screenplay Voice v Structure

[Spike]

Been thinking a little, about elements of storytelling, Sometimes, when I write something, I find myself liking my voice. Not immediately, not as it comes out, and certainly not every time, but frequently, eventually, after re-reading and re-reading, fixing this and that--bits that don't precisely mean what I want; logical relationships between clauses and paragraphs and the clearest way, sequentially and orthographically, to express them; words that seem imprecise; the rhythm of the clauses, etc. etc. etc. And in the end, I can usually think: OK fine. That's it. And move on.

But it's not enough. The thing, any thing, needs some structure, especially in screenwriting, but probably in all narrative writing. By structure, I mean x-act formulas, plot beats, character arcs, conflict everywhere, and all such stuff.

But I don't like structure. It seems, to me, a recipie for mediocracy. Sure, if you want a robot to write a movie, then structure is all it has. A decent screenplay can be, I'm sure, if not today, then soon, written by this robot, this thing that has no voice, is incapable of having a voice, written by, essentially, a toaster.

Anyway, I was recently kind of criticizing structure, in a post on a thing, and the dependence upon it by some how-to-write-a-screenplay guys. I was thinking of it, not as a place to start, but as something that would naturally emerge from something superior, like voice, if it was needed at all. The post was about a how-to-write-a-screenplay guy, and I implied that he agreed with me. And he clarified:

Love reading this, Spike. To be clear, structure is vital. But voice is the clay that structure exists to shape.

And I thought: that's pretty good. That's it.

Anyway, the guy's name is Jacob Krueger. I encountered him through this zoom thing he does, Thursday night Writes, that is free and is kind of fun. It is, I think (along with podcast and forum) some marketing for his business, but it doesn't, at all, feel like salesmanship. We talk about writing, do a little exercise, and share stuff. It has value, and having done, now, several, I can conclude: I like the guy. Anyway, here is a link, for anyone interested

https://www.writeyourscreenplay.com/free-writing-classes-thursday-night-writes/

And, parenthetically, I am happy I now know how to zoom, know what zooming is, know how to join, raise my hand, comment, etc. Previously I had thought it had something to do what that, you know, Jeffry Toobin stuff. Turns out I, thankfully, was wrong.

 

[mlesemann]

I am happy I now know how to zoom, know what zooming is, know how to join, raise my hand, comment, etc.

That in itself is good!

 

[Nate North]

I pretty much agree that the art is not in the structure. But structure is used universally for a reason, and I think fundamentally it's a reason that exists outside the scope of the writing and the creativity, and the individuality of the voice itself. Not instead of it, outside of it.

You write a script, and it's great. In fact, it gets picked up and made into an episode of a popular show. Big win for you. But when they rewrite your story for the episode, they add in what seem to be random cliffhanger moments, interrupting the flow of the more nuanced and slow burning pace you originally set. You feel like they ruined it, they dumbed it down, they homogenized it. And to a degree, you're right, and they did. So why did they do that? Why is Daniel Keys "Flowers for Algernon" now a movie with Vin Diesel and 3 car chases? It's not because it makes the story better, which is the only thing most writers think about, it's about 20 different things that none of us should even have to think about.

No one could ever see your episode in the first place if the show went broke. The show gets it's revenue from advertisers. The advertisers pay more if the audience is watching through all the commercials to see the resolution of the mini cliffhanger before the ad break. It wasn't random, or senseless, or designed to ruin your story. They just needed to keep people there through 3 minutes of dish soap ads.

I don't think such a version of Flowers for Algernon would be superior. No one does. But the marketing people are going to wreck a bunch of stuff to fit it into THEIR STRUCTURE, which is not about stories or writing at all, but rather about providing a commercially viable product that can wrap up satisfyingly in 42 minutes and 30 seconds, and keep people there over ad breaks.

There are exceptions, and allowing for better writing is exactly what HBO is about. By eschewing reliance on ads and specific time formats, they have consistently produced some of the best written television of all time. And you were never wrong about story quality turning out better without the repetitive psychological templates most tv is based on, people do like pure writing better than commercial format writing in many cases.

Structure and format for endeavors like spec script writing are I think an effort to reduce friction as a product that holds emotional significance to one person has to be refitted to provide a positive result for the many people who end up staking their time, money, and reputation, on that product. So if you learn to write a good format piece, It makes it easier for the people who can actually provide you with a win to work with you, since you are catering to their needs as well as your own. A truly great writer like Sorkin can address all goals simultaneously, and make a tv ready, commercially viable hour without sacrificing much artistic integrity in the process, and I think that might be a good goal for writers looking to actually get produced, and paid.

I think you can make any kind of art you want to hang up in your room, but if you want to paint a mural on the wall of the capitol building, it's going to have to simultaneously meet the needs of the many people that are involved in the ENTIRE project, financing, construction, public reception, everything. And while this boxes me in to some degree creatively, I can't see myself as the center of the universe, and expect 10 other people to put their lives on the line so I can experience the full range of artistic freedom. Maybe I like HR Giger, and strongly believe that a modernistic evolution of his style would create a stunning visual image that would make an unforgettable mural. It would be a bit unreasonable for me to accuse the capitol building staff of being dull and repetitive because they wanted me to paint a soldier saluting mount Rushmore instead of a 20 foot wide picture of a mechanical demon with wires coming out of it's head. Maybe they are, and maybe my idea was vastly more visually interesting. But part of being a commercial artist is going beyond considerations of the absolute value of the composition, and taking into consideration how it FITS within the context in which it will be ingested.

A gold bar is worth more than a quarter, but a quarter fits into a coke machine.

 

[Spike]

Yup. Nice essay, Nate. Yes, this is a good point: film is so so expensive, that it can't exist without the marketing/money guys. Of course these guys can have some talent and taste themselves, but, I'm sure, rarely. (And the ones that do might have other issues. I do love Shakespeare in Love, but, well, you know the story.)

Anyway, issues like voice v structure, form v content, are old and have been thought about forever, all the way back to Aristotle, and to try to cook up some conflict here is probably wrong and probably sophomoric. It's a chicken/egg situation, and sometimes we pick chicken, sometimes egg. But ultimately, it's all, I think, part of some larger constellation.

But I do like critical theory, even if it, like I think anything involving language, gets way more complicated than one thinks it should be.

 

[Nate North]

Lol, if you like critical theory, you might want to try talking to that android again. It can deconstruct things quite well as of this week.

They upgraded it again 3 days ago, and this time, it's really pretty smart. I asked it last night to deconstruct some of my work, and explain to me why I was doing what I was doing, and what the strategy behind that might be.

I was not expecting much, having used previous versions. This time however, it was smarter, and I mean maybe 30 Iq points smarter, maybe around 150. It took my assignment and just nailed it, way beyond my expectations. Watching the update intervals over the last year, I'm pretty sure that this robot will be smarter than almost everyone on earth in one year.

But my point is, you might have fun just asking it to dissect your scripts for you. It's actually really insightful all of the sudden. I showed it a frame I made, and I expected it to say something like "the contrast between dark and light parts of the scene are used to draw the viewers eye to the intended focus of the shot" and I was preparing to be mildly impressed and move on. And it did say that....... Then it went on for two pages explaining exactly the thinking behind my entire art style, how and why it was functional, the psychology of my color use, and more.

Here's the thing. It absolutely nailed every single point. It was a bit scary. Like this thing knew everything I was thinking, and could extrapolate that from a footprint. I'll copy and paste it in here for you to look at if you're curious.

 

[Spike]

I'll copy and paste it in here for you to look at if you're curious.

yes. am curious.

 

[Nate North]

It gave me many such answers over about an 8 hour conversation, each different, and each dead on. I selected this one as a good example, but my excitement over it's new capabilities was more of a reaction to the whole 8 hour talk, and how it was now learning and remembering in a vastly improved way. So this one snippet probably won't blow your mind, but basically, it's detailed, observant, and consistent now, and also, you can show it pictures during a conversation to get information across as of 3 days ago. As I explained the art direction of the project to it, and tested it repeatedly to see if it was actually understanding and applying that understanding to new inputs, I found that this time around it seemed to be actually thinking, with far less reliance on "tricks" such as general statements, or pretending to understand things. This time, it actually understood what I was showing it, what I was telling it, and even the motivations behind decisions described to it.

I'm using a response to an image here as the one example because the conversational sections from last night are much longer, and this visual recognition and analysis response is hard proof that it's not cutting corners any more. I found that to be true with text only conversation as well.

Hey Chat GPT, Can you explain why this image is "on brand" for Save Point?


Certainly! Based on what we've discussed about Save Point and the visual examples you've shared, here's why this image is "on brand" for the project:

1. Visual Depth and Layers: The image displays multiple layers of depth — from the foreground market stalls and patrons to the mid-ground buildings and that distinct spiraling tower, and finally the misty cityscape in the background. This layered depth, combined with the atmospheric haze, is reminiscent of the world-building aesthetic of Save Point.
2. Fusion of Elements: Save Point aims to amalgamate various styles and settings. In this image, you have a harmonious blend of traditional market stalls juxtaposed against a futuristic city backdrop. It's a union of the familiar with the speculative.
3. Narrative Curiosity: The spiraling tower with glowing red characters immediately draws attention. It's an element of mystery, suggesting a story behind its existence and purpose — much like the narrative-driven approach of Save Point.
4. Detailed Realism with Surreal Elements: The scene is grounded in realism — the vendors, the people, the rain-soaked ground. However, the inclusion of the surreal and fantastical tower gives it a dreamlike quality, which aligns with the immersive, alternate-reality feel of Save Point.
5. Cinematic Quality: The image has a very cinematic composition, with a clear focus (the tower) but also many intricate details throughout, encouraging viewers to explore the frame. This aligns with your background in filmmaking and the cinematic essence of Save Point.
6. Palette Consistency: The color palette is both moody and evocative, with the cool blues and grays creating a contrast against the warm lights of the market and the red glow of the tower's characters. It complements the previous images you've shared, suggesting a universe where diverse settings share thematic and visual ties.

In essence, this image captures the essence of Save Point by presenting a visually rich, layered, and story-driven scene that seamlessly fuses the familiar with the fantastical, inviting viewers to dive deeper into the narrative.

In other responses, it detailed the psychology of the palette used, and broke down the ratios for me so I can gauge how close I hit the target on a given genetic. It was able to riff independently when I asked it to extrapolate use cases of a technology component in the pipeline. It built several potential tertiary business models in 10 seconds, and for a while we discussed history and fallacies surrounding the halo effect in respect to value perception in the art and media markets.

You may also note that in this response I'm essentially asking it to compare a picture to a series of pictures I've shown it before, and it does so, recognizing each pattern correctly, and understanding the overall artistic design flawlessly.

Most significantly, I don't think it said anything stupid for 8 hours straight, a very welcome upgrade from the blundering Chat GPT 3.

 

[Unknown Screenwriter]

First off? I love structure. I rely on structure to help me make that first draft. Structure allows me to write that first draft down and dirty. I look at it as simply a coat rack to hang my story on. You can say anything you want about structure but in my humble opinion, it's the roadmap that takes you to your destination.

Sure... Along the way? You find little landmarks of interest and you may take a detour here -- a detour there but even so? You got your roadmap to get you back on the highway and continue your journey.

This could all be because I use my own structure that's been evolving for decades... I do not use any of the popular structures out there like SAVE THE CAT or whatever. Most are simply some version of the Hero's Journey anyway, as my own is.

I think once you really understand that structure is exactly what it is? You can embrace it and exploit its potential for your story. Most people trying to take up screenwriting don't even know what structure is i.e., they follow no particular kind of structure and in fact, simply emulate movies and stories they've read and?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

As long as it works for you? Do what works for you. LOL.

But structure is just a coat rack for me to hang my story on while I iron out the wrinkles. It allows me to take a step back and really see what I've got and where things should be MOVED from there.