You can have scenes without this formula though, they’re just going to be way more of an aesthetic or tactical flourish than anything A snippet which reveals hidden information about “known” characters, a chance for the production team to fully impart the intricacy or impact of some event (e.g. Peter Jackson’s Isengard preparing its massive war-machine for the coming Uruk-Hai invasion) etc. etc. But yes, this approach by Jason & Aaron is a great rule of thumb in most screenwriting cases
All I could think of through this whole conversation was, "ANDOR!!" So many of the scenes were conversation only AND THEY WERE SO GRIPPING!! Thanks for pulling back the curtain a bit on why these scenes were so good.
Great breakdown of all that's wrong with writing and movies today. Write "small" is such a good explanation of what's missing. Story is everything. "Big" is far too easy and typical Hollywood.
A great plot is a plot which takes you to another level. You really feel for the good guys and the bad guy, but all the time everybody around the bad guy in the plot thinks the bad guy is just as good as the good guy. I think that this is why cryptids are so terrifying as fictional creatures. You know where a Kaju is going, and you know it pretty much can´t be stopped, but the cryptid is much harder to predict. You don´t know where the cryptid is going or what its going to do next. The scariest bad guys are bad guys who want to be you and who can assume part of or even most of your identity. Let´s say you are 10 years old, and you suddenly realize that the guy who is raising you is actually a cryptid. That´s terrifying. It´s because no one around you believes you. It´s so terrifying that in that moment, you start to deny that this could be true. It´s so easy to deny it, but in the story, which you happen to be part of, it´s the truth. The reason for why modern movies fail is because they fail to take this route. They want to go for the Kaju, because the director thinks the Kaju is going to be his next tax cow. Modern directors fail at making good movies because they are so focused on making money that, the story they are writing has no plot because they are not giving themselves the time required to make a good plot. Regards from Ásgeir.
Whenever I watch these videos, not every time but often, they seem to answer a question or a problem I'm having with my writing. Never really know how to express that problem and often don't even know its really a problem but these videos always pull something out of me and makes my writing stronger. Such a gem of a channel.
Snowfall too. Franklin Saint is like the catalyst on how to write a main character. His dialogue steals the scene whenever he’s on it and he’s in a scene with someone else probably 80% of the show.
This was such an "ah ha" moment for me. I never quite understood feedback that said I needed to both add clarity to my metaphors while at the same time not treating the reader like they're stupid. To give the answers only after creating intrigue. Thank you!
This guy’s introverted intuition is strong. Very helpful. Of course, it occurs to all of us that he could have summed it up by saying “conflict”; but that doesn’t really teach you *how* to use conflict - so he doesn’t really use the word, but instead, he paints multiple pictures which are really instructive. And that’s why he’s a writer, of course…
Here’s the thing: A guard and a robber arguing about a bank heist is conflict but, without stakes, the conflict falls flat. Two people disagreeing isn’t enough to drive a scene forward unless the world is about to end and our potential survival as a species hinges on their decision. Conflict alone is insufficient. But yes, his Ni is quite strong!
One of my favorite drummers was in a house band called Victoria's Secret Weapon. cymbals, no toms... Kick, hat, piccolo snare. Dude's timing and pocket was insane.
Sattarland superbly delineates the nuances of screen development considering clarity,conflicts, contradictions and conclusions to the satisfied emotion of audience. On the nose ,a great concept. Thanks Film courage for bringing out this thought provoking interview
This reminds me of the first time I heard The Eagles without the instruments. Their harmonies are amazing, showcasing the members' musicality, but it's easy to get distracted by electric guitars and drums and flashing lights in a concert.
Subtext is baked into the story and emerges in a scene as a result of the story setup. Dramatic Irony is a great tool for creating subtext because the audience knows things about the characters goals and motivation that are hidden between the characters. This gives the scene another layer of meaning not obvious to all characters in the scene. This is pretty much what subtext is and how it works. Also, not every scene has subtext or conflict but a scene should have dramatic tension. When two characters are discussing how to defeat the protagonist, there won't be any subtext (unless the writer had previously established separate agenda for each of them). A scene where plans are being made sets up future conflict and gives the audience the inside track, which is one way of creating suspense about the outcome of such plans for the protagonist.
Why can't there be subtext in a scene where two characters discuss how they'll defeat the protagonist? Subtext is an undercurrent. If these two characters are central enough, we might well expect their dialogue to carry subtext about motivations, certainly strengths and weaknesses, likely histories or their pasts. It's an ambiguous term and can be put into any dialogue that serves more than one purpose.
7:05 I think a perfect example of this is the famous diner scene in Heat. They both blatantly spell out, to a T, what they are doing, going to do and intend to do and it's still one of the best scenes in film.
That advice is not just crucial for screen plays, but is universal for any narrative story. I'm writing a novel and am working on trying to master that.
While I think we’re often told about the pieces needed, I don’t think I’ve come across a video that discusses the why and how to construct the foundation of an interesting scene, and how to connect it to the action so well. This clip is another gem that everyone should save to their “writing guides” (or whatever you call it) list.
That's an amazing discussion of goals and stakes and what can be good on the nose writing and bad on the nose writing. And the example of the safety deposit box scene demonstrates how hard it is to build conflict into a scene.
This is the vudeo I've been scouring yourube to ro find. Finally someone outs it clearly. To make a scene work you need character with conflicting goals and stakes if they don't get these goals.
I think there was a moment where the discussion bout on the nose writing was exlained as over writing, but those are two different (but possibly the same) things. Over writing can be over explaining, too much information that the audiance didnt ask for, and on the nose or expositional writing is when the character simply blurts out what they want/need, and/or how they are going to solve thier dilema. Both can be interchangable in some respects but are also quite different. A solid discussion, I get what he means by giving the audiance what they need when they need it, and not trying to be overly cleaver about it. Get to it then get to it. The more you write the more naturally cleaver you become, I think he is trying to explain something so subtle that only another seasoned writer would understand. Maybe Im over thingking this and or over writing it. Either way I got to and went straight to it.
Not to toot my own horn, but it feels so validating to know that last night I wrote a random scene that came to my head and it checks every criteria for a good hook for a complete 180° on my original novel. The world building was exelent imo, the characters felt good, but for the life of me I couldnt pin point what it was. Then I thought to switch the protagonist and his brother in a new start from his brothers POV, making the orignal lead a support character and suddenly it all clicked. The reason I say validating is because I was thinking of scraping the whole thing and moving onto something else. And now this random video pops up. I feel blessed 🙏😂
The Whale is such a great example of a character driven story in a single solitary setting, and it's actually one of my favorite films because it's just so compact and intimate and somehow we're feeling so much more
Nice insight! BTW - Noticed that (of late) I keep having to crank the volume way up on these excellent interviews - as if your recording levels are suddenly lower than they've been in past. I can go back and listen to older videos and the sound levels don't require my turning it way up. Thanks & Keep The Amazing Work Coming!
I love this guy so much. I always try and explain storycraft to people, it’s not a joke, it’s really just how you make the scenes good. Plot, character, setting. This is what you do, they all combine in a scene. If you have a scene that doesn’t connect all those dots you can probably cut it. Every good story is a collection of good scenes. If you write a book you can feel the scenes that don’t work. Same with a movie. Often a bad scene could be explained in a line within a hood scene. Always cut. Organize well beforehand but when it gets to the story find what you can cut. Audiences know what’s not interesting. If your setting or plot isn’t interesting you can go back to it, but it all ends up in the scenes. Literally just cut the bad scenes or go back and redevelop the basics, characters, etc., if you wrote on a show that is likely the thing. You have actors you have to use. But if you are writing a feature, it’s like writing a novel, and cutting a bad scene means it probably still works. Why? People follow strong scenes. Strong scenes are the cornerstone of a good story. Again, scenes are a culmination of plot, setting, and character, nobody has ever written a good story without good scenes.
Wanted to add, characters all have a conflict, it’s kind of two conflicts: and internal and external conflict. So one conflict connects with the setting, one with the plot. This is how you figure your way into characters, they want to do x but y. If your story is a family of bank robbers, one son actively doesn’t want to rob banks and the other goes along with it, but conversely one wants to work with the feds and one wants to escape this criminal life. Suddenly the larger setting of modern class politics is connecting to these characters, and their “plot” goals complicate their “setting” goals. The one son thinks he’s against his crime family but his brother is literally talking to the feds. This is the difference between plot and setting, because they both develop in different ways and affect characters in different ways. I hope this helps some of you. Just never forget, as writers we control character, plot, and setting.
@@cloudynguyen6527 just try and always write better than before. The way I learned was to break stories apart into their pieces, I’m sure there are other ways. Just never stop improving your story until you have to turn it in. I just hope what I learned might help people get better writing earlier. If you don’t have good scenes nobody will care, same with characters. Think about your favorite movies: they all have great scenes. If we can’t do that in our stories there’s a problem. Yes you might be scripting for a movie with a small budget but if there’s no time or budget to make some good scenes the story won’t go anywhere and there’s really no point in spending time on it. If you end up spending 5 years writing scripts and don’t have a few great scenes to show for it time has been wasted. Even if monetarily things are fine. We can all do a lot to be fine monetarily, but showing off your writing can’t wait. Think of the dance scene in Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, it’s very much a “grey scene” with nothing important plot wise, but we get a tone and a great scene that sets up the rest of the date. Scenes are everything. Fight to make them all as strong as possible and your story will grow immeasurably.
6:14 yep, you're right, Karen. It's about subtext. I fell into that trap. I realized that the reader/audience needs to know *why* we're in a scene. Film gives a little more latitude since it's a passive medium, but novels require work. And if that work is also compounded with having to figure out why they're reading a scene, chapter, they tend to lose interest. Do it too often? DNF. For my part, I'm finding that I really don't like to be _too_ on-the-nose, but sometime it really is necessary. So, what Jason Satterlund is saying here, the art of the reveal, is gold, imho.
A good scene can do different things. It can thwart expectations, it can create suspense or set something up for later on, they can establish conflict between characters, reveal information about your character.. but every scene should do one or two things to keep the reader engaged.
I’ve gotten studio feedback saying that my script has dialogue that is loaded with subtext but sometimes it works against me. This was exactly what I needed - I’ve been reluctant to write things direct, and “on the nose” but sometimes it’s necessary to make intentions clear. I think of the scene in Annie Hall when woody allen is discussing the JFK assassination conspiracy to avoid having sex with his girlfriend. It’s written with great context but at the end of the scene both characters directly state exactly what woody allen is doing. It could have worked without the “on the nose” explanation, but it definitely worked with it.
As someone who was interested with screenwriting for a year but only just got into screenwriting and its logistics recently, I can confirm, setting up the scene is HARD. There's so much stuff you have to consider. Intention + obstacle Intention: Who has this intention, why do they have this intention? (does this tie into the theme? a backstory? a previous event?) Obstacle: Who or what is stopping them? Where did it come from? Why is it stopping them? And then you need to see if THIS scene is specifically what the script needs. Is there any other way to make the scene? Is the scene necessary at all, or just cool? Does anything change by the end of it? The questions just KEEP GOING. They divide. it's crazy.
Love the discussion of the often seemingly contradictory nature of the writing - organic revelation of the story and usage of 'on the nose' and when. Also love his enthusiasm when he is demonstrating the story and how you build, really useful stuff.
I write small and simple first but visualize myself as a minority role in a play. As someone who is watching the play unfold, as if another writer wrote it. Thanks for the video!! Kind regards from Ásgeir in Iceland.
for me, the scene is where you add all the pretty stuff that give it character. You build the house, make sure it's level in your outline, hitting all the beats you need to hit. you make sure the house is structurally sound. Then the scene is how you furnish. How you furnish it is entirely determined by who LIVES in it. Every scene reflects the characters personalities, their conflicts and goals so setting is extremely important when decorating a scene. To me that's what a scene is. Decorating a house for people to live in. The scenes are implied by the structure and the outline. you need to dress those bones. A scene does not exist for the story. It exists for the characters to express their conflicts with one another. The story emerges out of the juxtaposition of those scenes by showing changes in character drive from scene to scene. The story, or house is already built. Now it's time to see HOW characters move through the story.
In my old band, my drummer found he was becoming too dependent on the extraneous stuff on his kit, and I getting was annoyed by all his cymbals. After watching an interview with Robert Fripp from the early eighties, I took away all his cymbals except his ride and high hat. He had looked at King's X's drummer's kit and stripped it down to a snare a kick and his floor tom. The guitarist and I stowed any effects we had and it really helped us a band. The same principle applies to other creative endeavors - strip away the extraneous and gets down to the essentials.
Huh. I like what he was saying at the end about characters just chatting in one room, even in a space opera. My just-a-few-days-from-having-a-full-rough-cut animated space opera short starts with two friends (and the second-in-command of one of 'em) meeting up in a coffeeshop called "NebuLatte". Kinda like the cantina scene in "Star Wars", only _a lot_ less seedy. (The seedy bar comes later. Come to think of it, there is _a lot_ of talking in my script.) I never really had much formal training in writing for film...but I had a video store job in high school, watched hundreds of movies; you can't help but pick up _something_ about how to build a flick. What works and what doesn't (and why). For example, the "unhelpful and sullen front desk clerk' trope needs to go away; it's used at least once in nearly every sitcom and it's gotten very stale. Just sayin'.
In The Bourne Legacy, where the government spooks arrive at Rachel Weiss’s character’s house to ‘suicide’ her - and the single take shot of Jeremy Renner scaling the outside of the house to shoot the bad guys and save her. Brilliant!
Excellent! ♥ Loved the examples to bring the ideas to life. This not only makes the learning more visceral, it's easier to SEE how I might apply that knowledge in my own novels and screenplays. ALL story is CONFLICT. Without conflict, you have *_Star Trek: The Movie_* with boring "Oooh's and ahhh's, ogling at a starship in space dock rather than driving the story forward. As a Trekkie Geek for over half a century, even I was turned off by this poor scene development. Clarity of goals and stakes is also a bit like the writer's maxim: *_Show, don't Tell._* And the improvement on this, *_Occasionally, IMPLY, instead of Show._* And, in writing a novel, sometimes it works to use all forms -- active *_and_* passive voice; Tell, Show *_and_* Imply. This helps to vary the texture of the writing. "On the nose" done wrong may merely involve "Telling" rather than "Showing." 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯 PS: And now I have to find that Marfa, Texas Woolworth's movie! Lovely!
The on the nose writing reminds me of Inigo Montoya in Princess bride. How much more on the nose can "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." be? It is probably the most on the nose dialogue I have ever heard, yet it is epic. Because they set it up. Even the set up is kind of on the nose though, but it still works and shows that with any rule there is a lot of nuance.
Funny that in the end he chose specifically Sci-Fi as an example. Some of the 80s, 90s, even some of the 2000s Sci-Fi show are still interesting because they didn't have the technology to "wave their arms", and, boy-o-boy, when they had to use the tech available at that time you're thinking "what was that?". For example, "Sliders" (the pilot is especially good), Quantum Leap (there you go, he is always conflicted to hide that he's from the future because the stake are to high), also the forgotten Time Trax (the idea a little bit simillar to Quantum Leap, but still, it has the story and goals and stakes and conflict, although the poor computer graphics ruined the show). But as he said, these episodes always starts with "characters in a room", so to speak.
I think on the nose writing is bad for a final draft, but maybe not for a first draft. 'On the nose', and 'incoherent' are possibly two extremes to wiggle in between, in the sweetspot of storytelling tension.
Someone has to come to the scene wanting/needing something. For a pretty reliable setup, add another character who is maybe antogonistic, maybe empathetic, but for whatever reason, they can't let the first person get what they need. That is the modern basic dramatic scene. Show, don't tell. If during that scene someone comes up with an idea/plan, the audience has to "see" it. The possible resolutions are endless, but consider: the need is denied, and the stakes are raised; the need is denied, and is now considerably harder to reach; the desire is met/promised, but required a dark pact; the thing desired is destroyed; the desired thing is gained, but its utility is not as hoped. Getting thing 1 could just lead to needing thing 2, but I generally find this outcome to be frustrating and counter-productive because it destroys the pace. If a character's only meaningful desire is to leave the scene, you have a scene/plot/character/something issue. If you're writing "connecting pieces," writing is not for you.
I always hate it when my steaks are missing. Fun fact, when medieval archers went to field in battle, they erected pointed stakes in from of them to protect against cavalry. When it came time for their regiment to advance, they would pull the stakes and set them up again farther ahead, hence the saying, "Raising the stakes."
And if you it's not what people mean when they describe "on the nose" writing. What you're describing is good writing that leads the reader or viewer down the path. You can be very clear without being on the nose.
"on the nose" writing is when the themes and morals external to the plot or story are the crux of the scene or plot instead of the major dramatic question. when the morals, beliefs or themes of the director or writer are the over arching point of a scene or plot THAT's on the nose because those things are suppose to be the underlying scent or subtext of the piece of work. being specific in a scene is having the dramatic elements of all the pieces to scenes known and hightened and clean and effortless. the point of a scene is suppose do with the major dramatic question. it has to do with bringing us closer to the answer of the major dramatic question. If you have a difficult time writing a scene its because you don't know what your MDQ is or its not clear enough or its not specific enough. If the scene is I want to get out of the house and character b wants me to go upstairs then that has to relate to the MDQ either by giving us more character depth, conflict depth. all scenes lead us to the MDQ if it doesn't then it probably doesn't need to be in the story.
No. The security guard is the sloth in Zootopia. The reason the scene works is because there is a ticking clock that says the task at this bank/office must be completed in 5 minutes or else the story will immediately end in the worst way possible.
Great webinar, but I think 'On The Nose' is more than 'Clear' - I think OTN is more stating the obvious, e.g., a character saying to opponent 'I'm going to waste you' while pointing a firearm in opp.'s face. [The character's action is so clear that his direct statement of intent is superfluous.'] Such is my take. I like JS' illustrations.
Interesting but I am not sure I agree. On the nose simply involves the writer treating every action and every line as transparent. But we are rarely transparent. When an adult punishes a child it is "never" an expression of their anger or frustration and "always" for the good of the child. Yeah? Right. As writers we can create depth and complexity by expressing anger and rage in whispers using language that the we (and the character) read as a dire threats even although every single word points to the exact opposite. "Someone could have a very nasty accident on these stairs, don't you think?" And then stakes only need to be high for the characters in situ and not for any abstract audience. You need to get out of the house not because of ghosts or a fire but because you overslept and you are going to miss the bus that will take you to a job interview that if they don't attend your unemployment check will stop, or your PO will have you re-incarcerated. Those are high stakes for the character. Life and death can be social as much as physical
The character goal to be on the nose. The emotional reason why they want it - Probably best to Make this less on the nose. In the movie taking Liam Neeson’s character wants his daughter back. Anyone would want their daughter back. The difference is that his relationship with his daughter was already bad. Therefore at the end of the movie when he gets her back that emotional relationship has been repaired.
Writing can have clarity, at the same it must be emotionally powerful. The importance of what's being said to the plot. Skinny guy in Noting hill express main character esperation over dating even to the simplest detail. What t-shirt should he wear, also the writer is using the clueless nature of the character to comedic effect. Two birds one stone, so to speak. Noting Hill isn't just about boy meets girls the heart of any RomCom but the utter infuriating randomness of it all, Anna Scott walks into William Thacker's book shop. She could have walked into any shop on that street.
"Spectacle Creep"... It's more obvious in TV-shows and Serials, but it's been a thing in storytelling since the dawn of Hollywood... The modern Film Maker is beset on all sides with flashy, shiny crap... With CGI, there's literally NOTHING that you can't do. It can be mediocre rather than polished and "professional"... BUT it can ALWAYS be done, so why not? Right? BEWARE of sacrificing story for spectacle. It's okay to have a HUGE great explosion at the end of your movie, IF your whole plot was constructed to go against The Imperial Death Star, destroyer of worlds... In such a case, okay then, the only way to destroy a battle-ship the size of a moon (small, medium, or otherwise) is a HUGE explosion. So be it... BUT did the audience REALLY pay money for a ticket JUST to see fireworks? They bought a ticket to see A MOVIE... If I wanted to go see fireworks, there are places to pay money to DO THAT... I can go to Knob Creek, Kentucky and rent machine guns, blow up old cars, dead refrigerators, and all kinds of junk and targets... I can take a class in safety and make a pass through a "training course" for simulated combat, using a proper assault rifle to eliminate targets that really spring out from behind bushes and trees and stuff along a pre-arranged path through the woods... JUST LIKE Army Jungle Training from back in the day. I can have a LOT of fun if that's all I want... BUT in a movie? That's obviously not the point that gets money out of my wallet and puts my butt in the seat and my eyes on that screen. There BETTER be more substance to the show than the fireworks. SO yeah, the temptation is there to make things "larger than life" and to "dream big"... AND it's not that it's "bad" necessarily. Just do NOT let spectacle come at the cost or sacrifice of story... emotional ties... REAL stakes. Besides, when you get a spectacle TOO BIG, the human mind fails utterly to comprehend it, and again, you force a certain detachment. In the interest of learning to BEST create story, conflict, and drama, it's better to simplify and scale down. Get me to BUY IN at two Characters with relatively small goals, deeply emotional and contextual reasons behind them, and stakes that I can care about... When you can get that without the big explosion, a biblical scale of disaster, or an atrocity that's hard to even watch, THEN you can get out the shiny sh*t and play.
Reading on-the-nose writing isn't so bad. But when it spews from the screen it splats into the fan. Lazy and boring and predictable and transparent. Only bad writers and directors fail to see how bad on-the-nose plays. Perhaps your sentiments indicate why your films struggle to get more than 4/10 from critics and audiences.
Most writing is on the nose. When you're telling a story on any level you have to be clear about what is happening, or you lose the audience. As for subtext, it doesn't work if the audience doesn't know what's going on.
@@wexwuthor1776 Subtext abounds in all of those. Sure they start with an incident. That shouldn't be surprising. To remove their suspense and dramatic irony through lazy, on-the-nose writing would be a crime: illegally administering sleeping pills to an audience.
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
Here is our full interview with Jason - ruclips.net/video/sxR8EJnMKkE/видео.html
Aaron Sorkin said it works for a scene and works for the whole screenplay - intention + obstacle.
You can have scenes without this formula though, they’re just going to be way more of an aesthetic or tactical flourish than anything
A snippet which reveals hidden information about “known” characters, a chance for the production team to fully impart the intricacy or impact of some event (e.g. Peter Jackson’s Isengard preparing its massive war-machine for the coming Uruk-Hai invasion) etc. etc.
But yes, this approach by Jason & Aaron is a great rule of thumb in most screenwriting cases
All I could think of through this whole conversation was, "ANDOR!!" So many of the scenes were conversation only AND THEY WERE SO GRIPPING!! Thanks for pulling back the curtain a bit on why these scenes were so good.
Great breakdown of all that's wrong with writing and movies today. Write "small" is such a good explanation of what's missing. Story is everything. "Big" is far too easy and typical Hollywood.
A great plot is a plot which takes you to another level. You really feel for the good guys and the bad guy, but all the time everybody around the bad guy in the plot thinks the bad guy is just as good as the good guy. I think that this is why cryptids are so terrifying as fictional creatures. You know where a Kaju is going, and you know it pretty much can´t be stopped, but the cryptid is much harder to predict. You don´t know where the cryptid is going or what its going to do next. The scariest bad guys are bad guys who want to be you and who can assume part of or even most of your identity. Let´s say you are 10 years old, and you suddenly realize that the guy who is raising you is actually a cryptid. That´s terrifying. It´s because no one around you believes you. It´s so terrifying that in that moment, you start to deny that this could be true. It´s so easy to deny it, but in the story, which you happen to be part of, it´s the truth. The reason for why modern movies fail is because they fail to take this route. They want to go for the Kaju, because the director thinks the Kaju is going to be his next tax cow. Modern directors fail at making good movies because they are so focused on making money that, the story they are writing has no plot because they are not giving themselves the time required to make a good plot. Regards from Ásgeir.
Whenever I watch these videos, not every time but often, they seem to answer a question or a problem I'm having with my writing. Never really know how to express that problem and often don't even know its really a problem but these videos always pull something out of me and makes my writing stronger. Such a gem of a channel.
Cheers! Great to hear that!
I really enjoyed listening to this over breakfast! Coffee, toast and listening to someone who clearly enjoys his craft, that’s a great combination.
Damn, I'm literally doing that too haha. Coffee, toast, and orange juice while listening. Haha too funny
On the nose writing : Giving exposition and information no one asked for and dialogue that doesn’t offer subtext. Brilliant!!!
I've always been asking myself, what's lacking in my scenes, and the answer is Stakes. Thank you guys. I'm going to rewrite after watching.
Our best to you and your work!
Just what I needed. Thanks 🙏🏾
Nice!
Stakes for BOTH of them. Wonderful insight!
Andor has been full of these two person scenes. What he’s talking about is exactly why they’ve been so great.
Snowfall too. Franklin Saint is like the catalyst on how to write a main character. His dialogue steals the scene whenever he’s on it and he’s in a scene with someone else probably 80% of the show.
That was a professional talk. Thanks for the information and tips.
Glad it was helpful!
This was such an "ah ha" moment for me. I never quite understood feedback that said I needed to both add clarity to my metaphors while at the same time not treating the reader like they're stupid. To give the answers only after creating intrigue. Thank you!
Great to hear Shannon!
This guy’s introverted intuition is strong.
Very helpful.
Of course, it occurs to all of us that he could have summed it up by saying “conflict”; but that doesn’t really teach you *how* to use conflict - so he doesn’t really use the word, but instead, he paints multiple pictures which are really instructive.
And that’s why he’s a writer, of course…
Here’s the thing: A guard and a robber arguing about a bank heist is conflict but, without stakes, the conflict falls flat. Two people disagreeing isn’t enough to drive a scene forward unless the world is about to end and our potential survival as a species hinges on their decision. Conflict alone is insufficient. But yes, his Ni is quite strong!
One of my favorite drummers was in a house band called Victoria's Secret Weapon. cymbals, no toms... Kick, hat, piccolo snare. Dude's timing and pocket was insane.
I would love to see a written DnD adventure by this man! Crazy how much playing DnD creates naturally these skills.
Thank you Jason and Film Courage. You said a mouthful.. Don't do an information dump. Things the audience didn't ask for..
Satturland is my favorite! Such good articulation.
Sattarland superbly delineates the nuances of screen development considering clarity,conflicts, contradictions and conclusions to the satisfied emotion of audience. On the nose ,a great concept. Thanks Film courage for bringing out this thought provoking interview
This reminds me of the first time I heard The Eagles without the instruments. Their harmonies are amazing, showcasing the members' musicality, but it's easy to get distracted by electric guitars and drums and flashing lights in a concert.
Subtext is baked into the story and emerges in a scene as a result of the story setup. Dramatic Irony is a great tool for creating subtext because the audience knows things about the characters goals and motivation that are hidden between the characters. This gives the scene another layer of meaning not obvious to all characters in the scene. This is pretty much what subtext is and how it works.
Also, not every scene has subtext or conflict but a scene should have dramatic tension. When two characters are discussing how to defeat the protagonist, there won't be any subtext (unless the writer had previously established separate agenda for each of them). A scene where plans are being made sets up future conflict and gives the audience the inside track, which is one way of creating suspense about the outcome of such plans for the protagonist.
Why can't there be subtext in a scene where two characters discuss how they'll defeat the protagonist? Subtext is an undercurrent. If these two characters are central enough, we might well expect their dialogue to carry subtext about motivations, certainly strengths and weaknesses, likely histories or their pasts. It's an ambiguous term and can be put into any dialogue that serves more than one purpose.
7:05 I think a perfect example of this is the famous diner scene in Heat. They both blatantly spell out, to a T, what they are doing, going to do and intend to do and it's still one of the best scenes in film.
Clarity of goals and stakes. Love it.
That advice is not just crucial for screen plays, but is universal for any narrative story. I'm writing a novel and am working on trying to master that.
While I think we’re often told about the pieces needed, I don’t think I’ve come across a video that discusses the why and how to construct the foundation of an interesting scene, and how to connect it to the action so well. This clip is another gem that everyone should save to their “writing guides” (or whatever you call it) list.
That's an amazing discussion of goals and stakes and what can be good on the nose writing and bad on the nose writing. And the example of the safety deposit box scene demonstrates how hard it is to build conflict into a scene.
This is exactly what I need right now for my screenplay writing!! Thank you so much!
Glad it was helpful!
This is the vudeo I've been scouring yourube to ro find. Finally someone outs it clearly. To make a scene work you need character with conflicting goals and stakes if they don't get these goals.
Most useful interview I’ve seen on this channel so far, great advice
Glad you are finding this one helpful!
Thanks for some great simple tips for creating scenes.👌
I think there was a moment where the discussion bout on the nose writing was exlained as over writing, but those are two different (but possibly the same) things. Over writing can be over explaining, too much information that the audiance didnt ask for, and on the nose or expositional writing is when the character simply blurts out what they want/need, and/or how they are going to solve thier dilema. Both can be interchangable in some respects but are also quite different.
A solid discussion, I get what he means by giving the audiance what they need when they need it, and not trying to be overly cleaver about it. Get to it then get to it. The more you write the more naturally cleaver you become, I think he is trying to explain something so subtle that only another seasoned writer would understand.
Maybe Im over thingking this and or over writing it. Either way I got to and went straight to it.
Not to toot my own horn, but it feels so validating to know that last night I wrote a random scene that came to my head and it checks every criteria for a good hook for a complete 180° on my original novel. The world building was exelent imo, the characters felt good, but for the life of me I couldnt pin point what it was. Then I thought to switch the protagonist and his brother in a new start from his brothers POV, making the orignal lead a support character and suddenly it all clicked. The reason I say validating is because I was thinking of scraping the whole thing and moving onto something else. And now this random video pops up. I feel blessed 🙏😂
The Whale is such a great example of a character driven story in a single solitary setting, and it's actually one of my favorite films because it's just so compact and intimate and somehow we're feeling so much more
Nice insight! BTW - Noticed that (of late) I keep having to crank the volume way up on these excellent interviews - as if your recording levels are suddenly lower than they've been in past. I can go back and listen to older videos and the sound levels don't require my turning it way up. Thanks & Keep The Amazing Work Coming!
2 people in one spot. Got it. Clarity of goals and stakes. Got it.
I love this guy so much. I always try and explain storycraft to people, it’s not a joke, it’s really just how you make the scenes good.
Plot, character, setting. This is what you do, they all combine in a scene. If you have a scene that doesn’t connect all those dots you can probably cut it. Every good story is a collection of good scenes. If you write a book you can feel the scenes that don’t work. Same with a movie. Often a bad scene could be explained in a line within a hood scene.
Always cut. Organize well beforehand but when it gets to the story find what you can cut. Audiences know what’s not interesting. If your setting or plot isn’t interesting you can go back to it, but it all ends up in the scenes. Literally just cut the bad scenes or go back and redevelop the basics, characters, etc., if you wrote on a show that is likely the thing. You have actors you have to use. But if you are writing a feature, it’s like writing a novel, and cutting a bad scene means it probably still works. Why? People follow strong scenes. Strong scenes are the cornerstone of a good story.
Again, scenes are a culmination of plot, setting, and character, nobody has ever written a good story without good scenes.
Wanted to add, characters all have a conflict, it’s kind of two conflicts: and internal and external conflict. So one conflict connects with the setting, one with the plot. This is how you figure your way into characters, they want to do x but y. If your story is a family of bank robbers, one son actively doesn’t want to rob banks and the other goes along with it, but conversely one wants to work with the feds and one wants to escape this criminal life. Suddenly the larger setting of modern class politics is connecting to these characters, and their “plot” goals complicate their “setting” goals. The one son thinks he’s against his crime family but his brother is literally talking to the feds. This is the difference between plot and setting, because they both develop in different ways and affect characters in different ways. I hope this helps some of you. Just never forget, as writers we control character, plot, and setting.
@@kingVibe111 Appreciate the tips. Good read as well
@@cloudynguyen6527 just try and always write better than before. The way I learned was to break stories apart into their pieces, I’m sure there are other ways. Just never stop improving your story until you have to turn it in. I just hope what I learned might help people get better writing earlier.
If you don’t have good scenes nobody will care, same with characters. Think about your favorite movies: they all have great scenes. If we can’t do that in our stories there’s a problem.
Yes you might be scripting for a movie with a small budget but if there’s no time or budget to make some good scenes the story won’t go anywhere and there’s really no point in spending time on it.
If you end up spending 5 years writing scripts and don’t have a few great scenes to show for it time has been wasted. Even if monetarily things are fine. We can all do a lot to be fine monetarily, but showing off your writing can’t wait.
Think of the dance scene in Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, it’s very much a “grey scene” with nothing important plot wise, but we get a tone and a great scene that sets up the rest of the date. Scenes are everything. Fight to make them all as strong as possible and your story will grow immeasurably.
6:14 yep, you're right, Karen. It's about subtext. I fell into that trap. I realized that the reader/audience needs to know *why* we're in a scene. Film gives a little more latitude since it's a passive medium, but novels require work. And if that work is also compounded with having to figure out why they're reading a scene, chapter, they tend to lose interest. Do it too often? DNF.
For my part, I'm finding that I really don't like to be _too_ on-the-nose, but sometime it really is necessary. So, what Jason Satterlund is saying here, the art of the reveal, is gold, imho.
Thank you for this!
Quality insight. Satterlund is sharp.
A good scene can do different things. It can thwart expectations, it can create suspense or set something up for later on, they can establish conflict between characters, reveal information about your character.. but every scene should do one or two things to keep the reader engaged.
Finally!
This guy was so good in Schitt's Creek. 😂
I’ve gotten studio feedback saying that my script has dialogue that is loaded with subtext but sometimes it works against me. This was exactly what I needed - I’ve been reluctant to write things direct, and “on the nose” but sometimes it’s necessary to make intentions clear.
I think of the scene in Annie Hall when woody allen is discussing the JFK assassination conspiracy to avoid having sex with his girlfriend. It’s written with great context but at the end of the scene both characters directly state exactly what woody allen is doing. It could have worked without the “on the nose” explanation, but it definitely worked with it.
Just when I needed it, here's Jason! Thank you FC 😊
Keep at it Sam!
Great video
As someone who was interested with screenwriting for a year but only just got into screenwriting and its logistics recently, I can confirm, setting up the scene is HARD. There's so much stuff you have to consider.
Intention + obstacle
Intention:
Who has this intention, why do they have this intention? (does this tie into the theme? a backstory? a previous event?)
Obstacle: Who or what is stopping them? Where did it come from? Why is it stopping them?
And then you need to see if THIS scene is specifically what the script needs. Is there any other way to make the scene? Is the scene necessary at all, or just cool? Does anything change by the end of it?
The questions just KEEP GOING. They divide. it's crazy.
Thank you for sharing.
@1:40 nailed the Michael Bay method there.
Love the discussion of the often seemingly contradictory nature of the writing - organic revelation of the story and usage of 'on the nose' and when. Also love his enthusiasm when he is demonstrating the story and how you build, really useful stuff.
1:21 This segment explains Rebel Moon’s failure so perfectly 😂
"Come Back To The Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean Jimmy Dean' is a great movie!
I write small and simple first but visualize myself as a minority role in a play. As someone who is watching the play unfold, as if another writer wrote it. Thanks for the video!! Kind regards from Ásgeir in Iceland.
for me, the scene is where you add all the pretty stuff that give it character. You build the house, make sure it's level in your outline, hitting all the beats you need to hit. you make sure the house is structurally sound. Then the scene is how you furnish. How you furnish it is entirely determined by who LIVES in it. Every scene reflects the characters personalities, their conflicts and goals so setting is extremely important when decorating a scene. To me that's what a scene is. Decorating a house for people to live in. The scenes are implied by the structure and the outline. you need to dress those bones. A scene does not exist for the story. It exists for the characters to express their conflicts with one another. The story emerges out of the juxtaposition of those scenes by showing changes in character drive from scene to scene. The story, or house is already built. Now it's time to see HOW characters move through the story.
This is great
In my old band, my drummer found he was becoming too dependent on the extraneous stuff on his kit, and I getting was annoyed by all his cymbals. After watching an interview with Robert Fripp from the early eighties, I took away all his cymbals except his ride and high hat. He had looked at King's X's drummer's kit and stripped it down to a snare a kick and his floor tom. The guitarist and I stowed any effects we had and it really helped us a band. The same principle applies to other creative endeavors - strip away the extraneous and gets down to the essentials.
Huh. I like what he was saying at the end about characters just chatting in one room, even in a space opera.
My just-a-few-days-from-having-a-full-rough-cut animated space opera short starts with two friends (and the second-in-command of one of 'em) meeting up in a coffeeshop called "NebuLatte". Kinda like the cantina scene in "Star Wars", only _a lot_ less seedy. (The seedy bar comes later. Come to think of it, there is _a lot_ of talking in my script.)
I never really had much formal training in writing for film...but I had a video store job in high school, watched hundreds of movies; you can't help but pick up _something_ about how to build a flick. What works and what doesn't (and why).
For example, the "unhelpful and sullen front desk clerk' trope needs to go away; it's used at least once in nearly every sitcom and it's gotten very stale. Just sayin'.
A great "get into a bank vault" movie I think was "Inside Man" with Denzel Washington, Clive Owen, Jodi Foster, Christopher Plummer
What is one of the greatest scenes in film (any era)?
In The Bourne Legacy, where the government spooks arrive at Rachel Weiss’s character’s house to ‘suicide’ her - and the single take shot of Jeremy Renner scaling the outside of the house to shoot the bad guys and save her. Brilliant!
The climax of Crazy Stupid Love when all the storylines collide in one intense scene!
Excellent! ♥ Loved the examples to bring the ideas to life. This not only makes the learning more visceral, it's easier to SEE how I might apply that knowledge in my own novels and screenplays.
ALL story is CONFLICT. Without conflict, you have *_Star Trek: The Movie_* with boring "Oooh's and ahhh's, ogling at a starship in space dock rather than driving the story forward. As a Trekkie Geek for over half a century, even I was turned off by this poor scene development. Clarity of goals and stakes is also a bit like the writer's maxim: *_Show, don't Tell._* And the improvement on this, *_Occasionally, IMPLY, instead of Show._* And, in writing a novel, sometimes it works to use all forms -- active *_and_* passive voice; Tell, Show *_and_* Imply. This helps to vary the texture of the writing.
"On the nose" done wrong may merely involve "Telling" rather than "Showing."
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
PS: And now I have to find that Marfa, Texas Woolworth's movie! Lovely!
I use it as a advantage
On the nose refers more to dialogue. He's talking about info dumping.
The on the nose writing reminds me of Inigo Montoya in Princess bride. How much more on the nose can "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." be? It is probably the most on the nose dialogue I have ever heard, yet it is epic. Because they set it up. Even the set up is kind of on the nose though, but it still works and shows that with any rule there is a lot of nuance.
Every bad scene starts with Jean Van Claude Damme. 😂
Funny that in the end he chose specifically Sci-Fi as an example. Some of the 80s, 90s, even some of the 2000s Sci-Fi show are still interesting because they didn't have the technology to "wave their arms", and, boy-o-boy, when they had to use the tech available at that time you're thinking "what was that?". For example, "Sliders" (the pilot is especially good), Quantum Leap (there you go, he is always conflicted to hide that he's from the future because the stake are to high), also the forgotten Time Trax (the idea a little bit simillar to Quantum Leap, but still, it has the story and goals and stakes and conflict, although the poor computer graphics ruined the show). But as he said, these episodes always starts with "characters in a room", so to speak.
I think on the nose writing is bad for a final draft, but maybe not for a first draft.
'On the nose', and 'incoherent' are possibly two extremes to wiggle in between, in the sweetspot of storytelling tension.
Someone has to come to the scene wanting/needing something. For a pretty reliable setup, add another character who is maybe antogonistic, maybe empathetic, but for whatever reason, they can't let the first person get what they need. That is the modern basic dramatic scene.
Show, don't tell. If during that scene someone comes up with an idea/plan, the audience has to "see" it. The possible resolutions are endless, but consider: the need is denied, and the stakes are raised; the need is denied, and is now considerably harder to reach; the desire is met/promised, but required a dark pact; the thing desired is destroyed; the desired thing is gained, but its utility is not as hoped. Getting thing 1 could just lead to needing thing 2, but I generally find this outcome to be frustrating and counter-productive because it destroys the pace.
If a character's only meaningful desire is to leave the scene, you have a scene/plot/character/something issue.
If you're writing "connecting pieces," writing is not for you.
JJ Abrams is the king of waving his arms at the screen while the entire house collapses.
Prince at best. Bay is the king.
Sometimes that second kick will make them crumble 😈
Great content. 👍
Thanks Greg!
So, what he's saying is basically flesh out your characters more (even the small ones, like the security guard)?
@7:27 is the sauce
interviewer is dope too
I always hate it when my steaks are missing.
Fun fact, when medieval archers went to field in battle, they erected pointed stakes in from of them to protect against cavalry. When it came time for their regiment to advance, they would pull the stakes and set them up again farther ahead, hence the saying, "Raising the stakes."
And if you it's not what people mean when they describe "on the nose" writing. What you're describing is good writing that leads the reader or viewer down the path. You can be very clear without being on the nose.
Strangely hardest thing you can do...write a friggin' bunch of GREAT scenes! Ahhh you think you're on it.. And then you get feedback! ❤
History has this great story telles
Than we got ... Hollywood
Cry ...
"on the nose" writing is when the themes and morals external to the plot or story are the crux of the scene or plot instead of the major dramatic question. when the morals, beliefs or themes of the director or writer are the over arching point of a scene or plot THAT's on the nose because those things are suppose to be the underlying scent or subtext of the piece of work.
being specific in a scene is having the dramatic elements of all the pieces to scenes known and hightened and clean and effortless.
the point of a scene is suppose do with the major dramatic question. it has to do with bringing us closer to the answer of the major dramatic question. If you have a difficult time writing a scene its because you don't know what your MDQ is or its not clear enough or its not specific enough. If the scene is I want to get out of the house and character b wants me to go upstairs then that has to relate to the MDQ either by giving us more character depth, conflict depth.
all scenes lead us to the MDQ if it doesn't then it probably doesn't need to be in the story.
❤💯
No. The security guard is the sloth in Zootopia. The reason the scene works is because there is a ticking clock that says the task at this bank/office must be completed in 5 minutes or else the story will immediately end in the worst way possible.
Let the characters write it.
Great webinar, but I think 'On The Nose' is more than 'Clear' - I think OTN is more stating the obvious, e.g., a character saying to opponent 'I'm going to waste you' while pointing a firearm in opp.'s face. [The character's action is so clear that his direct statement of intent is superfluous.'] Such is my take. I like JS' illustrations.
I feel like both in books and tv series they only write "explosions" nowdays.
Interesting but I am not sure I agree. On the nose simply involves the writer treating every action and every line as transparent. But we are rarely transparent. When an adult punishes a child it is "never" an expression of their anger or frustration and "always" for the good of the child. Yeah? Right. As writers we can create depth and complexity by expressing anger and rage in whispers using language that the we (and the character) read as a dire threats even although every single word points to the exact opposite. "Someone could have a very nasty accident on these stairs, don't you think?" And then stakes only need to be high for the characters in situ and not for any abstract audience. You need to get out of the house not because of ghosts or a fire but because you overslept and you are going to miss the bus that will take you to a job interview that if they don't attend your unemployment check will stop, or your PO will have you re-incarcerated. Those are high stakes for the character. Life and death can be social as much as physical
The character goal to be on the nose. The emotional reason why they want it - Probably best to Make this less on the nose. In the movie taking Liam Neeson’s character wants his daughter back. Anyone would want their daughter back. The difference is that his relationship with his daughter was already bad. Therefore at the end of the movie when he gets her back that emotional relationship has been repaired.
I now understand why my dad has always been a good writer from theatre to TV
Sometimes it's difficult to choose words which have a neutral emotional impact on the reader. Harsh criticism serves no purpose.
The demon too my soul.
Writing can have clarity, at the same it must be emotionally powerful. The importance of what's being said to the plot. Skinny guy in Noting hill express main character esperation over dating even to the simplest detail. What t-shirt should he wear, also the writer is using the clueless nature of the character to comedic effect. Two birds one stone, so to speak. Noting Hill isn't just about boy meets girls the heart of any RomCom but the utter infuriating randomness of it all, Anna Scott walks into William Thacker's book shop. She could have walked into any shop on that street.
1 minute an 50 seconds he talking bout starwars
It's not a difficult concept: A scene must advance the main plot or a subplot. If it doesn't do that then it is of no practical use to the story.
On the nose writing is bad. Its just, subtlety works better no matter the median
"On the nose" can also make a story predictable
"Spectacle Creep"... It's more obvious in TV-shows and Serials, but it's been a thing in storytelling since the dawn of Hollywood... The modern Film Maker is beset on all sides with flashy, shiny crap... With CGI, there's literally NOTHING that you can't do. It can be mediocre rather than polished and "professional"... BUT it can ALWAYS be done, so why not? Right?
BEWARE of sacrificing story for spectacle. It's okay to have a HUGE great explosion at the end of your movie, IF your whole plot was constructed to go against The Imperial Death Star, destroyer of worlds... In such a case, okay then, the only way to destroy a battle-ship the size of a moon (small, medium, or otherwise) is a HUGE explosion. So be it...
BUT did the audience REALLY pay money for a ticket JUST to see fireworks? They bought a ticket to see A MOVIE... If I wanted to go see fireworks, there are places to pay money to DO THAT... I can go to Knob Creek, Kentucky and rent machine guns, blow up old cars, dead refrigerators, and all kinds of junk and targets... I can take a class in safety and make a pass through a "training course" for simulated combat, using a proper assault rifle to eliminate targets that really spring out from behind bushes and trees and stuff along a pre-arranged path through the woods... JUST LIKE Army Jungle Training from back in the day. I can have a LOT of fun if that's all I want...
BUT in a movie? That's obviously not the point that gets money out of my wallet and puts my butt in the seat and my eyes on that screen. There BETTER be more substance to the show than the fireworks.
SO yeah, the temptation is there to make things "larger than life" and to "dream big"... AND it's not that it's "bad" necessarily. Just do NOT let spectacle come at the cost or sacrifice of story... emotional ties... REAL stakes. Besides, when you get a spectacle TOO BIG, the human mind fails utterly to comprehend it, and again, you force a certain detachment.
In the interest of learning to BEST create story, conflict, and drama, it's better to simplify and scale down. Get me to BUY IN at two Characters with relatively small goals, deeply emotional and contextual reasons behind them, and stakes that I can care about... When you can get that without the big explosion, a biblical scale of disaster, or an atrocity that's hard to even watch, THEN you can get out the shiny sh*t and play.
The zombie scene with demons was not particulary good
The interviewee has more clarity than Jason. His serious attention deficit in his thought process makes one lose interest in what he is ejecting.
Reading on-the-nose writing isn't so bad. But when it spews from the screen it splats into the fan. Lazy and boring and predictable and transparent. Only bad writers and directors fail to see how bad on-the-nose plays. Perhaps your sentiments indicate why your films struggle to get more than 4/10 from critics and audiences.
Most writing is on the nose. When you're telling a story on any level you have to be clear about what is happening, or you lose the audience. As for subtext, it doesn't work if the audience doesn't know what's going on.
Seems like a great way to bore your audience to death -- to tell them up front exactly what is going on.
@@j.goebbels2134 Star Wars, Braveheart, Unforgiven and so on. People want to know what's going on.
@@wexwuthor1776 Subtext abounds in all of those. Sure they start with an incident. That shouldn't be surprising. To remove their suspense and dramatic irony through lazy, on-the-nose writing would be a crime: illegally administering sleeping pills to an audience.
I found this to be a rambling mess
This guy is awful at explaining his point
what a load of horsecrap