

These things write themselves!
A man waiting at a lonely crossroads suddenly realizes that a cropduster pilot is plunging down towards him with death in his eyes. Why? A house lifts up out of the city, carried aloft by thousands of helium balloons. Who’s in it? Where’s it going?This is one of the most exciting but dangerous ways to generate an idea. You’re essentially starting with the poster: an arresting image that would make anybody want to see more. All that you’re missing is characters and a plot and a theme. The danger, of course, is that once your hero comes to life, he’ll think of easier ways to get down to the Amazon. If you start in the middle, there’s no guarantee that your hero will want to get there.
I’ve had an image in my head for a while: a horde of Tyrannosauruses rampaging down the streets of modern day New York. How did they get there? And who will discover the cause of the problem? And why will the audience love that character? And what does any of this have to do with any genuine emotion of mine? Most importantly, what is the metaphor here? The image gives me none of this. It’s just a great poster.
Ultimately, it’s much more organic to start with a universal emotion and extrapolate an extreme situation from it, rather than starting with an extreme situation and reducing it back down to the emotion at its core. But it can work either way, if you’re very careful.
Pixar is especially good at this. I would imagine that most of their movies began with an image (toys coming to life, a mouse-chef in a human kitchen, a ruined planet covered in trash), but they don’t move forward until they’ve connected those concepts to very universal emotions.
Movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre imagined what it might be like to be one of the Gein’s victims, but Bloch’s genius was to ask himself, “How could I make this guy sympathetic?” (The answer, as always, was a disapproving parent.)
Likewise Zoe Heller’s novel “Notes on a Scandal”, which Patrick Marbur adapted into an excellent movie of the same name, dared to find empathy with a female high school teacher who begins a sexual relationship with a student. The title of the American release of the book spelled out the source of Heller’s idea: She read a spate of news stories about similar cases and wondered, “What Was She Thinking?”
The most famous example of all was probably Citizen Kane. Far from being the cruel denunciation that William Randolph Hearst imagined it to be, the movie is actually an extraordinary act of empathy. Welles may have set out to topple a giant, but he wound up ennobling his deeply-flawed target. Instead of finding a villain in Hearst, he found a kindred spirit, and the movie acts as an unheeded cautionary tale for Welles’s own life.
And you don’t have to go all the way into science-fiction. Take High Fidelity: I doubt that Nick Hornby ever actually called up all of his exes going back to elementary school and asked them what was wrong with him, but as soon as he had the idea, he knew it would make for a good novel and movie.And Jonathan Ames obviously didn’t actually chuck his writing career to become a cragslist-private-eye, but he considered it long enough to realize that it could make for a good TV series.
All three of the above stories worked, but be warned that this can also be a way to generate dubious gimmick-driven hokum like Yes Man, in which a man says yes to everything for a year, or self-indulgent messes like Synecdoche, NY, about a man who transforms his whole life into an elaborate theater piece.
These are all stories about the sort of grand romantic gestures that people make in their head but never in real life. The difference is that the first three projects are all about characters who come to realize the folly of their grand conceit, whereas the latter two stories supposed that these enterprises could be a source of profundity.
Ultimately, there’s a reason that we only do these sorts of things in our heads. If you’re going to try to turn one of these grand romantic gestures into a movie, then your hero needs to come to realize this sort of self-indulgence is a bad idea.
One problem with serial killer movies is that the victims are over-motivated to stop the killers. A serial killer is so obviously evil that opposing one is a no-brainer. If fears are perfectly rational, then your story runs the risk of being too generic. If you want to write a story that’s specific to your character’s psychology, then make your character’s most irrational fears come true.
Every pregnant woman suffers the occasional fleeting fear that this process is actually entirely unnatural and there’s a monster growing in her belly… That’s why Rosemary’s Baby resonates so powerfully.
And this doesn’t just work for horror movies. Who hasn’t idly wondered, in their more paranoid moments, “What if everyone around me is in on a secret? What if my life is secretly being manipulated for the amusement of others?” The Truman Show made those fears come to life in an especially trippy way.These movies work not simply because the audience worries about Rosemary and Truman, but because we feel a creeping sense of dread that our own craziest fears are being exposed to all the world and made manifest. We can’t help but wonder: if this fear can come true, what’s to stop all the others??
It’s fascinating to go back and re-watch the first six episodes of “30 Rock”. All of the elements of greatness were there, but they didn’t add up, because the show hadn’t found its focus. Liz’s boss yelled at her, to little effect, and she yelled at her employees, to little effect. The individual characters were hilarious, but these were all relationships we had seen before.
Then, suddenly, in episode six, everything snaps into place, and the show re-centers itself around a new, never-before-seen-on-TV relationship. Despite the fact that she’s a loosey-goosey ultra-liberal girl-about-town, Liz reluctantly accepts an ongoing offer of mentorship from Jack, her type-A ultra-right ultra-sexist boss. This odd but mutually beneficial mentor-mentee relationship quickly became the heart of the show, and it has been ever since.
As I’ve said before, movies are defined not by unique characters but by unique relationships. This is good because we’ve already seen every type of character onscreen before. I’ve met a lot of oddballs in my life, but none that were totally unlike anything I’d seen onscreen. There’s always some movie somewhere that’s already gone there. Likewise with the heroes, villains, and love interests I’ve encountered. But I’ve had plenty of relationships that I’ve never seen onscreen before.
Think about times in your life when a teacher suddenly needed your help, or a favor turned into an bizarre feud, or a love affair turned into something else entirely. If this was a fascinating relationship that we haven’t seen onscreen before, then you’ll find a treasure trove of fresh, un-cliched emotions that you can tap into.
Can you find relationships from your life that are as incongruous as those seen in Paper Moon, Midnight Run, Election, etc? If not, you can always invent one from scratch. Simply take two very different types of characters and force them to rely on each other in a unique way.
Add a counterpoint—an oddly funny note in a serious scene, or a deeper note in a comedy scene. On TV, “Mad Men” does this beautifully. At the movies, the Coen brothers have made a career of it. (I think of the scene from The Man Who Wasn’t There where Frances McDormand, in jail, tries to confess her infidelity to her husband, but can’t stop complaining about the blubbering inmate next to her at the visitors’ table.)
Make sure at least one character talks about something that has nothing to do with the plot. This needn’t be idle chit-chat that stops the conflict, it can actually be another source of conflict. As I pointed out before, the person your hero has to talk to shouldn’t be sitting around waiting to have a conversation, they should have something else they want and need to do, forcing the hero to compete for their attention.This can be an oddball distraction that adds to the hero’s frustration whenever they try to move the conversation back to more serious topics, like the inspector’s wife’s culinary adventures in Frenzy, or Gene Hackman’s attempts to build his house in Unforgiven. Or it can be a red herring that threatens to derail the conversation…
My all-time favorite dialogue scene is not from a screenplay or play but a novel. No one wrote better dialogue that than the late Ed McBain, who wrote 55 novels about the detectives of the 87th precinct. Way back in the second novel, 1956’s “The Pusher”, they’re after a big dealer and so they arrest a small fry to get information. They ask him his last name: “Hemingway”. They ask him his first name: “Ernest”. They get mad and threaten to beat him, but he doesn’t understand why. They snort that they doubt that just happens to be his name, too. He insists that he has no idea what they’re talking about.They gradually realize that this guy has gone through life with this name and yet he’s never once heard of the author of the same name, which makes it very clear how utterly bleak his upbringing was. The dealer, meanwhile, is stunned to realize that his father, who he never met, gave him the name of some famous manly-man before he disappeared—a message about how to act that he failed to receive until now… All of this is just a distraction from the business of the scene: getting the guy to give up his supplier, but what a distraction. I can’t remember who dunnit at the end of the novel, but this heartbreaking little scene has always stayed with me.
If your heroine has to say something to her now-married crush, and he ushers her into another room for the conversation, have it be his bedroom and not his living room. Every time she takes a step closer or farther from that bed, she’ll feel it.As I mentioned before, The Town does it wrong. A bank robber has to woo the teller that he held up, so he meets with her at a Laundromat, then a Dunkin’ Donuts, then a community garden. These are neutral locations. If he has to talk to her again, why not force him to go back to the bank to do it? That’s a very uncomfortable location for him. It will constantly remind both him and the audience of the essential danger of this relationship.
This is your world. If you create a setting with subtextual meaning, then that’s one less thing you have to cram into the text. You take the burden off the dialogue. Don’t make your characters keep saying what they’re worried about, put what they’re worried about in the room, between them and their goal, and force them to physically go over, under, or through it to get what they want.
Don’t get embarrassed. The audience is far more accepting of unlikely locations than they are of melodramatic dialogue. If you give your actors a lot to react to, then they get to underact. If you make them churn up all the drama through dialogue, then they have to overact. Make it easy for them by choosing a location that is as extreme as you can get away with. Don’t just lower your archaeologist into an ancient crypt, make it an ancient crypt filled with snakes (after you’ve pre-loaded the scene by mentioning that he really hates snakes). Don’t just put him undercover at a Nazi rally, put him face-to-face with Hitler! Now you’ve got a memorable scene.
1) Is this scene a reversal or merely an escalation? I used to think that every scene had to be a reversal, but ironically, this quickly becomes boring. In every scene, the character is trying to get to the next step, but they cannot always succeed. In some scenes, the tension should not break, so that the problem merely escalates. These scenes may lead the hero to change tactics, but not change course. Rather, the hero just recommits with a little more knowledge and a little more intensity.
2) Which questions will be answered and what new questions will be asked? The best way to get from scene to scene without jarring the audience is by having the first shot of this scene answer a question posed, explicitly or implicitly, by the last shot of the previous scene, so that’s the first question you’re answering. But if you want to move the plot forward you’ll reach back and answer other outstanding questions as well, then ask some new ones…
The most obvious way to do this is to have the character ask an unanswered question out loud (“How could he be murdered in a locked room?”), but the shot itself can also pose questions (Whose point of view is this?) Cutting to a new person asks a question (Who is this person? Are they important?). Showing a mysterious action works too (What’s this character trying to do?)…
In a movie like Soderbergh’s Ocean’s Eleven, sometimes we know what the heroes are doing and so the question we ask is, “Will it work?” Other times we don’t know and so our question becomes, “What are they up to?” Usually the next scene answers these questions, but sometimes we get no answer until the end of the story, when we can finally see the full picture. Of course, if you put too many enigmatic scenes in a row, you’ll lose your audience. But if you have too many scenes that just set questions up and then knock ‘em down, then the story will seem plodding and episodic, not building a larger narrative. Mix quick pay-offs with longer mysteries.
3) What opportunities are there to reveal a little bit more about a character’s past (whether they’re in the scene or not)? One thing I’ve learned about exposition is this: never info-dump when you can info-drip. We all hate scenes in which the hero gazes off into the distance and tells us about their childhood. Instead, sprinkle teasing tidbits of information about the larger world of your characters throughout the story...Instead of stopping the story to tell your audience and bunch of info they didn’t ask for, you get to tease it out bit by bit, so that this, too, becomes a source of suspense. What is this incident they don’t want to talk about? Why happened in Paris? What happened in Chinatown? Why is that musical pocketwatch so important to him?
Once you know what you need to do, the question becomes where to do it? We’ll pick up there tomorrow…
Screenwriters, playwrights and novelists have a wonderful tool that serialized writers lack: we can write backwards. If you find you’ve run into trouble with a scene, or a character, or a plot, don’t try to plow forward and write your way out of it. Plow backwards, and bury the seed of the solution far enough in the past that it’ll be ready to sprout just when you need it. As with most other problems in life, the best time to fix a scene is before it starts:
Think of the scene in Singles where Bridget Fonda sneezes and her humbled ex-boyfriend Matt Dillon automatically mumbles, “Bless you.” That’s it, but it’s a wonderful love scene, because we had heard her tell a friend many scenes back about how heartbreaking it was that he never said that. Rather than put them in that elevator and force them to spew reams of dialogue about how he’s changed and how she’s maybe ready to believe him, we get a wonderful two word scene that convinces us they will get back together, because the writer was clever enough to lay the groundwork beforehand.
Audiences love this. We love learning the secret language of characters. We love knowing that, for her, “bless you” means, “I love you.” We love it especially when we forget all about it, then see it suddenly pay off much later. Only if we know the characters’ expectations beforehand can we experience the same emotion reactions at the same time as they do. This is true emotional identification.