Conflict in Scenes

[zampana]

I've been taught that EVERY scene in a film needs to have as much conflict as it can possibly have.

But as I read through great scripts and try and learn from the masters, many times the early part of the script, in the setup, there is very little conflict. Lots of setup, very little direct conflict.

For example, the whole second sequence of the Shining is mostly used to open up the hotel for future use. It ends on a lovely beat of conflict between Doc and Halloran but previous scenes are pretty well devoid of any direct conflict.

So do we accept those scenes because we know what's coming -- thus the conflict is the dread that we feel as we anticipate what's going to happen to these folks in the next hour and a half?

Do we forgive these scenes because we know the movie so well? If it were a script out to readers today, those scenes would most likely be labelled expository and flagged for cutting?

Is one of the reasons so much of cinema is boring is because of big rules such as "all scenes must have conflict" and so we make these movies with tension and conflict that has no stakes and can't have any stakes because it hasn't been properly set up yet?

Is something like "dread" which is an conflicting emotion in the audience enough -- it's not that we need direct conflict in every scene, but what we really need is audience engagement and creating conflict is the simplest and easiest way to get that engagement?

I ask because I struggle writing scenes who's main purpose is to setup a story, but at the same time be interesting scenes in and of themselves...

[songswithoutwords]

zampana,

I'm with you. I've noticed a lot of confidence in good screenplays. The authors take their time to bring us into the story and to the conflict. They don't let the rules rush them.

Like you, I think the point is to make the setup engaging. Get people glued to the screen. It doesn't have to be done via open conflict. It can be a bit of mystery, or just seeing something unusual.

Take the movie "Once". What's the purpose of Glen Hansard signing in the street for 5 minutes straight? What's the purpose of the piano / guitar duet at the end of act 1? The purpose for us to just sit back, enjoy it, and witness the beginnings of this very special relationship.

We should also keep in mind that conflict can exist on many levels and doesn't need to manifest itself in a disagreement. Indecision is a kind of conflict, for example. So is making a choice, in many cases. I get in a state of conflict just looking at a menu.

Andrew

[outofcontext]

Confidence is a great word, Andrew, and I absolutely agree with your example of mystery. My favorite movies create their own worlds. I don't mean like 'Avatar', but the filmmakers take you to a different place--their vision of reality. Some directors do that with great velocity, others with slow mystery or others with warm humor.
And I love your point, zampana, about the stakes. Not enough time is spent in creating a real engagement with the characters. Just like Americans who spent on credit like there was no tomorrow, in the movies I've noticed this pornographic (I use the words non-sexually) tendency to just get to the good part--kill, argue, whatever, without investing in a future payoff.
I'm going to go into sacrilege here and talk about The Dark Knight--a movie which is lauded for its perfection of form and theme. I never cared about a single character in that movie. I watched it like I would watch a circus--acrobats, clowns and animals--spectacle. I just didn't care what happened to anyone. Lot's of people I respect love that movie, Scott included, but I have never had the urge to watch it again. On the other hand, I loved the Nolan's previous movie, the Prestige which also starred Christian Bale, because there was mystery and dimension to the characters which I never felt for a second in TDK.
Anyway, good thread, dear to my heart. Thanks for talking about it.

[czachcross]

Right now I'll read scripts and watch movies that have a similar tone and genre to the story I'm writing and use them as my references.

[attatt]

Outofcontext, you may find that upon watching Dark Knight a second or third time that you care more and make more sense out of everything.

I initially felt the same way, but loved a million other things enough to warrant multiple viewings. The movie is really big and the viewer is force fed a lot of info: story, plot, new characters, f/x, etc

One thing I have done is watch the movie just focusing on Harvey Dent. Who is he, how does everything impact him, what is his journey....He is the protagonist in this movie for me and watching it this way changes everything.

[attatt]

Back to the topic...I think there is a difference between a Spec script and a studio script when it comes to conflict. When a studio puts a movie together, they throw around actors and directors early in the process, and writers know what they can/cannot get away with.

You dont need a lot of conflict when you have a movie starring Jack and Shelly Duval directed by Kubrick. Viewers will come to the movie with conflict built in knowing something big is coming. Of course, Jack and Stan have to deliver which they did in spades.

With a spec script, especially now, you have to blow people out of the water early and often, plus that has to be translatable to the screen.