screenplay is structure – so said William Goldman, so i’m not gonna argue
what he didn’t say is, “there exists one correct screenplay structure that must be adhered to, and here it is” – because that would have been stupid
and yet, that’s what a lot of teh gurus seem to profess – or, when they don’t profess this dogma themselves, then it’s their students or acolytes who misconstrue the lessons and restate them as IMMUTABLE LAWS
where did these “laws” come from? – i’m guessing it all started innocently enough – in the spirit of Genuine Academic Enquiry, people began analysing movies and screenplays, and then comparing them against each other to see what (if any) similarities or common patterns they could find
unsurprisingly, they did find similarities and common patterns ... lots of them – but they were common patterns – not universal patterns, not mandatory patterns, not essential patterns ... just a whole bunch of patterns, some of which were more prevalent than others
they then proceeded (in a statistical sense) to “stack” all these patterns (from the ubiquitous to the rare) on top of each other – when done, this process revealed a kind of meta-structure embedded in the noise – which is both cool and unsurprising
unsurprising because screenplays are human artefacts – artefacts shaped by millions of iterations of trial-and-error in a Darwinian struggle that sees those screenplays that best fit the needs of the audience survive and prosper – begetting in their turn (via inspiration and imitation) other screenplays of a similar form
the problem arose when some people (seeking certainty, or a shortcut, or a hook for their how-to book) took this fuzzy meta-structure and stripped it of all its life-giving messiness ... until all that was left was a skeleton
but it wasn’t just any skeleton, but THE SKELETON
okay, you’ve seen the image, let’s get stuck into the analogy
let’s say that screenplays are just one particular kind of language-based expression – one category amongst all the others including: jokes, poems, ballads, short stories, novels, stage plays, etcetera and so on
just as mammals are just one particular kind of skeleton-based animal (vertebrates) – one category amongst all the others including birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, monotremes, etcetera and so on
okay? right, so which mammal is THE MAMMAL?
scientists say it was originally a small, shrew-like creature, but now? – let’s ignore, for the moment, those perceptual outliers like whales and bats, but what about llamas, tigers or bears? – how about “oodles”, they’re popular – is a labradoodle THE MAMMAL? or something smaller, like a cavoodle?
but of course there is no THE MAMMAL – they are all equally mammals (including whales and bats) – and they are mammals because they are all based on the same structure ... just as successful screenplays [1] are all based on the same structure
the problem, as i see it, is that some people are artificially constraining how that structure can be shaped – it’s like they’re trying to tell us that pygmy bats and blue whales can’t be successful mammals because they’re not the same shape as (say) a labradoodle – which is as ridiculous as saying that a screenplay is not “correct” because the Inciting Incident happens on page 3 (to pluck a number out of the air) [2]
but the problem is deeper (worser?) than that – the idea that there exists THE SKELETON on which all screenplays should (must!) be structured is based, i think, on the misconception that stories can be “assembled” piece by piece, with a fixed place for each and every element
this mistaken belief probably arose when some people confused the end product with the process – the process that begins with a zygote and ends with a labradoodle chewing on your favourite Uggs
in my limited experience, screenplays, like labradoodles, aren’t assembled, they’re grown
yes, i’ve read the books and not a few blogs, plus i’ve watched videos, listened to podcasts and even did some courses IRL – and, for a time (it must be admitted), i was willing to “believe” ... particularly if it was going to help me to get to where i wanted to be [3]
so i tried constructing screenplays – not once, but multiple times – and i found it doesn’t work for me – i mean, how can you attempt to recreate the experience of watching a movie when you’re distracted by bullshit like what page you are up to?
writing a screenplay is difficult enough, without having to contort your story to fit some ideal of THE SKELETON – imagine trying to design a blue whale while having someone insist that its nostrils must be in front and below eye level, because that’s how “all” mammals are structured
[at this point i could go on to speculate on the motives of some people and their cult of THE SKELETON ... but let’s assume they only have the best intentions – after all, you don’t have to be a baddie to be wrong]
now to clarify – by growing, i don’t mean just sitting down and bashing out a script – i’ve made that mistake a few times, too
no, growing a screenplay is about creating it organically – using whatever works best for you: index cards, spreadsheets, dog-eared notebooks, folders on your computer packed with .txt files ... whatever – it’s an iterative process – building, shaping, cutting back, adding on, rearranging – and then, moving from notes, to beat sheets, to outlines (or whatever) until you have a screenplay – and then continuing to work on it … until it’s as done as it can be
and never once worrying about what page your Second Act Climax falls on ... or, even if there is a Second Act Climax
of course this assumes an awful amount of effort – but i’d argue it’s no more work than constructing your screenplay – and it’s definitely more enjoyable because you’re immersed in all the fun stuff: characters, motivations, reveals, setbacks, reversals, drama, conflict … and not counting pages
the real issue with ignoring THE SKELETON is it means that you must know what works and what is right for your screenplay
YOU have to have the self-belief (self-delusion?) to structure your screenplay the way you believe (think? feel? intuit?) is best for your story, despite what some people may think – and that’s the hard bit – the scary bit – it’s why so many of us (me included) are/were willing to set aside some or all of our “artistic integrity” for the illusion of certainty THE SKELETON provides – clutching to it in the stormy creation process like it’s a lifesaver (the flotation device, not the person) ... only to find that, not only doesn’t it float very well, but it keeps bashing into you and dragging you away from shore
but as terrifying as this need for self-reliance is, it’s also fundamental to the process of creation – all artists must overcome the terror of being wholly and solely the final arbiter of their own work – and so must screenwriters, whether they consider themselves artists or not – you are responsible for the shape of your screenplay
... well, up until the point you allow someone to pay you to change it
so are all those courses and books and videos and podcasts a complete waste of time?
speaking as an (as yet!) unproduced, wannabe screenwriter, i think the short answer is: no, most of them are not a complete waste of time
my advice would be to “educate” yourself as much as you can – just ignore, or at least, don’t pay too much attention to the page-count stuff – with that stuff out of the way, there’s still plenty of value to be had – in addition to the basic script-formatting “rules” and learning the various jargons (people uses different terms and definitions for the same things), there is tonnes of useful advice on things like developing characters and conflicts, making descriptions more active, sculpting dialogue, hiding exposition, developing themes and image systems and so on and so forth
and what you will find as you read, watch and listen, is that’ll you begin to develop your very own, personal bullshit detector – some guru (or well-meaning nuff-nuff like myself) will state something and you’ll pause, think, and then decide: maybe, but that’s not right for me
and then get back to writing your screenplay your way … whatever its shape
a final note – after reading the above, don’t assume my screenplays tend towards some weird avant-garde constructions – i may ignore THE SKELETON, but my aim is not to design some unique structure for the sake looking cool – i’m just trying to tell a story – which means that, despite my scepticism, the final structure of my screenplays usually do look quite labradoodle-ish ... with, perhaps, just a hint of vampire bat
[1] does not mean financially successful, although they often are – just as screenplays that adhere to THE SKELETON are not automatically financial successes
[2] for a forensic dissection on the arbitrariness of page counts (and their lack of relevance to your screenplay’s structure) read John August’s thoughts here and Stephen Follows’ research here
[3] not all the books, blogs, videos, podcasts etcetera i consumed were peddling their take on THE SKELETON – many ignored it or just referred to a vague version of A SKELETON to help the reader, viewer or listener orientate themselves, while they discussed the more important aspects of writing a screenplay – there were even a few who openly attacked the notion of THE SKELETON … but when offered a choice between the “certainty” of THE SKELETON (no matter how dubious) and the alternative of figuring it out yourself, it’s hard not to be tempted (at least for awhile)