WILLIWM MONAHAN QUOTE

[nason]

The studios catch a lot of crap from the peanut gallery but they’re the guys who pay for the movies and they are rightfully concerned about their investments. I don’t expect an MBA to be Northrop Frye, but I do want to hear his opinions and I’d ask for them were they not given. Do I want to hear is “arc” and “journey” and how does someone “change” through the course of the movie? No, I do not. People change in stories about people changing, not in every story. Not every story is A Christmas Carol. You get this crap about “story” because of these chuckleheads out there running script classes, who really prey on confusion about art and people’s genuine desire to learn. It’s shameful what they’ve done to discourse about motion pictures and to film itself. Writers literally get fired in this business because they aren’t providing enough “journey” in a story that doesn’t call for any. There are no general rules to any sort of writing. Each work has its own inherent rules. You discover them. You don’t import them.

[scottmyers]

nason, could you provide the source of this quote? I think it's worthy of promoting to the blog for a general discussion. Send me the info to my email please:

[e-mail]

Thanks.

[tcsp]

I did not understand this (1st post) at all. Try decaf.

[nason]

Settle down Beavis.

[tcsp]

Mr Nason. Pray you shed some light on your outburst, use your massive intellect to inform us. Or a you a simple buffoon that can only criticise others.

I am starting to realise that there is only one opinion that matters to you. If you ever come to England don't trouble the debating society. Infact, do, you might learn something.

[mscherer]

And I thought we were all adults here.....

Like Mother used to say: If you don't have anything nice to say about anyone, don't say anything.

This is all time better spent writing. Cheers!

[tcsp]

I agree, personally I enjoy scathing criticism. I feel it may prepare me emotionally should I ever get to Hollywood. That is my last word ever on anything not involving script discussion. Cheers.

[nason]

Perhaps you can use your massive intellect to decipher Mr. Monahan's words. It's pretty clear what he is saying. Windex chap.

You said you need decaf, that will settle you down Beavis, you've found your answer.
I've been to England, I was too busy troubling Bartenders to bother the lads at the debating society.

[Jeff Messerman]

Hi folks,

Your pest of a moderator here. I must ask that we keep things as close to sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows around here as possible, okay? Disagreements are fine but keep it respectful. There are a million movie and screenwriting boards out there where you can tear into each other like a couple of Larry Talbots on a full moon night. But not here.

Thanks and keep smiling! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jeff

[scottmyers]

Monahan raises a couple of substantive points in this interview excerpt that I think are worth discussing, so I'll be posting something on the blog by week's end.

Re the other stuff in this thread: What Jeff said.

[trellicktower]

I definitely agree with the general thought behind that paragraph.

The old standard rules work, obviously. But there are movies made every year that were written by people who play by their own rules.

My most recent main character doesn't "arc". But he moves the story along just fine. As he says some characters just weren't meant to change.

[nason]

Good point.

As far as Arc goes? Okay, maybe a character should learn something. The big one for me is the myth of the "Likable Protagonist".

Two of my favorite films, Clouzot's "Wages of Fear" features no "Likeable" protagonist, Cimino's "Year of The Dragon" has a despicable Protag, but we respect him as a cop...
take "Boogie Nights" , although a thinly veiled "redemption story, is Dirk Diggler really a hero?
in "the brilliant film "Buffalo '66" is anyone truly "likeable or admirable?"

No. But they are mezmerizingly human and flawed, I can count on my fingers the number of truly, truly, heroic people I know or admire in real life...

The other 99% are "Anti-Heroes". Some just hide it better.

[Hal Berlin]

Everybody writing here ought to take Monahan's words, print them out in a nice font, tape them to to the wall above their writing desk, and look at them whenever they're tempted to crack open their 'guru' of choice, whether Field or McKee or Snyder or Vogler.

There are no general rules. There are no general rules. Say it once. Say it twice. Say it three or four or five times. Just keep saying it.

I worked in development for two years, and I can't tell you how boring it gets: the 'ticking clock' -- resisting the call, taking up the call, following the call. It makes you want to watch Michael Snow's Wavelength on repeat just to cleanse yourself from all the "story"

Let me let you in on a little dirty secret. All readers want is excitement. We (or they: I'm thankfully not part of that we anymore) don't really care about good formatting (this is for a later note: what's important is clarity, confidence and cohesion. Balls, basically. If you want to write the whole script from the first person plural, go ahead and make my day, just do a good job at it) We don't really care about acts and turning points. We just want a script that excites us.

Scripts that shows us new worlds (even if they are our world, better if they are our world: great art makes the familiar strange -- read this, it's a PDF, but you should read it anyways www.fas.harvard.edu/~cultagen/academic/shklovsky1.pdf)

Scripts that introduce us to fascinating characters, that offer up wonderful dialog. Scripts with interesting structures.

Scripts that feel wholly suffused with personal feeling. Scripts that don't feel manufactured. Scripts that somehow manage to live.

You can fuck up on story structure, whatever that is. But if you make it exciting, you're fine. Because the real problem is boredom. Readers mostly read lots of horrible, horrible repetitive shit. The HORROR of another 100 pages.

Give the reader something exciting, and I guarantee you that he'll pass it on. Guarantee you. Err on the side of wild, not mild.

[nason]

Great post.
Reading enough screenplays will show you what working pro's do to the rules that Guru's tell you "YOU MUST FOLLOW".

One can really get hung up on the "Musts" or screenwriting and it's an easy trap to fall into. Many of these Guru's actually promote and thrive off, the "Lottery" mentality of screenwriting they claim to abhor.

There is no Badge of Honor in being able to Parrot the latest Guru System or being a "Format Nazi". You have to walk your talk on the page with your own voice and keep the pages turning.

Something like "Save the Cat" may have some good ideas, but I'd rather "Kick the Cat" on the page in my own way and use as many "Index Cards" as I want. Not just 40 Dammit!

[nason]

On the flipside there are many good people out there teaching more than a system or gathering "Clever" examples from existing films and scripts.
The good ones are the ones that talk more about writing than format. More about true craft than making a sale.

Maybe one book would be Tom Lazarus' book. He shows the process pretty clearly and talks a lot of basic common sense.