Novel Using Movies When Discussing Writing Techniques

Rereading a book on writing techniques, I was intrigued that the author pulled almost every example from a famous movie instead of a famous novel. I looked at a few other writing books I have, and many of those authors did the same. I am wondering why.

Is it because most people today are more familiar with movies than books? Or is it because movies are stripped down in a way that novels could never be?

I believe writing for the screen or stage is not the same as writing for the page. These differences extend from structuring a plot to playing with themes.

Therefore, I am wondering, has anyone else noticed writing instructors use movies when talking about how to write for the page, and are movie writing techniques applicable to writing a novel?

 

I think it was Creating Character Arcs, or something like that. I know Truby's Anatomy of Story is screenwriting-focused (but it is STILL a good book).

 

I don't think I would put too much stalk into someone who does this while shelling out writing advice.

 

Citing examples is only instructive if your audience knows the work in question, and movies generally have a broader audience than books. Since KM Weiland’s craft books—like Creating Character Arcs—are targeted at novice writers unfamiliar with Three Act Structure, it makes sense to bring up simple examples as many of them as possible will immediately recognize and understand.

 

I think it's partially to make it more accessible - strangely enough theres a lot of writer-wannabes that don't like reading but they like movies. And some movies have good bones that you can go over whereas in books there can be asides that if mentioned can get confusing and complicate the discussion.

I really liked The Seven Basic Plots by Christopher Booker; he uses both movie and book references.

 

Yeah, I never understood people who don't love reading wanting to write. It is like people who don't love beer wanting to learn to brew.

I haven't read that book, but I have read other 'master plot' books. I never have issues with plot structure (I really like the MICE method for structuring my novelettes), but I struggle with other techniques.

 

It does make sense though. You got people who love anime but aren't going to become animators and make their own movies, so instead they write it. That's something you can do sitting at your desk. Some people love movies but as high-schoolers or grade schoolers or even the average adult they can't form their own movie studio, so they write. If they stick with it they might become great screenwriters, or directors eventually. And the one thing they all have in common—it all begins with writing. In fact if you want to make movies or anime, it would definitely help to learn a few things about writing and get some experience. Experience at every facet of the job is helpful in fact—that was the basis of the apprenticeship system that was the backbone of the Hollywood studio system until a few decades ago—you'd start off as an apprentice. Maybe in the editing department, then you'd move to costumes, then hair and makeup, then screenwriting, then you might become an assistant to an assistant director, and eventually you understand the entire system. That makes for much better and more grounded filmmakers.

And the same principle applies to the arts in general. Things you learn about drawing or painting or music can apply to writing as well, and vice versa, often in suprising ways. And sometimes looking cross-eyed at things like that can lead to breakthroughs. You might take some idea from another artform that nobody has thought to apply before, and find a way to do it.

 

Can you offer an example how drawing or painting techniques is applicable to writing? Or, is it just undergoing the 'creative process' that is transferrable?

 

Not unless you're familiar with all 3 or at least 2 of them, but if you were you most likely wouldn't be asking the question. I already gave an example on your other thread of similarites between writing and film. If you don't acknowledge that then you probably won't acknowledge any other connections. If you didn't seem so resistant to the idea I might try, but it would take a lot of writing, and the outcome seems pretty predictable.

 

What does it matter if one can't form a movie studio or create an anime film? Then the person should be more interested in writing screenplays or storyboarding anime then writing for the page. The forms and expectations of these formats are very different.

 

Yes, he does all that, but he does another thing that helps immensely, and it might be partly genetic talent. He's so well-versed in drawing techniques that he can pre-visualise the image to an astonishing extent. Probably not exactly, but he's definitely able to imagine an invisible perspective grid on the entire surface (even when that surface is a huge wall) and keep everything constrained within it. He's mastered perspective, which I've mentioned before seems to be analogous in some ways to POV in writing—it's the large, all-encompassing framework through which the entire image is presented. When you can visualize something like that well you can draw individual figures and items and keep them all in proper perspective.

His amazing ability to improvise drawings also seems to include some elements analogous to story structure and a solid idea of where it's all headed. These are things you need to understand well in order to effectively improvise a story. Rather than make an outline you just visualise it and hold it in your head as you work, but you need some good familiarity with these concepts and a lot of experience at using them. That doesn't mean you necessarily need to study them formally—some people can pick them up through osmosis without ever knowing the technical terms or being able to explain what they're doing. They might say "I have no idea, I just can see where I need to draw each thing and from what angle."

I wrote about it some on my art blog: Kim Jung Gi and David Finch on the importance of learning how to draw the geometric solids in perspective. I've heard him talk about how he developed this visualization ability. It might be in the video I linked on that blog entry. He says he imagines a little Mini-Me (a small him) floating around in his room seeing objects from various perspectives. He sometimes draws what he sees, but he practices just visualizing a lot without drawing too. This is like what I've heard about the importance of visualization in all the arts. It seems when you become able to visualize something you'll be much better able to create the art, whatever your artform is. I've heard the advice for instance that both painters and writers should "live in the world' and imagine the characters as if they're real living people, and that it's important to let things happen, not force them. This allows you to tap into the deep power and creativity of the unconscious—if you try to force the visualization it's all done by the much weaker conscious mind. I mean, the unconscious creates our dreams, obviously it's a powerful story-and-character-generating engine (an organic one). And fortunately if you harness it while awake it doesn't make such bizarre surreal things like it usually does when you're dreaming.

Kim Jung Gi (the way I learned the spelling) has also mastered every form of perspective grid, including the 5-point or 'fisheye' perspective. It helps to know a few things about photography to understand what that is and how it works, but it's why he can get that special, dizzying 'warped' perspective without losing his bearings.

 

I thought it was in one of the 'pantsing' threads.

 

In college i took Horror and Suspense (a genre fiction class). We watched the shower scene in Psycho when learning how to create atmosphere, drama, and suspense.
Then we watched The Exorcist for "mood" and "tone."
these were always paired with readings. Short stories by Clive Barker.... multiple stories in this anthology called the Uncanny. The point is, he'd have visual examples and pair it with works that do the same but in writing.

(i may be getting this class mixed up with another writing related class.... but it was taught by the same writing professor so i guess its the same....)

 

Some of them do eventually develop an interest in writing for its own sake. But you're asking a lot from 13 year olds or 6 year olds or 20-somethings who maybe are responding more to a love for what they saw in an anime, and haven't yet developed an appreciation for writing as its own artform. In the beginning the passion is the important thing—without that they won't get anywhere. You can study form and structure and become disciplined when you get older. In the beginning you need excitement to pull you through those early years of practice. But I'm not interested in just arguing for the sake of arguing. If somebody already has their mind made up I'm not going to try to change it.

 

Just curious, did you find that discussing a visual medium translate to improving what you wrote on the page?
Personally, I believe that many people who tend to watch more films and TV than reading books write scripts and call them stories. This is what leads to pages of bad dialogue that falls to move the story forward. Why? Because that is what the writer sees on screen.

 

Im a visual person and a visual learner. So my work is more descriptive than dialogue heavy.

The class was enlightening. Even though i had trouble grasping "horror" writing, it helped me see tone and mood.
(Common feed back i got was "its beautifully written... But its not "horror". It does t have to be scary but it has to have a "mood")

 

If that's all they get from those mediums, and they try and put it on a page, then of course that's what will happen. But that's a different question from what you originally posted.

My opinion is that some authors of writing instruction books include movie examples because it's easiest to explain the parts that do cross over, like 3 act structure, character development, etc.

Chuck Palahniuk does this a lot in his book on writing but some of his examples are books that became movies but I still think he was referring to the film versions.

But he also points out that the type of dialogue in say a sitcom, which he calls tennis match dialogue, where there is no slowly building tension in a conversation, is bad in writing. (I wish he gave written examples of this, because all dialogue is technically back and forth between one or more people).

Description isn't as important in screenwriting as that will later be the set/costume designer's task in coordination with the director.

Screenwriters, for example can just put something like 'location: Southern California residence, ~ $5 million' and let the set designers do the rest. But a writer that does that is lazy and asking readers to use too much of their own imagination.

On the other hand, there are things that do well on the page but not on the screen like internal monologue.

It's up to the creator to figure out what will work well in one medium and also in another and find a way to include it. Sometimes you don't know until you try and view the results, but someone has to be the first to try something new and strike out I guess?

 

He was probably referring to 'on the nose' dialogue, with no subtlety or subtext. Its when people say exactly what they mean, which isn't realistic at all. People over the age of 6 (and some below) frequently speak in subtext, where they say one thing but mean something else. A simple and common example is sarcasm. But that might not be what he was referring to, because subtext is actually pretty commonly used even in sitcom dialogue.

Edit—OK, I see this now: "slowly building tension in a conversation". I guess he was talking about exactly that (ironically).

 

The ironic thing about that is, even in a tennis match there can be gradually rising (or suddenly spiking) tension. But I think he means in the sense of a boring tennis match. Tension is something that's often weak or missing in contemporary stories and movies.

 

@JSBernstein

It’s a lovely point you make. The image from a movie scene is instantaneous in all heads when described. This is much more so than any written novel. Yet how often do you hear coming out of the cinema “great movie, but the book is better...”?

Using movies gives a good single clear reference point that stands out over any subtle show from a novel. That is why one would use a movie as a reference.

READ The Seven Basic Plots by Christopher Booker. He uses movies, tv, books play legends and song to tell tales. However, they are all anchored around 7 basic arcs. It’s a thick book, but a truly amazing piece of work. No spoilers but he will surprise you how certain tropes are connected.

For me its about writing that goes at pace with instant imagery like a movie. Think Jack Reacher by Lee Child. However, adding easter egg technical structure to a novel will kill the pace but not enjoyment. Think Patrick O’Brien novels.

A movie can in seconds get across an image that would take chapters from a book. But try to write a book sequel for a movie. Balance and pace... Yep, I’ve noticed many if not all writing instructors use a movie refence when talking about a scene. The reason is a common denominator that you’ve seen the movie and get the analogy.

The idea is to inspire you to write. Not techniques on how to... but inspire that is all

My view only, and take it for what it’s worth


MartinM