Discussion about writing short scripts

[steve hyde]

EDIT: 10.29.06

I made some revisions, corrected some writing errors and hopefully now it is easier to read.


....okay here are some reading notes and some ideas that I have found interesting. Maybe this post will spark more discussion about writing for short films. These ideas are from a book I read called "The art of the Short Fiction Film". I think they are generally good ideas and well worth discussing here. Like all ideas, I'm sure they are flawed, but I haven't identified the flaws yet. It might be productive to discuss specific examples of how these "parameters" work or don't work in films that we have seen.

I'll offer some general "ground rules" in an effort to keep the discussion focused. This discussion should be specific to writing "short narrative fiction film" based on a definition that assumes:

1) narrative film is a style of film that follows a coherent story line.
2) a short is 15 minutes or less.

With these things in mind, I invite comments, questions, criticisms, experiences far and wide....

--------------------------begin reading notes-----------------

Film scholar Richard Raskin has put forth a conceptual model for the short fiction film that employs seven parameters for story design. They are intended to point to the frameworks and logics that make a short cinematic story more coherent and inhabitable given the time constraints of the short-form film (less than 15 minutes). If these parameters are ignored or not considered at all, the story will likely fall flat because it will lack the structure needed for coherent communication under the constraints of time. I find it helpful to think of the seven parameters as seven pivot points, or as Raskin calls them, points of anchorage" for the story. The anchorage points themselves, of course, are located in the imaginations of the audience. We have to know something about how we experience cinema, what convinces us, intrigues us and what makes us groan in dislike. However the study of experiences is the domain of phenomenology, not filmmaking. Delueze and Guattari have given us rich and often infuriatingly complex texts about film theory based on phenomenological studies that offer insights into how cinema is experienced. Graduate programs in film studies, like the comp lit program at Colombia University in New York or advanced studies at UCLA require this kind of reading for good reasons, but film theory does not offer practical solutions to problems of filmmaking practice. So instead of long-winded phenomenological theorizations translated from the French, Raskin offers a carpentry 101 approach to constructing short films that offers some basic narrative principles – “parameters” - for the short-form narrative filmmaker.


Raskin's seven parameters are:

1) Character focus and character interaction
2) Causality and choice
3) Consistency and Surprise
4) Interplay between image and sound
5) subject and object decor
6) Simplicity and depth
7) Economy and wholeness

A discussion on the usefulness of the parameters should start with some attempt to define what they are. Based on my own interpretations of the work that Raskin has done, some short descriptions follow:


1) Character Focus and Character Interaction
Character focus gives the audience what Raskin calls, - "home base" - to return to when they begin to get lost in a story so an important strategy is to develop the protagonist's character within the first moments of a short. Character development is best accomplished dynamically through interaction with other characters. In a 10 minute short, too many characters can be an information overload and distract from character focus on the lead character. For example, if we have our protagonist walking down a crowded street in Lima and she encounters a blind man trying to find his way across a busy intersection that is filled with pedestrians that don't seem to notice his problem and our protagonist does notice and stops to take his arm to help him across the street, we now know something about our protagonists character. This gives us material for constructing the story and provides a point of anchorage for the story. Character development can also be accomplished with *set decor* and other meaningful *objects* that tell us something about the character. What motivates her: why they does she do the things she does, make the choices she makes and so on? It is ideal to develop all the characters within the first third of the film since the first third of the film is a set up for the middle. So from a script writing perspective we can think of the first third of a short film as a short film in itself where 1) a story begins, 2)something happens to incite an action, 3) a choice, or set of choices are made to reveal characterizations.

2) Causality and Choice
The middle of the story needs to be dramatic in order to hold the attention of the audience. The drama is best played-out by causality and choice or *cause and effect relationships*. It is most interesting when such causality flows from the main character's deliberate choices. When the action stems from a character's choices we call the action character-driven. When we see actions driven by cause and effect relationships that make sense to us we stay in the space of the story. So this is what I think Raskin means by causality and choice. When causality and choice are strongly linked, we subconsciously find the story "believable". As an audience we *stay in the story* instead of planning an escape from the theatre.

3) Consistency and Surprise
Two more elements that tend to be crucial to feature films, and short-form films are no different, is consistency and surprise. Characters need to be believable; therefore, consistent behavior needs to remain constant with the character's definition. The crux is finding the balance between consistency and surprise because while it is desirable to have consistency in a character, a story is also enhanced when it is unpredictable. In Jeffery Sweet's much referenced book by playwrights, The Dramatist's Toolkit, 1993, he talks about the importance of asking your audience to engage in logic. A good story is algebraic in a way. We will stay interested in the story if we have to solve for the X, if you will. Successful works of cinema generally have one of two kinds of surprise: 1) many small elements of surprise that are threaded through the story. or 2) One big surprise in the final third of a film. Personally, I'm intrigued by the former method. For some reason I think of having a constellation of small surprises to be similar to great song writing. What I mean is that each image begins to take form in familiar ways, but in the end the build up to cliché is curbed and some kind of surprise is produced.

4) The interplay between image and sound
Good cinema is a harmony between image and sound. It is crucial to design the drama in a way that is just as interesting to the ear as it is to the eyes. Sounds should assist in the work of character development. Sounds should tell part of the story. Sounds should be used to produce actions and cinematic tension. Sounds can trigger events, sounds themselves can constitute events.


5) Character and object interaction
Characters encounter objects on the landscape and characters must interact with objects. In turn, objects on the set do part of the work of storytelling. Objects can tell us something about the inner lives of the characters themselves. I can't think of any examples from short films at the moment, but again, I return to the example of "Fight Club" since the first act of the film is one of the best first acts I have ever seen. Objects and decor were used in amazing ways in the first act of the film and the objects themselves played a integral role in the inciting incident when the protagonist of that film...."lost a lot of nice little shit"....

6) Simplicity and Depth
Keeping the story simple enough to be habitable by the viewer; stories that are too complex or detailed can push the audience away at a distance. Short films need to be inhabitable right away. The goal is to draw people in and not to let them go for fifteen minutes. By way of story, if we ask the viewer to engage in logic, we are asking that viewer to be a participant. If we don't ask the audience to play a game of logic, we are asking a viewer to be a mere observer. (or to take a nap) I think the same thing goes for simplicity and depth. A simple story is of course never really a "simple story" the frame of every image tells thousands of years of history. A successful motion picture encourages the viewer to step into the story and look around, get comfortable and then explore the inner depths of sight and sound from within.


7) Economy and Wholeness in the Script
Good films *can* start with strong scripts. And a strong short script needs to be streamlined with all the superfluous moments and details stripped away leaving a distillation that constitutes a strong framework for the story. The film needs to be an economical use of time. And wholeness comes from framework itself and the seventh anchorage point is simply a satisfying closure. No one likes to be dropped off in the middle of nowhere to be left to defend for themselves. Sometimes a story requires that and sometimes it is appropriate; however, what people feel as they walk out of the cinema is something to consider.

References

The Art of the Short Fiction Film , Richard Raskin

The Dramatist's Toolkit , Jeffery Sweet

Fight Club: it's on IMDB

[Evan Kubota]

Very interesting stuff. I have been waiting for a post like this, since the short film form is not usually addressed in detail. It is *not* 'just like a feature film' but compressed.

However, I find that most of these guidelines are quite general and would be good advice for a feature also.

This is a fairly extensive structuring, and as always, the challenge is to embrace formula enough to satisfy, avoid cliche enough to avoid groans, and conceal the structure enough so the audience isn't aware of exactly where the bones lie.

[yolia]

Some interesting points, and I suppose these would be useful to someone unsure of how to tell a story cinematically. However, I question any prescribed formula when it comes to filmmaking or any art form. The artist should instead follow his/her instincts whenever possible.

[BigBeaner]

Following your instincts can sometimes amazingly be just as formulaic. It's weird how the mind works.

--I'll take some time to read this and add some thoughts later, right now too busy writing my short for my "writing the short subject" script class. Would be interesting to bring this up. Some of these are just plain good things to think about when writing a feature anyways.

[steve hyde]

Very interesting stuff. I have been waiting for a post like this, since the short film form is not usually addressed in detail. It is *not* 'just like a feature film' but compressed.

However, I find that most of these guidelines are quite general and would be good advice for a feature also.

This is a fairly extensive structuring, and as always, the challenge is to embrace formula enough to satisfy, avoid cliche enough to avoid groans, and conceal the structure enough so the audience isn't aware of exactly where the bones lie.

..yeah, when I read what I wrote, and I wrote this some time ago, I noticed that the examples aren't very good and all from features. The text reads like I was thinking through the material, which is of course what I was doing.

I like the book. It has extensive story boards, interviews with the directors and detailed analysis of every scene of every short that it covers. In fact "Art of the Short Fiction Film" is the only book I have found that actually analyzes the structures of short films in a systematic and richly detailed (and visual) way. It's a great read. I wish I owned a copy.....expensive though and obscure. No one seems to go for it in Amazon landia.

To be honest, I haven't really found a way to use these parameters in my own writing, in part because I'm not currently doing this kind of writing - though I also think these parameters are probably more useful for advanced drafts - not first drafts - Maybe the parameters are useful for stepping away from a script and asking oneself if the parameters are there... If they are there ask how do they work or not work? If they are not there, how might they be integrated to help the story convey the theme?...that sort of thing....

Steve

[steve hyde]

Some interesting points, and I suppose these would be useful to someone unsure of how to tell a story cinematically. However, I question any prescribed formula when it comes to filmmaking or any art form. The artist should instead follow his/her instincts whenever possible.

...fair enough, although, I don't see formula. I see parameters..Maybe parameters for communicating something instinctual..

Steve

[steve hyde]

Following your instincts can sometimes amazingly be just as formulaic. It's weird how the mind works.

--I'll take some time to read this and add some thoughts later, right now too busy writing my short for my "writing the short subject" script class. Would be interesting to bring this up. Some of these are just plain good things to think about when writing a feature anyways.

Yeah, our instincts often tell us to vomit cliches....at least mine do.
Cool about the screenwriting class. What texts are you using in that, if any?

Steve

[mattias]

The artist should instead follow his/her instincts whenever possible.

there's no instead. These are tools to tune your instincts. Only beginners think rules are something more than... Just rules. /matt

[yolia]

The artist should instead follow his/her instincts whenever possible.

there's no instead. These are tools to tune your instincts. Only beginners think rules are something more than... Just rules. /matt

I didn't know your were the authority on instincts and rules. Good job.

[steve hyde]

The artist should instead follow his/her instincts whenever possible.

there's no instead. These are tools to tune your instincts. Only beginners think rules are something more than... Just rules. /matt

I didn't know your were the authority on instincts and rules. Good job.

..I don't see any claims to authority here. Just a valid point. This is no prescribed formula, just some parameters to acknowledge and think about..

Let's keep this discussion productive. Thanks,

Steve

[mattias]

I didn't know your were the authority on instincts and rules.

huh? Me neither. Do you have a point or are you just trying to pick a fight? /matt

[steve hyde]

I didn't know your were the authority on instincts and rules.

huh? Me neither. Do you have a point or are you just trying to pick a fight? /matt

....alright, as the moderator of this thread, I kindly ask both of you to end this potential ping pong match and let's get back to discussing writing short scripts.

Thanks

Steve

[Evan Kubota]

After ___ amount of discussing structure on message boards and with friends who make films, my process is still very much the same as it always was. Much more intuitive than 'thoughtful,' IMO. When I think about writing is when it becomes schematic and something I either lose interest in or the interest is lost for me.

[yolia]

After ___ amount of discussing structure on message boards and with friends who make films, my process is still very much the same as it always was. Much more intuitive than 'thoughtful,' IMO. When I think about writing is when it becomes schematic and something I either lose interest in or the interest is lost for me.

Yes. That's pretty much my creative process, and it has worked very well for me. The books I've read on filmmaking haven't really made that much of a difference in that process. The stuff that has helped is reading on technical matters such as how to acquire the best audio, mics, exposure, depth of field, etc.

[yolia]

I didn't know your were the authority on instincts and rules.

huh? Me neither. Do you have a point or are you just trying to pick a fight? /matt

....alright, as the moderator of this thread, I kindly ask both of you to end this potential ping pong match and let's get back to discussing writing short scripts.

Thanks

Steve

Of course.