Unified Field Theory of Screenwriting

Since the early 1940s physicists have been searching for a "unified field" theory that -- without going into detail that I barely comprehend and therefore cannot articulate in any meaningful way -- took what they knew about partical physics and gravity and electromagnetic fields (and later "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces) and combine all that into a cohesive image of what the universe is made of and how/why it works the way it does.

Einstein spent 30 or so years of his life looking for it.

Since 1999, physicists believe they may have found it in "string theory" or the "theory of everything" -- a theory that seems to provide a bridge between quantum physics and classical physics.

Ever since I read Syd Field's THE SCREENWRITER'S WORKBOOK, after having read HOW TO WRITE A MOVIE IN 21 DAYS: THE INNER MOVIE METHOD and SCREENWRITING FROM THE SOUL, I have been searching for my own UFT of sorts.

Actually, what I'm looking for is my "process". When I want to write a story, where do I begin?

Back in the heyday of pulp fiction, it's writers had their own "plotters". This was some list or system or book of story elements that they were able to draw from so they could crank out their thousand-word stories in the 2 or 7 days their deadlines allowed. Not in an this happens and then this happens and then this happens fashion, but more in a mix-and-match manner. Broke private dick + Mysterious package from dead associate + Femme fatalle client... what happens when all these elements are thrown together and stirred up?

But I'm not looking for a plotter. Or a formula. I mean, I've got this big huge toolbox packed to capacity with useful writing tools; but which tool do I pull out first? Then which one? Then which after that?

I'm not looking to "paint by numbers", natch, 'cause that always comes out garbage. But I would like to know where to turn first when a story idea strikes me!!! What's the first step?

I've tried the newbie sit-down-and-just-write-it-and-hope-it-turns-out-brilliant method.

Didn't work for me.

I HAVE NOT tried the sit-down-and-just-write-it-and-then-rewrite-it-10-more-times-until-it-gets-good method. I hear that's worked gangbusters for M. Night Shymalan and Joss Whedon and many other geniuses, but I don't have the patience for it.

I'm a techy. I know that if I flip these swicthes and push those buttons, the machine will do what I want it to do. And I know that because an indicator light appears as I flip each swicth and press each button. If the indicator light doesn't illuminate, I know something's wrong and I need to fix the machine.

I'm an editor. I cut one shot together with another shot and watch them play out. Then I add another shot and watch how this plays out. If it doesn't have the impact I want, I go back and add or subtrack frames to get the pacing right, or I scrap what I've done and rework the scene from a new angle.

I like progress reports. I want to know what grades I make as I turn my work in, I DO NOT want to wait until the end of the semester to know if I passed or failed. Yeah, I could re-take the course (like many better writers than I suggest I do, effectively, by rewriting my screenplay 10 times until it's good), but that's just a lot of time and money that I don't feel like I can afford.

So every time I discovered a new method -- from, say, 1996 through 2002 -- I would get all excited and leap into this new process...

...and seldom actually FINISH the damn thing because halfway through I discovered that there was just SO MUCH not working I would be best going back to the drawing board.

And then, of course, I never would. I'd move on to some sexy new idea.

...and not know where to start with it...

The point is this: A large part of this blog is my search for my own sort of Unified Field Theory for Screenwriting.

And I think maybe -- possibly -- I'm getting the shape of this UFToS.

Maybe. Possibly.

The first thing that seems to strike me is that in screenwriting, STRCUTURE IS EVERYTHING. If the story isn't structured masterfully, it trips itself up somewhere in the middle, or toward the end, and looses the audience.

However, structure is easy. It's technical. A chimp can master structure. AND the specific type or method of screenplay structure -- Krevolin, Truby, Field, Hauge, Viki King, etc. -- doesn't seem to be important. So long as we know the structure and understand the structure and don't deviate from that structure -- unless we make an informed decision to do so.

The next thing that seems to be important in this UFTS is that once we know structure, we discover that STRUCTURE IS ONLY HALF OF IT. ("What? You just said...")

ALL the aspiring screenwriters I've know, talked to, worked with and/or read have had this aversion to structure. They just wanted to write what they wrote and not worry about learning stuff! They already, they felt, knew everything they wanted to know to be ridiculously rich and famous film writers. (We were all in our 20s... That's just kind of the way you are in your 20s. I think it's a hangover from being in our Teens.)

And the result of their disdain for structure was that 120 pages of interesting characters doing interesting things didn't pay-off like a feature. It read like a 120-page short. (That is to say a VERY LONG short.)

So it seems like the first lesson we have to learn -- and it seems to take a very long time for us to finally learn it -- is that screenwriting is STRUCTURE.

Okay, so then we learn what a Plot Point is and what a Mid-point is, we learn aboue Inciting Incidents and Central Questions and The Point of No Return.

We might even write a treatment or an outline!

Then, with all of this structure swirling around in our head, we bang out our next screenplay.

And it feels formulic and flat.

"WHAT?!!! WHY?! I DID EVERYTHING I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO!!! My structure is FLAWLESS!!! How could THIS screenplay suck?!!!"

Okay, that's about where I am now. I'ver written 2 features with really good structure in the past 3 or 4 years, and wouldn't show ANY of them to ANYONE!

So structure, in itself, is not my UFTS.

But what's missing?

According to Karl Iglesias -- I'm on page 147 of his book WRITING FOR EMOTIONAL IMPACT -- what's missing is EMOTION.

And this makes sense to me!

See, I'm of a spiritual/mystic mindset, and experience has shown me that we are given what we need when we're ready to receive it. And in the past couple of years I've noticed that the core of a lot of the storytelling I really get off on is Emotional Warfare. Writers like Joss Whedon, Aaron Sorkin and Rod Serling, who just really wreak havoc with my emotions, just DO IT for me!

Joss, for instance, knows that if he puts Willow (from BUFFY) or Kaylee (from FIREFLY) in danger, I'll go nuts! I'll squirm, I'll yell at the TV screen. On the show SMALLVILLE, all they have to do is make Lana Lang cry and I'm decimated!

It's a bit more complex than that, of course, but the point is that I SEEM TO LOVE TO BE TORTURED. And judging from theintense devotion that other Whedon fans and I seem to share, I'm not an oddity.

Thing about "Reality" TV. I hate it, I DO NOT watch it (and I'm literal when I say that, unlike most people who have uttered those same words to me), and I agree with Sorkin who sites Reality TV as the downfall of quality television. But the audience identifies with or is repulsed by those dumbasses who let themselves get filmed at their most stupid moments, and voyeuristically squirms as their on-screen counterparts' craftily-edited fates unfold.

So why does my stuff suck? Why doesn't my audience squirm and yell at the pages?

I'm not leading up to an answer here, I'm honestly voicing the question.

I have recently come to believe it's because I've been focusing too much on the structure -- the Big Picture of the story -- and not enough on the INDIVIDUAL SCENES.

See, I'm starting to think that we're meant to spend a great deal of time and effort learning structure so that it becomes subconscious. Then when we write, we write SCENES. And those scenes -- with careful pre-planning before we sit down to write, as well as occasional attention to the Big Picture all throughout the writing process -- fall together into a satisfying structure that, with a little tweaking afterward (NOT 10 more drafts), flows smothly for 120 pages.

...and blissfully TORTURES the reader!

Before you start thinking I'm some sort of emotional sadist, go see SERENITY to experience exactly what I'm talking about. There's tons Happy and laughs and fun in there, and I'd call the ending an uplifting and inspiring one! (I've seen the movie twice opening weekend and read the screenplay once so far.) But Joss does not have a problem with torturing us with a degree of gleeful cruelty that we just CAN NOT anticipate! (In the 9th episode of the series ANGEL he killed off a character that was (a) in the opening credits and (b) just about the most loveable and funny character ever to grace TV! This guys loves us enough to rough us up real good!)

This still doesn't give me the answer to which tool do I pull out of my toolbox first, and then which one. But this new picture of the process is helpful! And the new perspective it provides me on the process seems to lead to a few long sought-after answers.

And maybe as I search, you will also benifit from my discoveries.