Lessons from the screenwriters

By J.C. Hutchins  |  March 25, 2010  | 

I’ve been thinking about movies and television shows lately: the power of their immediacy, the creative constraints screenwriters face in crafting visually rich stories, and most of all, how demanding the craft can be.  While it’s the director’s and actors’ jobs to realize what’s on the page, great screenwriters deliver a vision that illustrates everything — from plot to characterization — in startlingly few words.

In some ways, it’s more poetry than prose. Novelists have 100,000 words to firmly root us in a world, and get us rooting for their protagonists. Screenwriters have startlingly fewer words to tell a compelling tale. Want a crash course in terrific storytelling and killer dialogue? Read a screenplay. Download David Webb Peoples’ screenplay for Unforgiven (PDF), or even a fun actioner like Simon Kinberg’s Mr. and Mrs. Smith (PDF), and you’ll be humbled by the depth on those deceptively-sparse pages.

Writers of all stripes can learn a lot studying screenplays and screenwriters. I’ve found analyzing screenplay dialogue to be particularly illuminating. They say if you can white-out the character names in a screenplay and still know who’s saying what, you’re reading a winner. The character is perfectly represented by what he’s saying; no one else in the story could say those words in that precise way. Great movie dialogue celebrates economical, pitch-perfect characterization.

Screenplays and teleplays are, of course, stories … and the best characteristics of brilliant tale-telling are found in flicks, shows, comic books and novels. But it sometimes takes studying a different medium — and listening to what masters of that medium have to say — for the scales of familiarity to fall from a writer’s eyes and behold narrative truths in new ways. This reminds us of what’s important in our craft, and can school us on our personal writing weaknesses. 

Such a revelation happened to me today, as I read a letter David Mamet issued to the writing team of The Unit, an action-drama inspired by the real-life U.S. military special forces. Mamet, a masterful playwright and screenwriter, was the show’s executive producer. (The show was cancelled last year.) 

There’s no context provided for what prompted Mamet’s 2005 letter — which you can read in full here — other than what’s implied in its opening paragraphs. It seems the network was bombarding The Unit’s writers with requests to cram their scripts with more exposition about setting, characters and story. The writing staff probably responded by dutifully adding these bits. This is, as Mamet says in the letter, the antithesis of drama.

This, he says, is a crock of shit. And he’s right. 

From the PG-13-rated letter (which I’ve heavily edited for clarity and brevity, with apologies to Mr. Mamet): 

Drama is the quest of the hero to overcome those things which prevent him from achieving a specific, acute goal. We, the writers, must ask ourselves of every scene these three questions:

 1) Who wants what?

2) What happens if he/she doesn’t get it?

3) Why now? 

The answers to these questions are litmus paper. Apply them, and they will tell you if the scene is dramatic or not. Every scene must be dramatic. The main character must have a simple, straightforward, pressing need which impels him or her to show up in the scene. 

This need is why they came. It is what the scene is about. Their attempt to get this need met will lead, at the end of the scene, to failure — this is how the scene is over. This failure will then, of necessity, propel us into the next scene. 

Jaded pros may read Mamet’s definition of drama and roll their eyes at its simplicity. I suggest they — and the rest of us — give it another read. I have not seen such a perfectly crystalized presentation of the fundamentals of good storytelling. Every frickin’ word counts. Every scene must have purpose — and if it doesn’t, mercilessly kill it. Throw bricks at your characters at every turn. Make your hero earn the right to occupy the story he’s in. In the process, you’ll earn the right to properly tell that story, and present it to an audience.

 Mamet continues, back on the topic that prompted his letter:

“Any time two characters are talking about a third, the scene is a crock of shit. Any time any character is saying to another, ‘As you know’ — that is, telling another character what you, the writer, need the audience to know — the scene is a crock of shit. Do not write a crock of shit.” 

Mamet doesn’t declare war on exposition; he’s snarling at a particular breed of exposition. The predictable, anvil-on-the-head bad writing that we often see well beyond exposition. Screenwriters — and all great storytellers — must slyly weave those world- and character-building elements into dialogue and description in unexpected ways. I say writing is the ultimate con game, a tower of lies wrapped in a convincing illusion of truth, designed to keep the reader turning the pages. Steer clear of those narrative anvils, and you’re well ahead of the competition. 

Or as Mamet says, “Figure it out.” 

Is this easy, taking a stern look at your work and beating the snot out of it? Finding those “as you know” moments … and identifying those poor lines of dialogue that could be uttered by any vanilla character … and those paragraphs that excel at telling, yet falter at showing … and a dozen-dozen other meddlesome failings that plague your work? 

Of course it’s not easy. To quote Mamet’s letter: “This is a new skill. No one does it naturally. You can train yourselves to do it, but you need to start.”

Amen. It’s brutal, elementary advice that every writer needs to hear — and, more important, live. There’s tons of value in his letter, which I recommend you read.  And there’s lots more out there in the wild — great insights from stories and storytellers well beyond the medium in which you’re currently comfortably writing. 

Isn’t it time you stretched your legs and saw the world through another storyteller’s eyes? You’ll probably rediscover the most important elements of your craft … and will almost certainly learn something that you can improve your work.

Posted in

9 Comments

  1. Kathleen Bolton on March 25, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Practicing brevity now.

    Mamet’s letter: wow.

    Awesome post.



  2. Lydia Sharp on March 25, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Love it. :) And this is my new favorite quote:
    “Every frickin’ word counts. Every scene must have purpose — and if it doesn’t, mercilessly kill it.”
    .-= Lydia Sharp´s last blog ..52 Qualities of the Prosperous Writer: Number Twelve, Balance =-.



  3. David Sobkowiak on March 25, 2010 at 9:23 am

    Great post. I read this letter a few days ago I’ll read it again over and over to remind myself that I can do better.
    .-= David Sobkowiak´s last blog ..The Reveal =-.



  4. Densie Webb on March 25, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    Love this: Is this easy, taking a stern look at your work and beating the snot out of it? It’s a writing Smackdown…something we all need to get comfortable with.



  5. hope101 on March 25, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    As I read this I found myself nodding and smiling. Until this line:

    “Any time two characters are talking about a third, the scene is a crock of shit.”

    Does this apply in all circumstances and I missed a basic lesson somewhere? Or does he mean to say one should avoid “as you know Bob” moments? What if, for instance, a wife wants to persuade her husband to take their child – solo – to chemotherapy, and that conversation exposes the flaws in their marriage? What if the child is the McGuffin?

    I’m not trying to be contrary, just confused.
    .-= hope101´s last blog ..A Random Note of Gratitude =-.



  6. Yat-Yee on March 25, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    I am reworking my passages that are dialogue heavy and Mamet’s advice is particularly timely. Two things struck me the most:

    When two characters talk about a third;
    Figure it out.

    There are no short cuts. I am back to ferreting out my cleverly-disguised as-you-know passages and figuring out the non-lazy way to deal with them.
    .-= Yat-Yee´s last blog ..Gianna and Jenna as reps of MG and YA =-.



  7. Kristan on March 25, 2010 at 6:45 pm

    All my Twitter streams and Google feeds are abuzz with this letter. Of course, you’re the only one who gave it any context. :P

    Guess it’s time to check it out…
    .-= Kristan´s last blog ..Feeling human after all =-.



  8. Therese Walsh on March 25, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    I say writing is the ultimate con game, a tower of lies wrapped in a convincing illusion of truth, designed to keep the reader turning the pages.

    JC, this post is fantastic.

    Hope101, I think the answer to your question is here, “Mamet doesn’t declare war on exposition; he’s snarling at a particular breed of exposition. The predictable, anvil-on-the-head bad writing that we often see well beyond exposition.” Your scene about the husband and chemo — that sounds like a great, conflict-filled, story-propelling scene. Exceptions to every rule; that’s my favorite rule.



  9. Leah Raeder on March 26, 2010 at 1:00 am

    Fiction offers dimensions that cannot be easily paralleled, if at all, in screenwriting. Screenwriting is ideal for depicting action and dialogue, but the screen adaptation of something like Virginia Woolf or Marcel Proust would lose dimensions that are (presently) impossible to simulate outside of The Word.

    Also, focusing so much on the screenplay risks ignoring other essential aspects of what make for good film/TV: acting and directing. It’s not only great writing, but great actors and direction that bring a screenplay to life.

    There’s definitely something to learn here for a writer of any experience level, but I worry that focusing too much on other media, rather than exploring the strengths and weaknesses of fiction itself, puts us at risk of homogenizing writing.

    By the way, I don’t watch “The Unit,” but I read the original text of Mamet’s letter. I’m not sure how off-the-cuff it was (that it’s written in all-caps is telling), but his writing in this letter is confused, redundant, and rambling. “Acute goal,” “The answers to these questions are litmus paper” (he meant the questions were the litmus paper), etc. There is a great deal of irony in the fact that his rant on being concise and purposeful is itself bloated and tediously shrill.

    And I totally disagree with his discounting of the actors and directors as being little more than clear, flat lenses through which writing is projected. But then, the guy rubs me wrong in general.
    .-= Leah Raeder´s last blog ..Immersion. =-.