Syd Field, Screenwriting, and Three-Act Structure

Only the immature artist scoffs at the demands of form. “Free verse,” quipped Robert Frost, is like “playing tennis without a net.” There is a reason why the films of Terence Malick, as brilliantly associative as they are, tax our patience.

Syd Field died on the 17th of this month. He was, along with Robert McKee, one of Hollywood’s most influential “gurus” on the art of screenwriting. Untold numbers of writers have learned from him, among them Tina Fey: “I did a million drafts. And then I did the thing everybody does–I read Syd Field and I used my index cards.”

Syd Field wrote many books on screenwriting, but he is best known for Screenplay, first published in 1979 and revised several times since. In Screenplay Field clarifies the basic three-act structure of the modern film–and indeed, of all narrative art. Field did not invent this structure; we find Aristotle beginning to rough it out in his Poetics. But just as Watson and Crick did not invent DNA, but made known its structure, so Field, while not inventing story structure, made it eminently manifest to a contemporary audience.

Act I. An inciting incident upsets the hero’s plans and he is thrown into an adventure. Act II. The attempt to bring the adventure to a halt only results in further complication. Act III. The hero faces the ultimate obstacle to the resolution of his difficulty–an obstacle he either succeeds at overcoming, or fails.

Setup. Confrontation. Resolution.

That’s what a story is.

Field was particularly insistent upon writers knowing the ending of their story: “What is the ending of your story? How is it resolved? Does your main character live or die? Get married or divorced? Get away with the holdup, or get caught? Stay on his feet after 15 rounds with Apollo Creed, or not? What is the ending of your screenplay?” Field believed that the ending is the first thing a writer should know before writing his or her story.

Sound formulaic? Is Field only giving us a recipe for the conventional film with the “Hollywood ending”?

Consider, then, a more highbrow authority, Gilbert Murray (1886-1957), Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford, among other posts. “Most contemporary plays,” writes Murray in The Classical Tradition in Poetry, “admirable in detail and stagecraft as they often are, have weak last acts. Similarly, in the novel…you find a number of writers who can give exquisite studies of character, delicious conversations and individual scenes, but very few who can construct a story with a definite unity of effect and proper climax, or, to use the Greek term, “catastrophe.” One might almost say that they leave that high quality to the writers of detective stories.”

Listen to Professor Murray. The “definite unity of effect and proper climax” is today found most prominently in works of detective and other genre fiction, as well as, we might add, at the movies. Artistes may scoff at three-act structure as the slop of the “masses,” but Murray, notice, refers to it as “that high quality.” It is not a mistake, or in itself a sign of steep cultural decline, that scores of people will flock to their local multiplex this Thanksgiving weekend, rather than hunker down by the fire with Ulysses.

The central reason why three-act structure resonates so profoundly with the human spirit, such that we never tire of its rhythms, is that it allows us, in a most compressed and evident way, to contemplate our lives in miniature. Three-act structure is the structure of life. It is the imitation of ourselves being thrown into an adventure not of our choosing, and of working out a resolution to it in which we ultimately either succeed or fail. Field rightly lays emphasis upon the ending of a screenplay because the whole point of our lives is the ending. Will I realize who I was made to be, or not?

In his work Field gave storytellers not a recipe, but a set of principles applicable in an infinite variety of creative ways, ways as various as the adventures of individual human lives.

Thank you, Syd Field, for your life and work. May you rest in peace.

 

This article first appeared on Aleteia.

 

True Confessions of a Self-Publishing Author

And here’s Part 2 of my talk to the Annapolis Chapter of the Maryland Writer’s Association, in which I get into more of the practical details of self-publishing and marketing one’s books.

Ideas and Stories

 ”Storytelling is the creative demonstration of truth. A story is the living proof of an idea, the conversion of an idea to action.”  –Robert McKee, Story

In this edition of The Comic Muse Podcast we talk about the “soul” of story or what Robert McKee calls the Controlling Idea.

In this podcast you will learn about

  • the supreme importance of a strong, clear idea to the success of your story
  • the basic equation of a good story idea: VALUE + CAUSE
  • the necessity of integrating your idea into the “body” of your story

Books discussed in this podcast:

  1. Robert McKee, Story
  2. David Lodge, The Art of Fiction
  3. Flannery O’Connor, Mystery and Manners
  4. Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange
  5. F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

 

Ideas and Stories

“Don’t Call an Ambulance. It’s Only an Artistic Coma!”

I love reading biographies of authors. I love reading most about the period of their early struggle (and, frankly, I often lose interest after the author achieves success). Just last night I dipped back into the early chapters of Robert McCrum’s magnificent Wodehouse: A Life.

“The quality of [Wodehouse’s] life as a freelancer was solitary and unremitting. He hardly ever went out. He was working too hard. After the Globe in the morning, he would walk back to his lodgings and start work right away. Occasionally, he would break off to play cricket, but he was too keen on his work to leave his desk for long.” McCrum, p. 57

Wodehouse, author of over one hundred books, was clearly a writer who knew how to induce what Dorothea Brande calls the “artistic coma.”

Artistic coma? Sounds dangerous. What is it?

The artistic coma is more commonly referred to today as the “zone,” or “flow,” or being “in the groove.” It’s that state of being lost in the imagination but in such a way that one doesn’t just stare at the wall, but rather, almost without effort, writes.

Inducing the artistic coma, as Brande teaches in Becoming a Writer, is really a simple process. Almost silly it’s so simple. First we have to learn to quiet the mind. Which is why constant checking of email and social networks during a writing stint is a terrible habit. Believe me, I know. To quiet the mind means to still the “chattering monkey” of our thoughts, and for that the even louder chattering monkey of the Internet needs to be, for a time, locked in its cage.

But the artistic coma is not just a matter of quieting the mind. Once a habit of quiet has been cultivated, then a story idea or character can be brought in. In the womb of relaxed silence the idea gestates.

And then?

“Presently you will see the almost incredible results. Ideas which you held rather academically and unconvincingly will take on color and form; a character that was a puppet will move and breathe. Consciously or unconsciously every successful writer who ever lived calls on this faculty to put the breath of life into his creations.” Brande, p. 166

All that pencil sharpening that writers do? All those games of Internet solitaire? All that leisurely strolling and paper clip sculpting? It’s all done, wittingly or no, to put the mind in a state of languidly alert stasis, a “coma” not unlike the moment before falling asleep, or upon waking up from a Sunday nap. Brande even encourages a stroll and a hot shower before inducing the coma in preparation for writing.

I suppose for Wodehouse, the walk home from the Globe offices was inducement enough.

 

What’s your strategy for inducing the artistic coma? What more than anything puts you in the “zone” for work?

Failure to Launch

So you check the email one more time, or consult your planner or glance at the newspaper. Anything but confront the page in the notebook or the document on the laptop where you will actually have to go to work.

Why don’t you plunge in?

Why do you hesitate?

You say you want to write something–something wonderful you have in mind–and yet you put the launch on hold. Why?

Fear, typically.

Fear creates a chasm between wish and reality, between the daydreamy wannabe and the lunch-pail writer busy putting sentences together like a bricklayer making a wall.

Fear of failing to execute as you dream of executing.

Fear of not measuring up to someone else’s expectations.

Fear of being alone with all your half-formed and unconvincing thoughts.

Fear of not making it (whatever “it” is).

Fear of difficult work.

Fear of being thought a fool.

Fear of silence.

Fear of the feeling of fear itself.

There’s only one thing to do with the monster under the bed. And no, it’s not looking underneath to prove that it’s not really there.

The only thing to do about the monster is to ignore it.

In other words, to plunge right in. To walk straight across the chasm, through the open space, looking straight ahead and not down.

In brief: to write.

One sentence at a time.

Just one sentence.

Write it.

Now.

And feel the courage and inspiration surge through you…

 

So what’s your fear?

The Problem of the Next Line

Back to the question of planning versus plunging. Here is a YouTube clip from an interview with playwright and screenwriter Tom Stoppard in which he discusses his play, Arcadia. Watch the clip from the beginning to 2:04, where Stoppard discusses the genesis of the play. Then pay attention again from 2:58 and following, where he discusses his method of composition. Stoppard is definitely a plunger, not a planner. When writing, he keeps his attention focused on the “problem of the next line.”

The following point Stoppard makes I found especially interesting:

“…if you actually start by slicing and dicing what you think you’re going to write, making it very logical, and you know where you’re going and you know where the corners are and you’ve got this roadmap, I think the result would be actually quite brittle, because unconsciously you’re forcing people to say and do things so that they stick with your map.”

Today I picked up again a book I’ve had on my shelf for years, and which may well be the best book on writing there is, Dorothea Brande’s Becoming a Writer. It’s not a book about the techniques of storytelling, but rather about the habits required to become a successful writer. Brande is fascinating on the role of the unconscious (not subconscious) in writing and on strategies of giving it free play–the kind of free play Stoppard describes in this interview.

Brande writes:

“The unconscious should not be thought of as a limbo where vague, cloudy, and amorphous notions swim hazily about. There is every reason to believe, on the contrary, that it is the great home of form; that it is quicker to see types, patterns, purposes, than our intellect can ever be. Always, it is true, you must keep a watch lest a too heady exuberance sweep you away from a straight course; always you must direct and control the excess of material which the unconscious will offer. But if you are to write well you must come to terms with the enormous and powerful part of your nature which lies behind the threshold of immediate knowledge.”

When we come to terms with the unconscious, as Brande relates, we will then be able to “follow our nerve endings,” as Stoppard so descriptively puts it, and thereby solve the problem of the next line.

So that we can go on to the next.

 

So what do you think? How does all this comport with your method of composition? Do what Stoppard and Brande say resonate with your experience? Or does anyone want to give two cheers for plotting?

250 Words Every Fifteen Minutes

It’s interesting. When I put the thoughts from my last post in front of the folks in the Writer’s Café at Kindle Boards, I received, from more than one writer, a very strong reaction I had not expected.

One said that people who focus on their artistic temperament are really only playing at being writers. They don’t realize that unless they actually write something they’ll never be a writer.

Another apparently pretty successful writer–having mentioned in her reply an agent and film producer–simply said that she didn’t have the luxury of having an artistic temperament. She was too busy working.

Other replies to the post gave no quarter to the thought that being an artist is an excuse for boorish behavior. One said that “artistic temperament” sounds like someone missing a vital part of their upbringing, someone who had never learned self-control.

To these writers, the phrase “artistic temperament” immediately suggested a prima donna, a self-absorbed aesthete more interested in the thought of being a genius-creative than actually sticking the bum in the chair and putting words on paper.

I suppose that’s one pitfall of the artistic temperament. We can let it grow wild such that the need for approval, to be thought special, drains the life out of both the work and our relationships with other people.

But I was glad to hear these reactions. They showed that one of the key ways of bringing the artistic temperament to maturity is to focus on the work and not on one’s self. The writers on Kindle Boards pride themselves on being hard-knuckle devotees of their craft, not white wine and brie literateurs.

Perhaps you’ve hard about the work habits of the great 19th-century English novelist, Anthony Trollope. Trollope’s day job, through much of his writing career, was as a postal inspector. So when did he find time to write? Every morning from 5:30 to 8:30. Pushing himself in those three hours to write 250 words every fifteen minutes. And if he finished a novel before 8:30? No big breakfast celebration with kippers. No, he took a fresh sheet of paper and started another one.

How did it go for him?

49 novels in 35 years.

Muriel Spark and the Uses of Omniscience

In talking about free indirect speech in the last couple of days, I didn’t situate it within its wider historical context. Free indirect speech is a technique that was exploited, if not invented, by modernist writers such as Joyce. David Lodge observes that free indirect speech (or style) was also a feature of some of the best-known British social realist novels of the 1950s, such as Kingsley Amis’s Lucky Jim. Lodge notes that these novels “were narrated in the first person or in free indirect style, articulating the consciousness of a single character, usually a young man, whose rather ordinary but well observed life revealed new tensions and fault-lines in postwar British society.”

Lodge makes these observations in the context of a revisiting of Muriel Spark’s very different novel from the 1950s, Memento Mori (1959). In this black comic send-up of the effects of looming death on a collection of senior citizens, Spark eschews the exploration of a single consciousness through a heavy use of free indirect speech. Rather, Spark embraces an intrusive omniscient narrator of the kind that Lodge associates with 19th-century novels. And her narrative strategy is to move rapidly in and out of the minds of her large cast of characters, a rapidity that is intensified by the brevity of the novel itself. In proceeding in this fashion, according to Lodge, Spark “violated the aesthetic rules not only of the neorealist novel, but also of the modernist novel from Henry James to Virginia Woolf.”

The plot elements of Memento Mori are also throwbacks. Lodge indicates how Spark weds her “new, speeded-up, throwaway style to a complex plot of a kind excluded from modern literary fiction–in this case involving blackmail and intrigues over wills, multiple deaths and discoveries of secret scandals, almost a parodic update of a Victorian sensation novel.”

So I’m wondering if the media here are not part of a message. That is, I’m wondering if the modernist exploitation of free indirect speech isn’t a manifestation of the greater cultural weight given to interiority at the dawn of the twentieth century. And whether in eschewing its effects in Memento Mori, in favor of an omniscient narrator and Victorian plot elements, Spark isn’t calling us back to an older cultural understanding where the individual consciousness was always under the watchful eye of a Consciousness not his own–a Consciousness always reminding the individual of Death, “the first of the Four Last Things to be ever remembered.”