Interview: A Conversation with Blake Snyder, Part 2

If you missed part one of my interview with screenwriting expert Blake Snyder, click HERE, then come back. Blake is an analytical genius when it comes to dissecting films to ID what makes them work–or fail. His book, Save the Cat!, and its follow-up, Save the Cat! Goes to the Movies provide aspiring screenwriters with the tools they’ll need to write a stellar script and improve their chances of selling in Hollywood. Novelists can learn much from Blake and his Cat guides as well. Today, we chat about Blake’s unique genre tags and whether or not they can be applied to novels and the pitch, his work with romance novelists, and the unique “laws” that can help you write tight (think Pope in the Pool). Enjoy!

Interview with Blake Snyder: Part 2

TW: Let’s talk about your ten genre categories (Monster in the House, Golden Fleece, Out of the Bottle, Dude with a Problem, Rites of Passage, Buddy Love, Whydunit, Fool Triumphant, Institutionalized or Superhero). Why are your ten genre tags better than traditional ones, like sci-fi, romantic comedy and drama?

BS: Oh, that’s easy. If you say you’re writing a sci-fi movie, it doesn’t tell me anything. If you say you’re writing a western, I’ll go, “That’s nice, but what is it?” I can name westerns that fall into each of my ten genre categories. And that is more specific. I think that’s what I’m really driving at here. What I love is that since the book’s been out, I’ve been getting questions from writers like, “I have this pitch, and I can’t decide if it’s an Out of the Bottle or something else.” The truth of it is, that’s exactly the discussion you should be having. That’s exactly how you should get to the what the heart of your story is. If you tell me it’s a western, I can’t help you. All I know is that it’s set in the old west.

TW: So your categories get to the heart of what the primal experience is where the others are general.

BS: That’s true. Yeah. And again, truth be told, there’s only one story. The other great discovery I had when writing this book was that it’s all getting us to a place of divine intervention. Whether it’s Die Hard or sci fi or anything else. The core essence is that we’re touched by something greater than ourselves. My personal mission is talking about storytelling, telling the tools so that anybody can use them, because if you can get to the essence of what your story is about, you have a greater appreciation for what your mission in life is. It’s a divine calling, your mission in life. And all of these stories are about essentially, at some point in the story, a moment of clarity for a character where they realize they’ve been touched by something remarkable. It’s why you’re telling the story and it’s why we need to hear it. Because we all need that.

TW: Do any of the genres you’ve identified tug at people more than others, or are they all equally capable of doing that?

BS: I think they’re all equally capable of doing that, and one of the reasons that I carved them out that way was to say one was not better than the other. We love magic movies, called Out of the Bottle movies. Are they any better than rite-of-passage stories, which are the most human?

TW: But, as you point out in your book, rite of passage is also the least tied to tradition in storytelling.

BS: True. It is a modern concept to have the angst of growing up, the angst of divorce. Within those stories again you find the primal part, the part that touches us as human beings. In each of these we’re looking for the primal—what gets out attention?

TW: Do you think your genre tags can be applied to novels?

BS: I’ve been doing a lot of work lately with romance writers, which I love. These guys are so positive and enthusiastic and goal-oriented. What we keep talking about is Buddy Love—the category that shows “my life changed because I met another.” That’s at the core of all love stories. You know, “I was transformed by something divine. Love. I found the one person in the universe who understands me exactly as I want to be understood.” What’s great about the romance writer’s world is that there are so many different ways to tell that story. They’ve come up with a million new categories of genre and type, and yet they all boil down to “my life changed because I met another,” Buddy Love. I think if you look at any great successful book, it’ll fall into one of these categories. The Bourne Identity is Dude With A Problem. The Da Vinci Code is a Golden Fleece, a quest that turns out not to be what we thought it was. So absolutely, stories are stories whether they’re books or movies.

TW: Do you recommend that people use YOUR genre tags in a pitch as opposed to the more general, common tags, like romantic comedy, drama, etc… Do you think they’ll be understood?

BS: More and more, they are. I’m very pleased to report that I now hear back from lots of writers who say they’ve gone to meetings at studios and the executive will turn to them and say, “Well, you know, I think we need a better Save the Cat moment here.” Which, I just love! And that goes for the genres, too. I’m going to give a talk at Disney Animation in March, and they’ve asked me to come in and discuss my genre types and discuss the little idiosyncrasies every one has. So would I recommend you pitch something as a Golden Fleece? Not yet! But it’s getting there. It’s all about common sense. It’s all about putting yourself in the shoes of the person listening to your story. You don’t need to have technical lingo to, in a common sense way, tell what your story is about. If you hit the primal story, they’ll get it.

TW: So even if they can’t yet say that it’s a Golden Fleece, they can still find a movie from that primal genre tag and refer to that for sake of comparison.

BS: Exactly right. If someone had said that Michael Clayton was basically “Network with lawyers,” I would’ve gone, “Oh, okay.”

TW: You mentioned Save the Cat, and I know you weren’t referring to only the title of the book. You have a great list of the Immutable Laws of Screenplay Physics in your book, including such gems as Pope in the Pool! Can these be applied to novelists?

BS: Oh, I think so. Pope in the Pool is a way you can bury exposition. You know, how are you going to get information across that the audience needs to know in a way that isn’t boring? You know, the best way to do it is to distract them with other stuff happening. You know, you are being shot at by bad guys while saying the clues to the movie or the story. Much more interesting! On the run, grabbing a taxicab, being shot at. “You mean to say” “Yes!” Slam, drive, squeal of wheels. “He said that?” “Absolutely!” Bang, bang! Instead of sitting there in a coffee shop and spilling your guts.

TW: I’ve read that all kitchen scenes should be eliminated from storytelling and that no one should ever drink tea.

BS: Exactly! And one of the heaviest of those was The Da Vinci Code, which really points to the problem of adaptation—which we’ve talked about—and the problem of information. I think the book The Da Vinci Code worked far better than the movie. Because really it wasn’t a story, it was a documentary. It was a fleshed-out slim story surrounding a theory about history. The theory was fascinating, held together by a very tiny little story. The flaws became apparent when you saw the movie. You saw lots of talking head scenes and flashbacks. She’s standing at the side of Jesus? Oh, I see. As a read, it’s much better, because it’s very intellectual.

TW: In the exercise section of your book, you challenge your readers to identify or create a new genre and tell them that if they find something you might possibly include it in upcoming editions of your book. Have you received any well-rounded possibilities and been tempted to include them in your genre category list?

BS: Surprisingly, no. Very few have suggested things. I’m still looking. Usually they will pitch something that is an adjunct to an existing genre but falls into a definite type. That’s why I did the ten genres. I really tried to carve out big chunks of category for each one.

TW: Now at the end of your book you have this little tag-on called “What about Ghost.” That movie does seem to be an almost quilted selection of various genres, but still it works and falls into Why Done It more solidly than anything else. Is it a bad idea in general—though maybe Ghost is the exception to the rule—to blend genre this way? Will a story be less saleable if it doesn’t stick to the format of a single genre?

BS: I think at the end of the day, most stories are one thing. I think this is particularly true for movies but it could be a general thing, too. I think, as cavemen, we can only handle one moral to the story at a time. Ghost is a good example because it is indeed a blend of many things, and I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with blending story types together. One of the things I’m toying with is the idea of making a list of movies and showing how they’re combinations of two or three types. Bottom line, usually they’re still just one story with one main thrust. It’s good for the writer, too. What are you trying to say? It’s tough to write a good story. I had a conversation with a reporter the other day, and we were talking about Memento and Atonement. I don’t know if you’ve seen Atonement…

TW: Not yet, but it’s on my Netflix list.

BS: Well, I won’t ruin the story for you, but there’s a sleight of hand at the end where the writer kind of pulls the rug out from under you, saying that the story you’ve just seen isn’t really the story. And, to me, you don’t need that stuff. You have plenty to play with, it’s just basic storytelling that’s just rich, rich, rich. You don’t have to wow us with your avant-garde approach. There’s plenty to work with using the basic color scheme. Plenty. And changing the nature of the story doesn’t necessarily make it better.

TW: But don’t be afraid to dip your brush into interesting things if it’s not going to mess with the general structure.

BS: Right. I’d be crazy to say don’t try it. I’ve tried it all. Mixing genres and trying different things, all of it. It’s part of every writer’s skill set. You’ve got to experiment. But at the end of the day, if you can wring out a great story from one of these ten genres, it will be plenty satisfying.

TW: And probably more likely to be successful?

BS: I think so, yeah.

TW: Which genre do people write screenplays in the most, in your experience, and which do you wish they’d write in more?

BS: I think Monster in the House is probably the most popular, and there’s always need for a scary movie. But Rite of Passage is the one that impresses the most people and the ones that often lead to Academy Awards. I personally really gravitate to Institutionalized. Groups are very interesting, and it’s always wonderful to jump from character to character in a group setting. Superhero is one of my favorite genres, too. For instance, the mano y mano with the superhero and his counter-nemesis that I point out in chapter 10 of the book is fascinating. That was another aha! for me. The superhero is a divine character. He’s always the one who is offered something, like Russell Crowe in Gladiator is offered to be emperor, and he says, “No, I really want to go home and be with my family.” He’s a special person who knows the risks and challenges of being special and takes that seriously. Whereas the nemesis, his counterpoint— Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator (Commodus)—has a self-will that runs riot. “I’m going to make my world come around to me. I am special and I’m going to show you I am.” And tragedy inevitably results. And they all have these same characteristics. I was watching in Gladiator the problem of self-will and taking over the world. All the nemeses have “my little plan.” It results in Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator…midway through the movie he starts to get headaches, and I thought that was beautiful. Of course he gets headaches.

It wasn’t until after I finished writing Save the Cat that I watched the movie Casino Royale, the James Bond film. James Bond is a classic divine being. And there, his nemesis, this gambler guy who has a plan for taking over the world, thinks he’s special. And what’s his little defect? He works at it so hard while sitting there playing poker that his eye literally bleeds. And I thought, “Well, of course it does.” Absolutely. That’s what the nemesis character is! To me, these are such beautiful repeating patterns. Why do we need to show that? Well, we need to show that it’s better to be in sync with God than not.

TW: I don’t know about you, but I think Casino Royale is the best Bond film yet.

BS: Oh, thank you. Me, too.

TW: I loved it. Why do you think it worked so well?

BS: Oh, it’s because of those very reasons. You know, I like to say that the Superhero character succeeds because he has pure faith. James Bond jumps across buildings and finds a pier for his feet to land on. He doesn’t hesitate, because he knows he’s on a mission, and it’s a divine mission. And so he knows he cannot fail.

TW: I wonder too if it’s a little of the flight of the arrow idea we discussed. In this movie, we really see it, the arrow has been pulled all the way back, so we appreciate the journey.

BS: Yep. Yes, it’s the genesis story and it never was told. I totally agree. And he’s the best Bond ever. And if you look at the original character drawn in the book, this Bond matches up better than any other.

Click HERE for part 3 of my interview with Blake Snyder, where we’ll talk about some of the most important tips for delivering compelling story. Don’t miss it!