An Argument Against Screenplay Formulas (Part 2): Formulas lead to formulaic writing

“If you go in with formula, you come out with formula. The whole thrill of being a writer is to do a prototype every time out.”

David Seltzer is a longtime screenwriter who has amassed over 30 writing credits in a career stretching back to 1966 including the movies The Omen, Lucas, Punchline and Dragonfly. Here is a quote from Seltzer which I posted as part of the ongoing weekly Screenwriting 101 series:

I think people try a few screenplays and they just fall apart in the middle, or people say, ‘It was great until this happened or that happened,’ then maybe they can read one of those [screenwriting] books, but there are not three acts in a screenplay. There may be seven, there may be two… I think it’s a huge mistake. If you go in with formula, you come out with formula. The whole thrill of being a writer is to do a prototype every time out. And you can do it, something that nobody ever wrote before.

If you go in with formula, you come out with formula.

I’m not prepared to etch that in stone as there may be instances in which writers use some type of screenplay formula and end up with a good script, even one that sells. However on the whole, I think Seltzer is right. Formulas do tend to lead to formulaic writing.

If you think about it, that’s a pretty logical conclusion. Whatever formula you use, however many sequences, stages, steps, beats or whatever narrative elements are called per whichever particular screenwriting guru you’re buying into, your focus will almost invariably and by necessity turn toward fitting scenes and plot points into the formula.

This is problematic for at least three reasons.

• I have read scripts where every beat aligned perfectly with the particular screenplay formula the writer had obviously used for inspiration, even down to the page count for key moments. And yet, what is on the page comes across more as an aggregation of events, rather than an actual story with an organic narrative flow.
• Many scripts I read that follow a screenplay formula telegraph where the plot is going. Let me guess: This is going to happen here because… well, that’s what the formula has instructed the writer to write. When you read a script where you know in advance how and where virtually every beat will happen, that does not make for a compelling experience.
• But perhaps the greatest ‘sin’ is the onerous danger of what I call outside-in writing, where the primary vantage point for the writer is outside the story universe, making narrative choices based primarily on the writer’s mindset. If the writer is working with a story formula, their attention is likely to be on fulfilling the requirements of the formula, not the actual story universe. In fact, the formula can actually stand in the way of the writer going into the story.

A writer is much more likely to have characters emerge as full-blown, complex, feeling individuals by engaging in inside-out writing, where the writer immerses him/herself inside the story universe, living with the characters, talking with them, listening to them, pondering them, observing them. When we care about the characters, that emotional resonance can come through the words we write and into the hearts and imaginations of our readers. Moreover as I suggested yesterday, by engaging the characters deeply and fully, the plot will naturally emerge into view.

The thing is, people who work on the development side of the Hollywood movie industry, high up on their list of what attributes they ascribe to a ‘good read’ is this: The story makes them feel something. When your job is to read dozens of scripts every week or month, which can suck the life-force out of you, especially when a majority of the scripts are average to poor, anytime one of them generates an emotional connection, that is a major plus, a story that can give a jolt to even the most overworked, cynical exec, reader, producer, etc.

How do you think you can best create a story with an authentic, compelling emotional resonance to it: Starting with a screenplay formula? Or by digging into and getting to know the story’s characters?

There’s a reason the old saying is “Character equals plot,” not “Formula equals plot.”

There is a difference between formula and structure. When William Goldman famously says, “Screenplays are structure,” at a fundamental level, that is true. The ultimate end point for a screenplay is the production of a movie and because of certain limitations and conventions common to movies, the structure of a script is intimately tied to the actual nuts and bolts process of making a film.

So let me be clear: I am not saying structure is bad. On the contrary, story structure is critical to the success of a screenplay.

The problem is equating formula with structure.

First off, as discussed, there is no one single formula to craft a screenplay’s structure. Stories are organic. Formulas are not. So the very premise that this screenwriting guru or that can make some claim as to the universality of their formula is false on the face of it. There are endless possibilities for stories and story structure.

Second, from what I’ve seen in the countless scripts I’ve read from writers who have been influenced by screenplay formulas, clearly their focus in the writing has been with Plot, as if Plot is the sum of story structure. It is not. A screenplay’s universe has two dimensions: The External World, what I call the Plotline, the domain of Action and Dialogue, and the Internal World, what I call the Themeline, the domain of Intention and Subtext. The former is where we see and hear the story’s Physical Journey. The latter is where we interpret and intuit the story’s Psychological Journey. Without the Internal World, a story is essentially without any meaning or emotional resonance. Therefore if the preponderance of focus in a screenplay formula is on the makeup of the External World, that is only serving one part of the story’s structure. Story structure properly understood involves both domains: External World (Plotline) and Internal World (Themeline).

Third, and perhaps most importantly, whatever story structure you end up with, one of the major points of emphasis in my teaching is how you get there. This goes back to outside-in writing, as noted above, versus inside-out writing. I believe you are much more likely to find an authentic story structure, not a formulaic one, through the inside-out approach, starting with characters, immersing yourself in their lives, engaging in an active, dynamic process in which both the Plotline and Themeline emerge.

So when I call into question screenplay formula, please understand, this is not the same thing as story structure. In a sense, screenplays are structure, but that structure involves both Plotline and Themeline… and it’s critical how you go about crafting that structure.

Outside-In / Formula = No!
Inside-Out / Characters = Yes!

If you start with formula, you are likely to write a formulaic story. That should be reason enough to avoid them. However the problem with the spread of screenplay formulas goes beyond their effect on individual screenwriters and their creative output. The creeping influence of screenplay formulas has a negative cumulative effect on the perception of the screenwriting craft. That is the subject of Part 3 which posts tomorrow.

For Part 1 of the series “An Argument Against Screenplay Formulas: They are selling you a lie” — go here.

I welcome your comments and thoughts.

Comment Archive