scripty larue part too

These are some conclusions I've drawn since messing around with Script Frenzy...


Slow Moves, Ellie

A little bit at a time goes a long way to aid in my sanity. I used to be a marathon writer, going on and on for as long as I could; but what that led to was me getting burned out and/or complacent. I was either convinced I'd had enough, or that I'd done enough. Write everyday, but make sure to not write MORE than you need to. Does that make sense? Spread out the fun, day by day, hour by hour, or however else you manage your writing. It's like any good serialized TV show: while we crave answers to throbbing mysteries, we actually wouldn't tune in if you gave them away. Keep the script alive by purposefully leaving something cool to write till the next time you write. If you've done a good days work of writing, but you still want to pound out that action scene because it's just too much fun, hold off. Get pumped about it as you go about your day, and then come back to it tomorrow. You'll have a whole day in between writing sessions, which will no doubt inject your sequence with more ideas.

Four Act Man

I'm writing in Four Acts now. It's official. I've been a bit skeptical about the idea, because it seemed to go against so much of the current wisdom floating around the Film/TV bookshelf at Barnes & Noble, but it makes so much sense. The midpoint of a film is a crucial turning point. It's where the world begins to shift. It's the entrance of the point of no return for our characters. It's a SUPER important moment. So, why is it treated as simply a "step" in the middle of the second act? It's not a simple story beat: it's an Act Changer. I think when you make the last half of your second act into an act on its own, it adds more weight to it... You view it differently.

Why the switch? Because of this blog post at Rage Against The Page, and also because of this article, written by the creator of NBC's Community Dan Harmon, a man who has many times ruffled his fair share of feathers in the studio system (namely those of Jeffrey Katzenberg, and apparently Lord Spielberg himself), but always over how they approach story in their animated endeavors. His approach is simple, and absolutely amazing. Here's how he breaks down thousands of pages of Hero's Journey-esque screenwriting books. Eight elements. One word each...

YOU
NEED
GO
SEARCH
FIND
TAKE
RETURN
CHANGE

I'll let Dan himself explain each one (Note: The context of this quote stems from his site Channel 101's quest for new 5 minute pilots. So references to 37 seconds and other time frames should be generally ignored. Unless you're looking to write a five minute pilot):

As I've said, the easiest way to visualize these steps is by drawing a circle, dividing it into 4 equal pieces, and writing numbers around it clockwise, with (1) and (5) at the north and south "poles" of the circle, (3) and (7) at the east and west poles.

1) "You" - who are we? A squirrel? The sun? A red blood cell? America? By the end of the first 37 seconds, we'd really like to know.

2) "Need" - something is wrong, the world is out of balance. This is the reason why a story is going to take place. The "you" from (1) is an alcoholic. There's a dead body on the floor. A motorcycle gang rolls into town. Campbell phrases: Call to Adventure, Refusal of the Call, Supernatural Aid.

3) "Go" - For (1) and (2), the "you" was in a certain situation, and now that situation changes. A hiker heads into the woods. Pearl Harbor's been bombed. A mafia boss enters therapy. Campbell phrase: Crossing of the Threshold. Syd Field phrase: Plot Point 1.

4) "Search" - adapting, experimenting, getting shit together, being broken down. A detective questions suspects. A cowboy gathers his posse. A cheerleader takes a nerd shopping. Campbell phrases: Belly of the Whale, Road of Trials. Christopher Vogler phrase: Friends, Enemies and Allies.

5) "Find" - whether it was the direct, conscious goal or not, the "need" from (2) is fulfilled. We found the princess. The suspect gives the location of the meth lab. A nerd achieves popularity. Campbell phrase: Meeting with the Goddess. Syd Field phrase: mid-point. Vogler phrase: Approach to the Innermost Cave.

6) "Take" - The hardest part (both for the characters and for anyone trying to describe it). On one hand, the price of the journey. The shark eats the boat. Jesus is crucified. The nice old man has a stroke. On the other hand, a goal achieved that we never even knew we had. The shark now has an oxygen tank in his mouth. Jesus is dead- oh, I get it, flesh doesn't matter. The nice old man had a stroke, but before he died, he wanted you to take this belt buckle. Now go win that rodeo. Campbell phrases: Atonement with the Father, Death and Resurrection, Apotheosis. Syd Field phrase: plot point 2

7) "Return" - It's not a journey if you never come back. The car chase. The big rescue. Coming home to your girlfriend with a rose. Leaping off the roof as the skyscraper explodes. Campbell phrases: Magic Flight, Rescue from Without, Crossing of the Return Threshold.

8) "Change" - The "you" from (1) is in charge of their situation again, but has now become a situation-changer. Life will never be the same. The Death Star is blown up. The couple is in love. Dr. Bloom's Time Belt is completed. Lorraine Bracco heads into the jungle with Sean Connery to "find some of those ants." Campbell phrases: Master of Both Worlds, Freedom to Live.

I've taken this to heart, and applied it to everything I conceptualize, in order to see the story broken down into the most basic of parts. EVERY story follows this pattern, believe it or not, so it's an incredibly effective means to simplify a story.

AND, the best part is, it fits so nicely into the Four Act Structure:

(This one goes counter-clockwise, I know. The man who created it is Australian, so...)

It's just a better way to handle things, I think, when you're dealing with four equal parts. With three acts, the second act always seemed to daunting, plagued by sooooo many story beats, and so much change. Yet here, it's clear what needs to happen in each act, and how that leads to the mighty change of heart. It just makes sense to me, more than three acts ever did. And yet, I went YEARS sucking from the teet of the three-act gurus, believing Aristotle to be a dramatic genius*, tapping into the very fabric of story, and exposing its thread count. I knew some folks subscribed to the four-act way of life, but I just couldn't get into it. But, after struggling through countless second acts, I finally see just how beneficial it is to add a fourth act, and to cut that bloody Act Two into two separate and juicy pieces.

In conclusion, I'm as pleased as punch to have figured this one out for good. It's liberating. Read Rage Against The Page's article, and also Dan's article (links above). They may just change your [screenwriting] life.

*Dramatic effect, people. I hope that's clear. Aristotle WAS a genius. A mighty, mighty genius.