Half-Baked Theory #2: The Relationship Between Structure, Character And Theme

Am just posting to say that the theory appears to be working - at least on this yet quite undefined conglomeration of instances that’ll hopefully attain scripthood some day.

Very useful. Thanks for posting.

Can anybody suggest how it might apply to Gladiator?

Welcome back to the big apple, Craig. Best coffee is at Joe’s in the west village.

I’ve read this column many times since it was originally posted, but I never fail to pick something up when I read it again.

NYC in the fall is a nice place to be.

Geez… I thought I knew my theme (“Do things for YOU first to be happy. Not ONLY for people who want you to do these things.”)…

and reading my treatment again, with Craig advices, I was wrong !

Wait. My treatment is not wrong. That I thought to be the theme was.

My real theme is : “You have to accept your past and use it for a better future”. That’s what my treatment says.

Thanks a lot !

Craig : A movie produced by you, written and directed buy the guys of “Road Trip” , with Sarah Silverman. A dream comes true. Applause

ps : Tell Sarah Silverman I want to marry her. Thanks.

“by” the guys, not “buy” of course… (sorry for this useless post) but I can’t edit.

I’d say it’s more a formula than a theory, which probably explains why so many movies are trite and predictable.

And why they suck.

I’d consider seeing School For Scoundrels if it wasn’t more of the same dumb slapstick that passes for comedy these days.

Yeah, yeah, I get it Craig, the theme surfaces in the third act.

One question: Why did you kiss Thomas Haden Church?

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Jeff:

I read your comment and thought, “Hmmm, this is probably uncivil, but I’m not going to delete it, because it brings to mind a question.”

You know what I write. You apparently hold it in contempt.

So why do you read this site?

Honest question.

S.A.:

I kissed him because I love him!

I’m with Craig on this one…

“I’d consider seeing School For Scoundrels if it wasn’t more of the same dumb slapstick that passes for comedy these days.”

is a redundant statement. It’s like saying I’d eat chocolate if I liked it. Or I’d consider Jeff’s opinion if he wasn’t another one of those angry bloggers with nothing to offer but animosity. He is. Hence I don’t. So why bother?

Let me get this out of the way: I’m not too keen on Craig’s work either. Except the first half of Sensless. And bits of Rocket Man. Man, those pants were hilarious…

But Craig’s true masterpiece, one that will never be forgotten, is this site, an invaluable source of information for all up’n’coming screenwriting such as yours truly. Whether said up’n’coming screnwriters like bathroom humor or not.

By the way, I will definitely watch School for Scoundrels. Sounds good and has Ben Stiller in it.

Anyway, on to the serious bit of my contribution here (Cuz I’m a serios writer, who wouldn’t be caught dead trying to write a movie with hemerrhoid creme consumption, no sirrah ;-)): Do you think it is really important to know the theme before writing? Is it not better to let the theme(s) of your work, whether it is a novel, or a screenplay, evolve as you are writing it?

Also, the protagonist being unaware of the theme in the first act is not really a necessity: For example, in Aliens, the theme is “motherhood”, or “the importance of a family”. But Ripley is well aware of that at the beginning of the movie, the first thing she asks Burke is about her daughter. It is only later that she realises Newt could be a replacement for her family, but that’s a whole new subplot.

Now, in Alien3, which is, don’t hate me now (if you don’t already), my personal favourite of the series (The extended cut, of course), the theme is “What if your death is the only means for the salvation of everybody else?”. In the beginning, Ripley is still the Ripley from Aliens. However, she slowly starts realising the truth (The scan, for example) and in the end, she embraces the truth and sacrifices herself.

In the script I’m working on right now (an adaptation of the computer game Fallout) there are several themes… I think. The theme we open with is, quoted from the PC himself, “…when our needs are betrayed, it is only natural of us that we seek them out - by any means!”. That’s what he believes at the beginning, and still believes in the end. But another theme surfaces along the way: “This world is worth fighting for” (corny, I know), and his actions in the third act reflect both themes.

Needless to say, it took me five drafts before i figured that out.

Sorry for the longish post, but I felt writerly. :-)

P.S. Sorry ‘bout the typos in the above post. It’s 2 am over here and I’ve been carrying boxes around all day.

Dear Craig,

I’ve read your blog on and off for a few months. Although I thought that Jeff’s comment was needlessly rude, I do agree that the discussion of the function of theme seemed formulaic. Maybe I should add that I’ve never been able to get past the first few pages of Lajo Egri’s “Art of Dramatic Writing.” His boiling down of great, complex works into one-line themes always seemed unbelievably simplistic. Yet many screenwriters consider it a book for the permanent screenwriting shelf.

Good for you for not deleting the comment just because of the tone, and good luck with “School for Scoundrels.”

“Now, in Alien3, which is, don?t hate me now (if you don?t already), my personal favourite of the series (The extended cut, of course), the theme is ?What if your death is the only means for the salvation of everybody else??.”

Damn, I thought the theme of Alien 3 was “hahaha you paid good money to see this, suckers!”

Tell me, how did the killing off of all the other main characters (you know, the ones we spent the whole previous film watching them earn their escape) during the opening titles fit in with this theme…?

(spoiler alert) I thought the Bourne Supremecy handled similar events reasonably well - at least when the girl was killed it propelled the story forward, setting events in motion, giving Bourne a reason for doing what he does, and affecting the outcome of the film. Alien cubed just kills off characters to get them out of the way, and that’s just crappy storytelling.

In my personal opinion, of course.

I’ll definitely be going to see School For Scoundrels because I happen to like a lot of the slapstick that passes for comedy these days, at least when Todd Phillips is directing it. That said, the screenplay-by-numbers approach has definitely blighted American cinema to the point where the story being told can pretty much be predicted beat-by-beat from viewing the first 10 minutes of most Hollywood type movies.

It’s not Craig’s fault. Nor Syd Field’s or Robert McKee’s. Well, maybe McKee’s but not by his own intention. These guys offer deconstructions. If you studied any art form academically you’ve no doubt spent a good deal of time breaking down the classics, studying the mechanics, trying to figure out what works and why. You deconstruct, study, analyze, then ignore. Know the rules before you break them and all that.

Nah, the been-there/done-that comes from the vicious circle of giving the people what they want, and the people in return only wanting or expecting so much. From my observation a lot of that first bit happens in the development stage; that’s where a lot of the most predictable elements seem to be plugged in. The second bit comes from who knows what, inbreeding or lead-based paint I guess.

Craig’s half-baked theories are just that. At least he’s not trying to make a mound off them like the hack-tomers mentioned in paragraph 2. His posting them here on his blog is understandable, useful, appreciated. Just don’t be a sheep and make dogma out of every little thing some other writer told you and you’ll be all set.

Further to all that, I’d like to point to Jackass II as an example of a successful film that contains none of the story cliches we’ve come to expect. There are no character arcs, central conflicts, turning points or contrived love stories which muddle up the third act. Just gleeful, wonderful personal injury. Talk about giving the people what they want.

P.S.

Thanks for a very informative blog. Don’t be afraid to float your theories, half-baked or otherwise.

wow, this is kind of weird… i’ve seen a lot of blogs with spec progress charts giving advice on how to write scripts, and here’s an accomplished screenwriter sharing his thoughts on the process and people seem to jump down his throat.

dr. mazin and i don’t always see eye to eye, but i don’t see why he has to take shit from people who have yet to prove they can successfully apply the so called halfbaked theories he puts forward.

I watched Finding Nemo and played the game 100 or more times after my children learned how to use a mouse. Your analysis is correct (silly me, I hadn’t thought of it before) and there is no other valid theme for this movie in my opinion. Moreover, the aspect of triteness in Finding Nemo is in the application of a well-worn Disney formula: children rebelling against parental authority and striking off on their own only to reunite with them later. That’s a formula on which to hang a theme. Apparently theme involves character whereas formula involves plot.

Maybe your critics are aware of other movies that don’t rely on formulaic plots. I don’t think there is such a thing as a formulaic theme, but there are themes that are difficult to express verbally or interpret visually. For instance, I haven’t read any review or analysis of Kafka’s the Trial that expresses its theme correctly, and there are generations of Kafkaesque fantasies (for example, all of Film Noir) that fall well below the level of the Trial.

[quote]Do you think it is really important to know the theme before writing? Is it not better to let the theme(s) of your work, whether it is a novel, or a screenplay, evolve as you are writing it?[/quote]

Yes, I think it’s really important, because I think each scene, each setpiece and each moment of character change ought to be in some way in service of the main dramatic argument of the movie.

But that’s just my opinion. :)

Look, I honestly don’t mind if folks who read this site like my movies or not. Where Jeff’s comment surprised me was that it wasn’t mere dislike, but an overall contempt. I don’t take it personally; I have a feeling that Jeff is probably a bit older than the average person for whom I intend to entertain, but I couldn’t quite understand (and probably still don’t) why some so contemptuous of my point of view would ever be caught dead commenting in here.

Sort of the “the food stinks…and the portions are small” attitude.

Hey, whatever. Like someone mentioned above, it’s all free. Take it or leave it.

I think, however, some of you are missing the point of what I wrote, which is not to adhere to formulaic structure, but rather to imagine your character’s progression as it relates to your central dramatic argument.

Nothing more or less.

Oh…and knowing something is different than being to able to actually do something. So hey, a little practice and concentration never killed anyone…even if you’re a way way way way better writer than I.

Interesting post. I think that your structural theory is a reasonable one, once you accept the mainstream American notion of theme. However, that’s not the only approach to theme. In Europe, as far as I can tell, theme is more likely to be a phrase or a noun than a sentence. I’ve written a bit more about it over at Yankee Fog.

Hi from Italy.

I think this is very interesting post, that contains some brilliant definitions of the three-acts structure.

Answering to the fact that not EVERY movie seems to adhere to this “formulaic” theory:

there are movies that aren’t focused or based on character’s arc, movies that are so plot driven that the depth of characters or theme aren’t important for the impact of the story and for the success to the audience.

And so what?

Every theory (even the half-baked, :)) is useful to specific contest, it’s pointless trying to apply it to the every movie has been produced in history of cinema.

Reading this post, I think about my horror script (for a low-budget movie) which is into its third draft… I was reading about the connections between character and theme… and BLAM! I figured out some new changes for the draft, about my heroine…

In this case, I don’t see it as a “formulaic theory”, because it was useful to solve some problems.

Obviously, no theory will write a script itself.

And regarding the “theme” in Europe… no, I think we also try to figure out the theme as a sentence and not as a single word.

For example, “motherood” for Alien3. It’s not a theme, neither for us.

Thank you Craig!

Craig,

How does your approach to theme change when you write a spoof movie?

Hi Craig, really enjoyed your analysis on theme. Hadn’t thought of it in that way before. Keep up the good work!

Good theory, Craig. I try not to hit theme quite so hard, but I think your analysis works perfectly in terms of how it functions traditionally.

My real reason to comment is just to complain about folks who cite “Jackass 2” as a movie with no theme, or no character arcs, etc. It is, for all intents and purposes, a documentary —so stop trying to use it to make any kind of point about narrative films!

PS- I was down on “School for Scoundrels” til the trailer won me over. Looks pretty good.

attempts a Sam Elliot impression Have it your way, Craig.

Ruairi: I know a comment like yours will pop up, because I know I am one of the ten people alive who like the third installment of Alien and I am very well aware of my burden.

The reason(s) Hix’n’Noot were killed off were: 1)Carrie Henn was too old, ans 2)Michael Biehn asked for too much money (alternative to what we had would’ve been a movie with Hicks as the main character in which he kills the aliens left and right, while Ripley doesn’t even appear in the movie. I don’t think anybody would have liked to see that).

Plus, take into account, please, what would have happened if Hicks and Newt made it to the prison alive: Hicks would have been pretty useless and would spend the entire movie in the infirmary, before being killed off, while Newt… I wouldn’t like to see her alone with David.

That’s just one man’s opinion.

I agree with you, however, that the same thing was done much more gracefully in Bourne Supremacy, but we can’t have everything, now ca we?

From the ass-end of space, S. A. Petrich, signing off.

P.S. Sorry ‘bout the detour, Craig, we’ll be talking ‘bout themes again any minute now.

Wow, I thought this was a great post. I’m surprised people are upset about how “crappy and formulaic” movies are, considering your example Finding Nemo, a relatively recent movie, follows that formula and is excellent. Another movie I just re-watched last night, Groundhog Day, follows a similar formula.

Phil Connors isn’t aware that life is better when you care about other people and only cares about himself.

When he first finds himself waking up on the same day over and over, he continues to care only about himself and exploits his situation for personal gain.

Then he slowly, VERY slowly, over possibly YEARS of 1 day over and over, begins to care about other people, like Andy MacDowell and the old homeless guy.

Then when he spends one perfect day helping every single person in town overcome all their problems, learning you’re happier when you care about others, he’s finally allowed to experience February 3rd.

Okay. Nobody needed me to break down Groundhog Day for them obviously. Sorry about that. I’m just excited about this idea, and about this way of looking at great movies. Now I need to look at the outline for my own screenplay and see where I’m adhering to or deviating from this concept, and see how that can help me improve it.

Theme of 40 year old virgin, anyone? Anyone?

Bueller?

Wow, I thought this was a great post. I’m surprised people are upset about how “crappy and formulaic” movies are, considering your example Finding Nemo, a relatively recent movie, follows that formula and is excellent.

Finding Nemo was a serviceable children’s movie, but do you honestly believe it was excellent?

As commercial entertainment for kids that hits the “four-pillars” without being complete drivel, it was fine. As a money-maker, definitely on the mark. But artistically excellent? Not really.

Don’t get me wrong: I watched this movie with a room full of children (before the court mandated that I not be left alone with children) and laughed out loud right along with them. But I don’t think my enjoyment — or theirs — had to do with the engine driving the thing so much as the after-market add-ons. It had great jokes, great visuals and great performances. But there wasn’t an 8-year old in the room surprised by where the film went. Yeah it hit the right beats, pulled the right heart-strings, but at the ripe old age of 8 this formula was something they’d all sat through a few dozen times. Which may be why their devotion to the film only lasted until the next summer’s CGI spectacle came out. Finding who? Let’s watch The Incredibles again!

This reminds me of when apparently non-retarded grown-ups try to convince me that the Harry Potter books are excellent. If you’re ten maybe, but as adults our tastes should be more discriminating. I don’t eat Happy Meals or subscribe to Highlights magazine, why should I read JK Rowling, unless I’m reading it to a child (which would violate my parole)? And why should I put Pixar pixel-fests up on the same mantle where I put truly great adult-type cinematic works, like Stroker Ace or Cannonball Run?

Again, I appreciate Craig’s theories, half-baked of otherwise. They are especially useful for the aspiring writer trying to get a handle on the technical aspects of storycraft. Of course any good writer — aspiring or otherwise — understands that these are tools. What really counts is how you use them.

I don’t subscribe to Highlights magazine, either.

High Times, on the other hand …

theme is the heart of a movie. it flows through every scene, like blood through veins. without it a film is just a lifeless body, a zombie at best. because theme results in message, and a story without anything to say is just words - or rather moving images. entertaining to look at but without meaning. why do anything without meaning?

“Finding Nemo was a serviceable children’s movie, but do you honestly believe it was excellent?”

I think he does. Probably because he said so.

I always find it incredibly interesting when somebody disparages another persons tastes in movies as if good movies were indisputable facts.

?Finding Nemo was a serviceable children?s movie, but do you honestly believe it was excellent??

Sure I do. And The Incredibles (almost) made me cry. Wanna make something of it? ;-)

As Kevin already said, art is subjective. I just watched Rashomon for the first time and I kept dozing off. I didn’t doze off during Finding Nemo. Which was the better movie? I don’t know, but I’m going to rent Cars before I rent Seven Samurai…

I always find it incredibly interesting when somebody disparages another persons tastes in movies as if good movies were indisputable facts.

Kevin, maybe you didn’t pick up on what I was alluding to with the Hal Needham reference. Or perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the Needham cannon (which would explain a lot).

Taste is one thing; I like the taste of PBR. A 12-pack costs 5 bucks at Jon’s. I’ve also been known to go through a carton of ez-cheez in a sitting. No crackers, no anything; I just squirt it straight down my gullet. But when I’m sitting there on my living room floor — drunk, bloated, surrounded by spent cans of rot-gut beer and aerosol cheese food — I do not mistake my surroundings for the garden at French Laundry.

If Dante prefers the ez-cheezy flavor of Pixar to Kurosowa, by golly that’s his right and I’d never deny him of it. But he (and you) should understand the former is light-hearted children’s fare while the latter is serious cinema. Is that so hard to accept? Must we wear the Harrison Bergeron straps at all times?

Now if you’ll excuse me the latest issue of Highlights Harper’s just arrived and I’ve got a word jumble to solve.

Ronnie:

I’ve heard that analogy many, many times and it never holds weight. We’re not talking about nutritional value of an apple versus the preservatives in an Oreo cookie.

We’re talking about film.

And a film’s intent has absolutely nothing to do with its supposed quality.

You’re right. Finding Nemo was intended as a light hearted comedy. Alexander was intended as what you call, “serious cinema”. And while I applaud Oliver Stone’s intention, I found his movie to be a cinematic disaster. Just because Finding Nemo was intended as a light hearted comedy, why is it hard for you to accept that many people find that film “excellent”? I mean, Some Like It Hot is a light hearted comedy. And I’m sure there a lot of people that find that movie excellent as well.

I don’t buy a movie’s genre to be a standard of excellence.

And neither should you.

Not for a second.

Again, the theme of 40 year old Virgin? Anyone?

on a side note -

Intent doesn’t have to do with the quality of movie, I agree, but … . doesn’t the theme essentially state the film’s intent?

Therefore, if the theme is important to the quality of the movie (and, from what I read of Craig’s post, I’d say he thinks so) therefore, ergo, it stands to reason that intent DOES have to do with the quality of movie, or at least, the movie’s screenplay, as described above.

If the theme is the question that the movie will answer, that makes in involved with intent, whether we agree it has to do with the quality of the story or not.

But I believe quality isn’t ONLY subjective, it’s also somewhat objective, but mayhap we’d better not argue that one again, that poor horse has certainly been beaten enough.

Troo that, Joshua James. An unnecessary tangent and I’m to blame for that. Way to bring it back around.

(BTW that should have read Highlights Harper’s. Effed up the strike-through gag, a personal fave. Sloppy HTML, Pudding. Sloppy.)

“Therefore, if the theme is important to the quality of the movie (and, from what I read of Craig’s post, I’d say he thinks so) therefore, ergo, it stands to reason that intent DOES have to do with the quality of movie, or at least, the movie’s screenplay, as described above.”

I think you kind of CSI’d your way to a bit of a convoluted theory.

Guys, I could care less about film theory.

Honestly.

I make movies and television for an audience. My intent is to entertain them. Whether I’m making a serious drama about the Puerto Rican Revolution or a silly little dating show, I want an audience to like it. Whatever a movie’s theme, intent, or genre, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the way an audience will react to a film.

I’ve seen Oliver Stone’s interviews where he tries to intellectually rationalize why American audiences didn’t like Alexander. It’s all crap of course and I’m sure he knows that. He knows this because he’s a professional filmmaker who’s given up on trying to guess why audiences come to some movies and stay away from others. Hint, Hint: All filmmakers do. It’s a painful lesson that we all eventually learn.

He’d never admit this in an interview, mind you. Especially when he still has a monetary interest in a film that still might generate income (i.e. 3 different Alexander cuts on DVD, each one descibed with some sort of exclamation point after its new description).

Let’s not lose our heads here.

Comedy versus Serious Cinema is the non-battle of the ages.

That wasn’t really the battle, Kevin. There are plenty of brilliant comedies and crappy serious dramas out there. I just disagree that “good” is completely subjective.

And if your only intent is entertaining an audience, whether what you’re doing is “good” or “bad” hardly matters. Lots of people find that song “My Humps” entertaining, but it is not a good song by any measure. In fact it may be the worst song ever spawned. I’m sure the Black Eyed Peas are laughing all the way to the bank.

It only matters if you care. Some of us care.

“Lots of people find that song “My Humps” entertaining, but it is not a good song by any measure. In fact it may be the worst song ever spawned.”

Well…we completely agree there.

“I just disagree that “good” is completely subjective.”

Well…we disagree here and it’s been discussed ad nauseaum so I won’t bore everyone again. But I disagree.

“And if your only intent is entertaining an audience, whether what you’re doing is “good” or “bad” hardly matters.”

I’m not entirely sure what you mean here but of course my intent is to entertain the audience. I don’t make films to work out my own personal demons. I masturbate on my own time.

I tell stories.

Sometimes the genre is a drama. Sometimes it’s a comedy. Either way, my point is still to entertain the audience. Don’t confuse “entertaining” with “light hearted”. Which is why I don’t understand why you’d question whether or not someone finds Finding Nemo excellent.

And although your assertion is a bit unfounded, yeah, I care.

Oh, and “London Bridge” is a very close 2nd for worst song of all time.

I’m going to feel guilty as soon as I post this, because I really hate to be in the midst of a disagreement. For a writer, I hate conflict.

BUT even though Ronnie, Kevin, and I all agree that Fergie’s music is terrible, doesn’t mean that the people who think it’s entertaining are “wrong.”

Remember, just because you have a higher IQ than someone or listen to The Stone Roses or you’ve seen Jules et Jim more times than anyone else you know does not make the entertainment choices of people who have not done those things “wrong,” all it means is that you like different things. And it doesn’t mean you can’t occasionally take out The Bicycle Thief DVD and pop in Dude, Where’s My Car? instead. You can have it both ways, high art and lowest common denominator.

Dude, Where’s My Car? is an excellent movie.

I think you kind of CSI’d your way to a bit of a convoluted theory.

Perhaps, but it wasn’t my theory, but yours. You were the one who stated that bon mot regarding intent. I broke it down, CSI’d it to see if it made sense, that’s all. I have my own theories, heh, that alllllll mine.

Guys, I could care less about film theory.

Fair enough. so why argue with people on a comment string devoted to discussing the dramaturgial application of theme in a screenplay?

This site is, actually, a primer for film theory as it relates to the writer. So that’s a curious comment. I’m not saying anything, I’m just saying.

And hey, damn it, I’m still searching for the theme to The 40-Year Old Virgin, I’m on fumes and I ain’t gonna stumble across it on me own - come on, internet hive minds, let me know!

“Fair enough. so why argue with people on a comment string devoted to discussing the dramaturgial application of theme in a screenplay?”

Well…you kind of got me there.

“This site is, actually, a primer for film theory as it relates to the writer.”

No, it’s not. This site is mainly about the Business of Screenwriting. This site is an informational tool because we’re all severly under educated in our own field. It’s this aspect that interests me most.

“And hey, damn it, I’m still searching for the theme to The 40-Year Old Virgin, I’m on fumes and I ain’t gonna stumble across it on me own - come on, internet hive minds, let me know!”

Hmm…

I would say that the theme to The 40-Year Old Virgin is about a guy who needs to grow the fuck up. It ain’t eloquent but I think it’s about right.

Kevin:

Your intent to make films (as in: to entertain) is not the same as what those films intent to say (as in: message derived from theme).

Kevin, again:

“This site is an informational tool because we’re all severly under educated in our own field. It’s this aspect that interests me most.”

First of all, speak for yourself. Secondly, how is that not a primer for film theory as it relates to the writer?

Don’t mean to put you under fire, just trying to understand…

Joshua:

theme of 40YOV is same as in GLADIATOR: “Patience pays off.”

Joshua—

“Sex, in and of itself, won’t make you happy; love will.”

From what I recall of the storyline of The 40-Year-Old Virgin, this fits Craig’s theory pretty closely too, in terms of what the guy thinks his problem is for most of the movie vs. what it actually is.

Johnny:

“Your intent to make films (as in: to entertain) is not the same as what those films intent to say (as in: message derived from theme).”

I’m not sure what your point is.

“This site is an informational tool because we’re all severly under educated in our own field. It’s this aspect that interests me most.”

“First of all, speak for yourself.”

Um…I thought I was. And if you’re referring to the bit about most of needing more of a business education, how in the world could you possibly dispute that? As far as this site being used to educate, didn’t the links to all those law websites tip you off? Or maybe that The Business of Screenwriting is about 80% of all the articles posted here?

“Secondly, how is that not a primer for film theory as it relates to the writer?”

Easy…it’s not.

The theme of The 40 Year-Old Virgin could be stated as such: you don’t grow up when you have sex…you grow up when you fall in love.

I think Finding Nemo is an excellent film, and I’m deeply suspicious of any screenwriter who scoffs at it. Deeply.

Suspicious.

Glad Groundhog Day was mentioned. It’s a terrific example of how theme inspires character inspires structure. It’s also one of my favorite films.

Kevin:

Joshua implied in an earlier post that theme states a film’s intent. In response, you argued that your intent is to entertain an audience. He was talking theme, because, well, that’s what this thread originally was about. You were talking personal reasons to make movies. See the diff?

And no, you’re not talking for yourself when you claim that “we’re all” under-educated in our field. And “severly” so.

Finally, I do agree this site is mainly aimed at the business end of screenwriting, but in this particular post that is not the case, as this post is about screenwriting in a creative context… i.e. film theory. Full circle, baby.

Craig:

Your version of the theme in 40YOV implies that the filmmakers think growing up is an admirable objective, you really think that’s true (for them, not for you)?

Guys,

Thanks for the theme answer -

Oh, and I would argue that the business end of screenwriting is a large part of film theory as it relates to the writer - but even if one believes that it doesn’t, there are, as Johnny pointed out, there are many, many columns written by Craig that deal strictly with the dramaturgical end of screenwriting - hence, film theory as it relates to a screenwriter, by a screenwriter.

And, respectfully, no, you’re not speaking for yourself when you tell me what the intent of this site for all of us, unless you’re the site’s author.

Craig, I think a better theme (and more closely aligning with your theme-based outline) for 40 Year Old Virgin might be: “It’s never too late”

First act. Andy (Steve Carrell’s character) thinks it’s too late to ever have sex or even a girlfriend. He’s completely given up.

Second act. His friends convince him otherwise, but though he plays along, he never truly believs them. He still thinks it’s too late, and whoever he has sex with (for instance, Trish [Catherine Keener]) will think he’s pathetic for not knowing HOW to do it when he’s already 40 years old. Finally, his reluctance drives Trish away.

Third act. He’s forced to put himself on the line and tell Trish the truth. She still loves him, finally convincing him that it’s never too late. They live happily ever after.

In this film, it’s never too late is referring to sex, love, and participating in life in general. Really, you can translate it into anything. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone watching the movie finally applied for that small business loan or whatever…

Craig, I hold a Ph.D. in English literature and have read tons of books in the area of literary criticism. Although I have read much about theme and story structure, I have not quite seen it put together as expertly as you have accomplished here. I teach a creative writing class to high school seniors, and I will use your piece in my curriculum. I’m teaching the short story, but the act struture can be easily substituted with beginning, middle, and end. Although THE WRITER’S JOURNEY covers this topic in much greater detail, your summary of the interaction between character, story structure, and theme is brilliant for its focus and simplicity. I love brainy writers.

where is that brainiac chai girl who went to guns on how this guy kevin comprehends

it had to do with some math problem or therum

i’m gonna go back and find her, her name and call out to her

hey sweetheart he is just not comprehending, no freekin’ way Kevin is getting what he is reading

Oh Jesus…

TR, Rich, Xavier, whomever you’re calling yourself now, we all know you’re the same person.

Give it a rest already.

This is a screenwriting forum, not a woman scorned forum.

Move on.

I think Finding Nemo is an excellent film, and I’m deeply suspicious of any screenwriter who scoffs at it. Deeply.

Who’s scoffing? As a big event movie for kids that didn’t make me want to tear out my eyeballs with a claw-hammer, it served its purpose well. It just didn’t happen to be excellent. I believe my exact words as I left the theater were “well, that was cute.” Baby-momma agreed and the shorty wanted to get a clown fish for about 15 minutes before I convinced him fish will steal his soul while he sleeps. I guess I can dust off the DVD and revisit it but I’ve honestly never felt the need (and neither has Shorty; he’d much rather watch The Incredibles or pwn tools on Xbox Live).

The story was a tight, formulaic vehicle for some great animation, gags and of course the requisite sap. It wasn’t mind-numbing like Spy Kids II & III, but I never once forgot Nemo’s target audience; namely, the segment of our population which thinks eating paste is a good idea. All it would’ve taken was one Robin Williams performance to push it over the edge into barely tolerable.

Ever since they made Toy Story (a movie that happened to be excellent in spite of the fact that it was made for paste-eaters) Pixar has been getting undue praise for every CGI monstrosity it puts out. And I’ll definitely give them props for consistency (the quality never falls below a certain mark) but it’s not like everything they do is Hal Needham-level gold. It’s like Walt-era Disney with fewer songs. It’s all pretty good but not genius.

And I’ll be honest, Craig: I’m a bit suspicious of adults who are overly enamored with children’s entertainment. It’s indicative of the same sort of stunted social development that makes seemingly normal adults collect action figures, go to furry conventions, and remain virgins until they’re 40-years old. Children and wonderful and magical and all that, but let us not forget that they are essentially retards who’ll eventually grow out of it. I don’t eat paste, I don’t play with my poop, and I don’t lose my breath over cartoon fish.

Your version of the theme in 40YOV implies that the filmmakers think growing up is an admirable objective, you really think that’s true (for them, not for you)?

Yes. I do. Most comic filmmakers I know are married with children and lead incredibly adult, safe, mature lives. Our minds are free, but we tend not to be party-going different-chick-a-day types.

Robert Seaman:

Glad you found it useful!

“It just didn’t happen to be excellent”

Hmm… It’s a tough thing, gauging quality. If some people say quality is an objective thing (paraphrasing Joshua, but since he didn’t want to be drawn into this again…), I wonder what system they use to judge it other than assuming that their opinion is really, really important. For example, if I was to say that finding nemo is an excellent film, and I’m stating that as a fact, and not just my opinion, I’m cross referencing my opinion with:

• a 98% positive rating on rottentomatoes.com
• an 8.2/10 rating on imdb.com and an imdb top 250 rating of 107
• the fact that it made a gazillion bucks at the box office,
• and the fact that I’ve yet to met anyone (in person - child or adult) who doesn’t like the thing.
• the concensus on this thread regarding the film (everyone else seems to agree it’s excellent)

Individually all these things are probably don’t mean much, but they all add up… And some of them, you can’t even dispute.

But Ronnie, all you are giving is opinion, and stating it as fact. Basically what I’m saying is: Ronnie, your subjective personal opinion on this film is technically incorrect. Finding Nemo is an excellent film. “Fact.”

Btw Craig, I think you really set yourself up to be torn to shreds by the wolves if you are TOO self depricating. I think by using more than one disclaimer or apology or invitation to people here to be the judge (or calling it half-baked in the first place) sets a tone whereby people are immediately looking for an angle of attack in your theories. If you just present it as “a theory” it’s fine - and it’s a good one, even if it doesn’t fit every story ever told in the history of the world, ever. No need to apologise for it.

Ruairi:

I honestly don’t care. :) I mean, it’s far more important to me to be as honest with you guys as I am with myself, in no small part because I believe that sort of honesty is important to one’s growth as a writer.

I will tell you that the most humble, self-deprecating writer I’ve ever met is probably Scott Frank.

He’s also one of the finest writers I know, and certainly one of the finest to ever practice the craft.

Something tells me those two qualities aren’t randomly coexistent.

Ever notice that John August never fails to strike a humble tone?

Hmmm…a trend…

Meanwhile, Joe Ezsterhas would have you believe that he is Really Important.

The truth is that I’m just a guy, and I’m still learning, and I hope to never stop. There are a lot of things I’m downright arrogant about.

Writing isn’t one of them.

I completely agree with that. I tend to have what Ruairi would call a “self depricating” voice in my writing and my speach. When I seek criticism for my writing, sometimes I end up with irrelevant and needlessly harsh feedback, but not very often. Actually, I think that tends to come from people who will respond to me that way anyway, regardless of my tone, and not because I’m asking for it. Honesty is attractive. More often than not, the more honest I am in my tone, the more positive the responses I get.

Oh, Mr. Kev,

“TR, Rich, Xavier, whomever you’re calling yourself now, we all know you’re the same person.”

Silly goose, I proudly vow that two out of the three above are who they say they are as per they are SLL students (Second Language Learners) here, and it is there ‘job’ to read into all post and replies.

They have open access to enter the ‘Lounge’ & hop onto the computer & use the system whenever they are free, and as adults they can respond as such… (I think they are quite brave and very funny at times, but hey I am biased because they are my students…)

From the famous words of Joshua James, “so when were you elected hall monitor” as per implying to solely posting as per screen writers/writing…this is American baby and cyberspace opens it up to the world, so on behalf of Yuri, etc stop being a grouchy ladybuy…

On a side note,… I don’t think she sounds scorned, quite the contrary, I think she sounds like she has too much time on her hands… I don’t know why you’d appease her with even a mere acknowledgement…

xoxoLL

TR,

In response to your boldness, I stand firm, he is comprehending…

Now show me where he affirms his comprehension via his response(s), and you’ll be off the hook…

By the way, Tech Robot what’s up with the poor capitalization and grammar?

xoxoLL

“And I’ll be honest, Craig: I’m a bit suspicious of adults who are overly enamored with children’s entertainment. It’s indicative of the same sort of stunted social development that makes seemingly normal adults collect action figures, go to furry conventions, and remain virgins until they’re 40-years old. Children and wonderful and magical and all that, but let us not forget that they are essentially retards who’ll eventually grow out of it. I don’t eat paste, I don’t play with my poop, and I don’t lose my breath over cartoon fish.”

Boy, I would have hated to have this guy for a father.

There is essentially no difference between structuring a children’s story and an adult story. And, as others pointed out, this particular use of “excellence” is highly dependant upon personal tastes. The act of determining an excellent story goes way beyond taste. One may not have a taste for physical comedies, but any given comedy must be measured against artistic criteria. And you don’t have to be “overly enamored with children’s entertainment” to be a great writer of children’s stories. C.S. Lewis can hardly be described as a writer of a “stunted social development,” nor any of the other countless great and merely good writers of children’s stories.

What Craig provided here is a powerful storytelling tool. Use it wisely and universally, because it applies to every good and great story that has a message or theme. And this tool will, if used correctly, will only make you a better writer.

I’ve noticed a general tone of hostility from aspiring writers who reject any notion of structure versus a nebulous approach to writing, often expressed in the silly mantra: “Just write!” Unless those structures are internalized, those who live by that mantra are doomed to failure.

Amen!

I meant, ay man… failure is a good thing!

(yes, sarcastic).

Craig, re: “knowing theme before going in.”

I gotta pull out something Josh Olson said on this one, ‘sometimes it can get in the way.’. In general knowing your driving theme going in is great.. but sometimes it can be a big impediment. It can even drive you off course.

Sometimes.

Yeah, well, Josh can write his way, and I’ll keep writing mine. I can certainly say that the one movie of Josh’s that I’ve seen had a strong theme, which I can only assume was present in the source material and properly adapted for the screen by Josh.

RE: Formula…

Love it. Live it.

Real life is formulaic, as its themes.

I’ve also noticed that real life third acts are very short. Characters arch on their death beds—or after their doctors tell them they have cancer.

Robert with the unfortunate surname, you’ll notice I did not in fact criticize Craig’s analysis of Nemo’s theme; in fact I commended him for it. All I was saying is that Finding Nemo is not an excellent film, which it is not.

You state that “there is essentially no difference between structuring a children’s story and an adult story,” a sentiment I absolutely agree with but since my criticism had nothing to do with the structure of Nemo this statement would be immaterial, at least if you’d intended it to refute my criticism.

You go on to say that “the act of determining an excellent story goes way beyond taste” which makes your last post all the more confounding. It seems we’re in complete agreement on everything except whether or not Finding Nemo is excellent; so why the need for ad hominem attacks on my parenting skills, which in my humble opinion are quite excellent?

Sorry to be the killjoy at the plushie party, but I found Finding Nemo to be an enjoyable-yet-forgettable piece of FUNTERTAINMENT. Had I been subbing for Roger Ebert that year while he was out on chemo-leave Nemo surely would’ve received my reluctant “thumbs up.” However it will at no time reside along side the films that have reached my mark of excellence (unless there’s some sort of unreleased director’s cut I missed that contains an extra half hour of subversive brilliance). All I’m doing is viewing Nemo using same critical candle-wattage I’d use on any film, be it The Seventh Seal or Hooper. General okay-ness does not equal excellence, and I will not forgive a film its banality, sappiness or triviality just because it happens to be aimed at temp-tards. I suggest you be a man who lives by his words (i.e. those quoted above) and do the same.

Laurichka,

SPLA SEA BHA! (The way sounds for Russian)

Yuri and whole Russian contingency

What Craig provided here is a powerful storytelling tool. Use it wisely and universally, because it applies to every good and great story that has a message or theme. And this tool will, if used correctly, will only make you a better writer.
I?ve noticed a general tone of hostility from aspiring writers who reject any notion of structure versus a nebulous approach to writing, often expressed in the silly mantra: ?Just write!? Unless those structures are internalized, those who live by that mantra are doomed to failure.

Craig’s ideas in this column are essentially the same as any other advice one would get from an experienced writer or writing book — it’s a tool, not a rule. I think that a theme can be used as the original basis for a script, or that a theme can be applied later to help with the final shaping of a story.

My current project is historical fiction inspired by some non-fiction that I’ve been reading. I very quickly came up with a protagonist and the main first- and second-act story pieces. But after the twist that takes it into the third act — nuthin’.

Then I read this article, and I started to consider themes that fit the characters and plot that have already taken shape. I’m not settled on it yet, but I have a good feeling that once I focus on a solid theme (there are several in the running that could work in the context of my story), it will lead me to a third act that ties everything together.

Wasn’t attacking your parenting skills, Mr. Pudding. It was a joke.

Be that as it may, the reason NEMO is an excellent film is because it is a well-constructed children’s movie, as Craig’s post revealed. A good or excellent movie is not just a matter of opinion. Aesthetic judgments can be empirically demonstrated.

Trying to argue the excellence of a film is like trying to which soda is better: Sprite or 7-UP.

It’s ludicrous.

Which is my point. There is no right answer.

It’s art people. It’s all about one’s personal perception.

Please…stop.

Ronnie:

Your opinion about the what is excellent in a film is about as important and factual as my opinion on cereal.

You must eat a lot of cereal, Kevin. You must have studied cereal at culinary school. You must have the respect of revered figures in the cereal industry such as Cap’n Crunch, General Mills, and the Cocoa Puffs Cuckoo. So I humbly ask for your opinion on the matter of blue diamonds being phased out of Lucky Charms in favor of the pots o’ gold. Was this a calculated re-invention that kept the brand relevant in a market over-saturated with marshmallow cereals? Or a pathetic, last-ditch attempt to jump on the latest trend? Thanks in advance for your informed thoughts.

Ronnie:

4 Words.

Honey Bunches Of Oats…with almonds of course.

Nice to see that the art of the put down is not lost upon Mr. Pudding.

But there’s an assumption here that art cannot be analyzed and thus is not subject to aesthetic judgement. Craig’s approach in articulating theme and character, and his creative productions, shows that art and science are partners, not adversaries.

Of course, the analytical tradition begins with Aristotle. And THE POETICS is saying that you can determine the value of a tragedy by an analysis of its story elements. Sound story elements equal excellent play. Bad story elements? Well, you get the picture.

Robert S.:

see that unmarked van outside your home? those are arbouet’s people… watch you back.

-

here’s a variation on the theme: personally, I think THE GODFATHER is boring, but I accept it as an excellent movie.

Craig, you have created a monster.

It’s lovable and hopelessly irrational, like a two year old.

Thank you.

“All I was saying is that Finding Nemo is not an excellent film, which it is not.”

Would you at least agree that it is an excellently-written film?

I don’t believe that the target audience has anything to do with quality. I bought Finding Nemo and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre together and I love both. A good film can be appreciated by anyone.

The point is that every movie, or I should say every screenplay, has the same elements: character, story, structure, theme, etc. How well you develop your characters and how well you incorporate theme and how tightly you structure your story are the determining factors of a screenplay’s quality. It doesn’t matter if the movie is aimed toward kids or adults or everyone inbetween.

What about Nemo’s writing is not great? As hard as I try, I haven’t found an answer to that question yet. It’s a very well-written film, regardless of who showed up at the theater.

“and knowing something is different than being to able to actually do something.”

liked this. we all know everything, but very few of us can do much of anything :)