just because I have a very strong understanding of Catholicism, that doesn't mean I'm Christian.

Besides, just because something is formulaic, that doesn't necessarily make it bad. Another way to look at it is that it's tried and true. People adopt it because it works. I'd really like to stress again that just by having an understanding of what has worked for others, that doesn't make you doomed to be robotic in your works.

I don't like the word "formula", because the connotation that a movie is "formulaic" is very negative. But take a look at your most favorite movies, the ones that almost everybody agrees is great -- they all have an All-is-Lost moment. Instead, I prefer to describe it as "structure".

For me, as a relatively inexperienced screenwriter, having an understanding of a structure that has worked for other people made a very difficult process (writing a feature) a little less difficult. I was free to choose which elements I wanted to follow and which to reject, but I don't see anything wrong with taking a little wisdom from those who've done the same thing before me.

Everything doesn't have to be entirely new, and in fact, almost nothing ever is. It is your job to take something familiar and make it new.

We don't have the same criticisms of music, yet the music you listen to follows the same basic structure that was started by classical composers, hundreds of years ago.

My two cents -- you should at least learn "the formula", and then you can choose to completely reject it, or maybe only partially reject it, on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Freestyle]

We don't have the same criticisms of music, yet the music you listen to follows the same basic structure that was started by classical composers, hundreds of years ago.

As a musician I disagree. I'm not writing to any formula when I arrange; sometimes even the idea of 4/4 or any time signature goes out of the window. And certainly there's no reliance on verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, chorus or your basic rock progression. And I think that the criticism of pop music all following the same structure is very valid, in the same way I think that the mainstream movie formula deserves criticizing.

I don't like the word "formula", because the connotation that a movie is "formulaic" is very negative. But take a look at your most favorite movies, the ones that almost everybody agrees is great -- they all have an All-is-Lost moment. Instead, I prefer to describe it as "structure".

Fair enough. I agree that this structure has resulted in a lot of good movies, both in and out of the Hollywood universe, but I don't think it's necessary for a good movie in that same way that music doesn't need verse/chorus etc. But if you're trying to write a movie that works and don't want to try something radical, then writing to the structure is your best bet for sure.

 

[rayw]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdEI1dGU1VUxaVDhCQmVnVFBLeUxSaWc#gid=0

Pretty much it boils down to "What do you want to do with your film?"
Do you wanna make a film?
Or do you want to make money offa making a film?
They are not the same thing.

If you want to make a film that someone else will spend money on distributing then you gotta appeal to their consumers that they can cost effectively market to.
If you want to make a film similar to what Aunt Mimi likes to paint which mean a WHOLE lot to her but to few others, then...

... GOPHERIT!!



Independent filming has two large camps.
One of which is a add-on, the lo/no budget group that just wants to make their own film even though it perfectly matches the Hollywood three act structure.
The other group is the legit "independent" filmmaker group which ACTIVELY makes films that DO NOT match the Hollywood formula.
No one in HWood could figure out how to market the intended final product, so all the studios pass on it, but the determined writer is now going to have to be the director and likely the producer, as well.

And that's how you end up with films INDEPENDENT from the studios.

Lotta good films make no money. 3Act structure or not.
Lotta poor films make plenty of money. 3Act structure or not.

So...
What do you want to do with your film?
Entertain people?
Make money?
Entertain yourself?

 

[Cracker Funk]

As a musician I disagree. I'm not writing to any formula when I arrange; sometimes even the idea of 4/4 or any time signature goes out of the window. And certainly there's no reliance on verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, chorus or your basic rock progression. And I think that the criticism of pop music all following the same structure is very valid, in the same way I think that the mainstream movie formula deserves criticizing.

I didn't say pop music, I said music. Even the most inaccessible jazz still follows the conventions established by Bach, et. all. By the way, Bach did not establish verse/chorus/verse/chorus.

Not convinced of the influence of classical Western music on what you listen to and play? For contrast, give this a listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmlAZxha8Pw

Talk about different! By our Western musical standards, it's completely unrecognizable. The chords aren't even slightly the same. The melodies are completely foreign. The rhythm is like what?!

And that's because the difference between Western and Eastern culture dates back a long time. There are a lot of things that all humans have in common, but the style of music we listen to is not one of them (though we do all listen to music).

The point I make is that in the same way you play music that is VERY LARGELY influenced by Western musicians who've been doing this for hundreds of years, whether you mean for that to be the case or not, the screenplays you write are very likely going to be heavily influenced by the movies that you grew up watching, whether you mean for that to be the case or not.

What I'm saying is that "the formula" is already in your head, you just don't know it. Might as well learn it, so that you can better reject it.

 

[Freestyle]

Cracker - first off, I don't disagree with your point, what you're trying to say. But I do find it funny that you're trying to say music in the bigger sense is all the same, then you link to a video with music that you say is nothing like 'our western' standards! That's music, dude, Western or not, and as you point out it's not Bach-influenced. So if Balinese Gamelan isn't following the Bach musical formula, then there must be another formula...so why not a million? I'm actually related to a guy named Harry Partch that made atonal music, and honestly it didn't sound very good but man, it's nothing like anything else I've ever heard, and if follows a formula at all it mutates it to the point that you can't tell where its from. BUT I agree that the structure you refer to is intrinsically tied to our understanding of, say, music or film, and that we do have to pay some attention to it, at the cost of misunderstanding our art.

Ray - I'm not gonna defend Aunt Mimi specifically, but artists like the ones in Juxtapoz aren't exactly catering to the mainstream and yet have a huge audience. There's a middle-ground audience for everything, in my opinion. Also I think that if you want to entertain yourself you should pick a medium that isn't so difficult to create in! Film by nature is an undertaking, and again, in my opinion, you can't just undertake it for yourself. You have to entertain people, but you don't have to entertain everyone, is my position.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I think I didn't make myself clear, when I offered the contrasting music, cuz you don't really get my point.

Music is older than human Civilization. And since Eastern and Western civilizations were born separately from each other, there are vast cultural differences between them, music being one example. I used some traditional Eastern music to show, by contrast, just how much similarities there are between virtually ALL styles of Western music. We don't think of death-metal and easy-jazz as very similar to each other, but compared to traditional Balinese music, they're pretty similar.

But there is only one history of cinema. And that history is born from a style of storytelling that dates back farther than Shakespeare. I'm not saying there aren't other possibilities, or other structures that can work. I'm just saying that in our culture, this structure is pretty well-established, and most audiences seem to like it. And even when you think you're being different, well, you're probably still following the same conventions that have been with us for a long time.

More importantly, I'm not saying you should "pay some attention" to the formula, for risk of misunderstanding the art. I'm saying that learning "the formula" might actually make you better at screenwriting, even if you try to distance yourself form it, the same way that studying the works of Bach might make you a better musician.

 

[FantasySciFi]

You go up the mountain, cross the peak, and go down the mountain. That's the basics. The rest is elaboration of figuring who's going up, why, which mountain, the things that happen on the journey, what's learned, what's lost, and what's found on the other side.

There are certain themes/plots/stories/motifs that are common, like the Hero's Journey, that are present in many but not all stories. There are others also like the Heroine's Journey (more internal), the Anti-Hero's (descent into darkness), Coming of Age (like Heroine's but with two leads), Fated Destiny (the train wreck) that don't follow the standard 'formula'. The other feature is that 'formula' driven stories tend to be linear. Most non-linear stories don't rely on these features but use links to connect segments. Some films start at the end and then the rest of the film is bringing the audience up to that point and providing the 'ever after' (happily or not).

I think that 'formula' films are generally successful because they use a form that has been ingrained in viewers since childhood. Many fairytales have the 'all is lost' moment that scares and grips us (Will the bears eat Goldilocks? Will the wolf eat Red Riding Hood?). Most of these are also linear--time moves forward so we watch events unfold.

Romance novels are heavily formula driven and they are successful. I agree with Rayw to the degree that using what is successful invites success. I also agree that writing and filmmaking is a creative endeavor that shouldn't be restricted to cookie cutter approaches. The trend to write formula pieces seems to have started in the early 80s building with the success of Star Wars. Disney's animated features are quite formulaic and quite successful. "Successful" and "good" aren't necessarily the same but they often overlap.

If you're starting out, the "formula" is a useful tool. It is not the secret for a successful script. I've read some very poorly written scripts that follow the formula to the letter. It's like a cake mold. If you have a bad batter, it will look like a cake but it won't taste like one. If all you do is round cakes, then you'll be surprised when you see sculptured cakes.

In answer to your question, no and yes. Which formula? If something is written to another formula, is it an art film? However, playing with different formulae/styles is certainly an exercise in artistry. Is a fictional documentary following the formula? Not necessarily. Is it an art film? Not necessarily. "Paranormal Activity" and "Blair Witch" are successful, certainly not art films, and don't easily fit into the Hero's Journey type formula (though there are those diehards that will try to fit all square pegs into round holes).

I think the suggestion is that an 'art film' is one that isn't a box office smash and it is unfortunate. I think there is a benefit for new filmmakers and screenwriters to watch foreign films which often don't follow the formula. Sometimes that "all is lost" moment is just a decision based on a realization. Box office smashes often rake in money with young adult audiences, but the awards go to drama "artsy" films. Movies like "Patch Adams" or "Simon Birch" or "Ordinary People" touch us in deep ways. And perhaps that's what an 'art film' should be about. Dealing with grief, loss, triumph of the spirit are things worth writing and seeing. A formula film can be an "art film". And I think a non-formula film can be a box-office success without being an "art film" like "Jackass".

I think she needs to think more broadly if the only two boxes she has for movies are 'formula' and 'art'.

 

[Freestyle]

I really didn't mean to get into an argument in the first thread I posted in, but I am kind of offended.

I used some traditional Eastern music to show, by contrast, just how much similarities there are between virtually ALL styles of Western music. We don't think of death-metal and easy-jazz as very similar to each other, but compared to traditional Balinese music, they're pretty similar

I guess I wasn't exactly clear either. It's not about how similar different strains of Western music are, it's about how different music is in every ethnic backwater worldwide compared to mainstream music in the West. Music can be anything that uses sound in an artistic way, and has nothing to do with where you are from or your relation to the source of the music. Beating a drum has nothing to do with classical music, and rhythm is different everywhere.

But there is only one history of cinema. And that history is born from a style of storytelling that dates back farther than Shakespeare. I'm not saying there aren't other possibilities, or other structures that can work. I'm just saying that in our culture, this structure is pretty well-established, and most audiences seem to like it. And even when you think you're being different, well, you're probably still following the same conventions that have been with us for a long time.

Okay, if we are only talking about the "West," sure. But cinema is anything that results from someone pointing a camera at a subject and recording. Asian movies can be like Western movies, but I've seen a lot of movies that don't tell stories like movies made in the West. There are multiple storytelling traditions worldwide, and they differ as much from each other as music of various ethnic roots.

You are correct in that movies have roots in the West, but worldwide the history of cinema has branched out to the point where it has far from one strain. There was even an era in some parts of the world when films couldn't have any long stretches of black frames, because the audience would assume the projector wasn't working and would leave. As far as I know that's not part of Western cinema history, but it is certainly a part of the history of film.

And realistically, many of the largest markets for films have demands that vary greatly from those in the West. Bollywood films, for example, are longer than most Hollywood movies, and that throws the half hour intro, hour middle, and half hour conclusion format out of the window. If you're smart at this point you are writing movies that appeal worldwide anyway, because the audience for Western movies is dwindling as other cultures start to make their own movies and are turning away from formulaic Hollywood movies that aren't made for their interests. Ask somebody.

More importantly, I'm not saying you should "pay some attention" to the formula, for risk of misunderstanding the art. I'm saying that learning "the formula" might actually make you better at screenwriting, even if you try to distance yourself form it, the same way that studying the works of Bach might make you a better musician.

I stick to my guns here. If you are really able to tell stories you don't tell them a certain way all the time. And if you stick to one format, and do that because it is tried and true in your part of the world, then you are walling yourself off from a world of possibility, literally.

 

[Freestyle]

I think she needs to think more broadly if the only two boxes she has for movies are 'formula' and 'art'.

I don't think the 'formula' was that rigid, and there is grey area in between the two, so I didn't mean to throw this person under the bus for a single comment. And I agree with what you said.

 

[jax_rox]

I think the formula you're talking about is some kind of three-act structure which most films fit into, not matter how 'formulaic' or not they seem. If you want a movie that truly subscribes to no structure or 'formula' have a look at Lynch's Inland Empire. But, even then those who have a greater understanding of it's plot than I might suggest it fits into some sort of structure.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I really didn't mean to get into an argument in the first thread I posted in, but I am kind of offended.

What?! How was anything I said even slightly offensive? Are we not allowed to discuss differing opinions? If you find this conversation offensive, perhaps you should check out the rest of the internet; this conversation is about as civil as it gets. And why would you ask a question if you don't want people to share their answers that might be different from yours?

 

[JoshL]

I guess I wasn't exactly clear either. It's not about how similar different strains of Western music are, it's about how different music is in every ethnic backwater worldwide compared to mainstream music in the West. Music can be anything that uses sound in an artistic way, and has nothing to do with where you are from or your relation to the source of the music. Beating a drum has nothing to do with classical music, and rhythm is different everywhere.

Chiming in here, because I think you and Cracker Funk are actually making the same point. If you are making music in the US, for example, and you bring in structural elements of gamelan, or Tuvan throat singing or whatever, you won't be speaking to the majority of your audience. Some people will still like it. Some people might even get it. But because it isn't a part of the prevailing culture, it will always be on the fringe (tucked away in the "world" music section...what an awful term, but I digress). The same with films. In order to speak to a wide audience, you need to speak the language that they understand. It doesn't mean you can't, or shouldn't do it, but that's what puts it in the "art film" category (as rayw described).

So, yes, there are an infinite number of different structures. And there are exceptions to every rule. But a free jazz song isn't going to get on top 40 radio, and a weird film (Inland Empire is a good example...it is structured and cohesive and the story at the core is pretty simple. Once you get to it.) is not going to get hollywood-level distribution. This may be the point your friend was making. Bear in mind that mainstream audiences in the US don't get a lot of what's going on in Asian cinema as well. That's part of the reason there are a ton of foreign remakes (sometimes even a year after the original).

Interesting example with Partch (and cool connection that you are related); he didn't do atonal music. He did microtonal music based on pure tone ratios rather than western equal temperament. Sorta kicked off a bunch of people doing that sort of thing (check out some of the latter works by Wendy Carlos, in particular "Beauty In The Beast" or "Tales of Heaven and Hell") For more strictly atonal, check out 12-tone music (the entire point of serial music is to pull emphasis away from a single note) or Gyorgi Ligetti. All of these things are HIGHLY informed by western conventions and structure...fully understanding why things were the way they were before choosing to reject one or more parts and start from the beginning. Most importantly to this discussion, more people know who Stravinsky was than Partch. He broke a lot of rules too, but he followed enough that his work connected with "mainstream" audiences. Doesn't make Partch any less awesome, just more "artsy"...as can be the case with film.

Oh, and don't be offended; discussion and disagreement are good! They make us think, question everything and grow. Nothing here (and very little on this forum) is a personal attack. When everyone shares the same exact perspective, you end up stagnating and there's no room for unconventional music, because everyone likes exactly the same thing! Oh, and it's always good to have more music folks around, since I (to a fault) think of everything in music metaphors as well

 

[Cracker Funk]

Leave it to the composer to be the diplomat! Hah. I think your post is very well-stated, Josh. Thanks for chiming in.

It has crossed my mind that maybe Freestyle was offended by my post because he/she thinks I was being ethnocentric? Obviously, I don't know, only Freestyle can say how/why I offended; I'm just taking a guess.

But if that's the case, then I want to clarify, and explain how I'm not being even slightly ethnocentric, just understanding the history of how different cultures have collided.

10K years ago, Western Civilization began when some people in what we now call Southern Iraq began farming and domesticating wheat. Virtually everything you see and do every day, from food to music to language, you name it, has it's roots in that culture.

At roughly the same time, some people in what we now call China began farming and domesticating rice. Likewise, that early civilization lives on in modern culture.

Though ancient trade-routes did loosely connect these two civilizations, the cultural impact that they had on each other was almost nil, compared to today's globalization of everything. Western and Eastern civilization developed basically separate from each other, for thousands of years. Not surprisingly, traditional Eastern music and traditional Western music are VASTLY different from each other.

The same is not true of cinema. By the time cinema was invented, Eastern and Western cultures had been smashed together. Whereas traditional Eastern and Western music developed without the influence of the other, Eastern and Western cinema developed right next to each other. The history of one is the history of the other; they are one and the same. Which is why I didn't make any distinction between Eastern and Western cinema -- because there is none. There's just cinema.

Sure, there are other possibilities for cinematic structure that might work. But you'd have to go to another planet to find them.

 

[Freestyle]

It has crossed my mind that maybe Freestyle was offended by my post because he/she thinks I was being ethnocentric? Obviously, I don't know, only Freestyle can say how/why I offended; I'm just taking a guess.

You are exactly correct, and I guess I overreacted. My bad. Ethnocentrism, xenophobia and racism hit my buttons, but it seems like this is a case of my being on a hair trigger. I'm sorry I misread your post and am convinced that you are none of those things, so I am sorry. But yeah, that was it and nothing else; I think discourse is great, and am enjoying our conversation. Forgive me.

I will say that forms of telling stories, specifically the forms involving stage acting, have divergent histories and these have evolved into separate modes of cinema. Also I believe that the results of cultural cross-pollination, a concept I love talking about (haha), are valid in themselves as new forms. I'll give two examples here:

What we know as reggae can be partially traced to faulty Caribbean radio stations. Early rock and roll had a beat of kick-snare-kick-snare, but stations in Jamaica either couldn't transmit bass frequencies or local receivers had a hard time picking them up. The result was that Jamaicans listening to American music heard a rhythm pattern of pause-snare-pause-snare, and the music that was made to imitate American rock was heavy on the back beat because of this. Ska was this misinterpretation, and ska's influence on reggae is great. So in part we can thank/blame technology for those forms of music. Ironically I heard that on the radio.

American free-verse poetry, like the poetry of the beats, can be traced to translations of Chinese poetry that essentially stripped the poems of everything but their actual meaning. Chinese poetry is not free verse - Mandarin, Cantonese and regional Chinese dialects rhyme very easily and the structure of Chinese poetry at that time was more complicated in its rhyming than English poetry. BUT since the translation of Chinese poems resulted in lines that had no chance of rhyming, the poems were left in free verse form. It was from this that free verse poetry, ostensibly an American invention, began (I heard this from an actual beat in a poetry class).

^My point is just that the clash of cultures creates new forms of art, and that I believe the same thing has happened in cinema. IMO movies of different cultures have evolved into different beasts even as their history began in one place.

And JoshL, your points are well taken and also I am very impressed you know who Harry Partch is! Crazy.

Again, sorry for the 'offended' comment Cracker Funk. Didn't mean to ruffle feathers. Peace

 

[Cracker Funk]

Cool. Well, I have a tendency to use language and phrase things in ways that can come across as brash. Sometimes I intend it that way, but in this instance I did not. I'm sorry if I misrepresented myself. Glad we could sort things out. And thanks for the conversation.

Cheers.