“Where did you dig up that old fossil?” – Han Solo, Star Wars: A New Hope
If there’s one criticism that speaks terror to the heart of screenwriters (especially newer ones), it is the word, “formulaic”. This innocent sounding criticism has become the dreaded “f-word” that writers try their utmost to avoid. But what does it really mean? Is it really that big of a deal? And why do we hear it cropping up so much in people’s criticism of the latest installment in the Star Wars universe, The Force Awakens? Are they right?
“A long time ago…”
One could fill volumes on the history of storytelling. Since the early evidences of writing and pictographs, mankind has sought to relate tales to others through forms of inscription or verbal transmission. Even a casual glance at this evolution of storytelling will show that there are some very specific modes and methods for relating events (real or imagined) to other people. Many experts have even gone to the extent of theorizing that there are only a few set stories that mankind has based all others off of. 19th century author and literary critic, Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch made a study of this and identified seven distinct story frames that encapsulate all other stories.
Fast-forward to the 20th century and we introduce writer and “mythologist”, Joseph Campbell and his concept of the “monomyth”. His theory is that every tale has its roots in common patterns and elements that hint at a single, grand, original narrative. This concept, along with a large amount of influence coming from Carl Jung’s research on human psychology, gave birth to a central pattern study that would become known as, The Hero’s Journey. Campbell’s landmark book, “The Hero of a Thousand Faces” details this Hero’s Journey and should be a must have in every writer’s library.
“You’ve taken your fist step into a much larger world.” – Obi-Wan Kenobi, Star Wars: A New Hope
Campbell’s analysis reveals a nineteen phase process that remarkably reflects the progression of just about every known story we have record of. In essence, he discovered the (here it comes…) FORMULA for how human beings tell stories. This is not a construct of Hollywood, or some new fad plaguing the modern writer. It has literally been around since the beginning of recorded history. Several notable writers, screenwriters and literary critics have gone on to refine Campbell’s research and adapt it to their own needs and audiences. Another must have in every writers library is Christopher Vogler’s expert adaptation of Campbell’s work, “The Writer’s Journey”, where he simplifies the formula down to 12 stages. He is not alone; screenwriting legend Syd Field, Linda Seger, William Goldman, Michael Hague, Lew Hunter, Robert McKee, Lojos Egri, Jeffrey Alan Schechter, and even hailing all the way back to Aristotle’s Poetics, all teach variations of this same idea. Telling stories has a form. So what is the difference between form, and formulaic?
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.” - Indigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
In the past ten years or so, critics and audiences have become more and more aware of this writing form that is seen in most of our films, and stories. This, combined with unprecedented exposure to non-stop media consumption due to mobile devices, vast libraries of films and television supplied by streaming services, and the ease of sharing ideas through social media, has given birth to the notion that “all Hollywood films are the same”. People have bemoaned the lack of originality and have branded virtually every film of the last decade as “formulaic”. A target of much of this stone throwing has been the late writer, Blake Snyder and his concise but controversial book, “Save the Cat! The Last Book On Screenwriting That You’ll Ever Need”. Published in 2005, this text continues the already established tradition of rebranding Campbell’s work on the Hero’s Journey and adapting it specifically to new screenwriters. Snyder, breaks the plotting process down to 15 beats and also gives the readers approximate page counts as a type of landmark to see if their pacing is on track. The popularity of this book and the fact that Snyder’s “system” is so accurate in not only today’s films, but the films of years past, has received disdain from critics as being something of a curse, and an object to blame for “why every movie feels the same.”
Those seeking to blame “Save the Cat” demonstrate a lack of understanding the history of storytelling as well as failing to realize that virtually every other instructional writing book is saying the same thing. What they are saying is, once again, people have always told stories a certain way, and this is how to do it in a film. What these critics also fail to realize is that in all of these books, the authors clearly state that this system is just a basic form, a guideline, for what works. By no means is it to be followed slavishly or considered to be ironclad. In Jeffrey Alan Schechter’s entertaining book, “My Story Can Beat Up Your Story”, he explains that this “approach to building a story is… holistic.” (Schechter 2011, p.xv) But why do we stick to this approach? Why can’t Hollywood build something new, for a change?
This comparison of writing a story, and specifically a screenplay, to construction is a valuable one and a comparison that other writers have noted as well. Another essential text, (have you started making a list yet?) is David Mamet’s slim but insightful volume, “On Directing Film”. In it, he recounts a time during the 1960’s, while at an architectural school in Vermont, a trend arose that identified as “Counterculture Architecture”. These designers wanted to break away from the “stifling” confines of traditional architecture and build structures based on what they “felt”. In short, these counterculture buildings were disasters. They ignored the rules of what made these structures stand and settled for trying to make something different just so they weren’t the same. These well established rules of architecture were merely blueprints on how to keep a building standing through time. Ignoring them meant failure. (Mamet 1991, p.57-58) Screenwriting form is much the same. Following this established blueprint is the skeletal structure on how to make the story work. However, this does not mean every story is exactly the same. Sure, there are “cookie cutter” homes (and films) that do heavily mimic one another. But to throw the entire industry under the bus and try and blame it on a “Cat” is simply a failure to understand the craft. As Mamet so succinctly put, “film is design”. (Mamet 1991, p. 59) So what makes up the design of “The Force Awakens”? And is it fair to call it a rip-off or remake of “A New Hope” and other earlier films?
“The circle is now complete.” – Darth Vader, Star Wars: A New Hope
By now it should be clear that much of the argument that “The Force Awakens” is formulaic, or a rip-off of prior films, is simply the observation of this essential storytelling structure being in use. However, critics are also pointing to specific plot points in the film and seeing similarities in prior films, and come away thinking they have witnessed yet another example of lazy Hollywood writers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
First off, this is a series. A series is defined as a group of sequential thing that possess a similarity or relatedness to each other. So to complain that “The Force Awakens” uses a huge planet-destroying machine and prior films use similar devices, is like complaining that “Furious 7” is an obvious rip-off because they keep featuring fast cars. Can you imagine someone being upset that Indiana Jones is searching for a hidden relic, again? I mean, he already did that once! As a series, Star Wars will always have similar, familiar elements. That’s how series work.
We are all familiar with old adage, art imitates life. As we progress through life we see our roles evolve and change with each successive generation picking up the mantles we leave behind. This evolution IS life. So to see a reflection of this in Star Wars and specifically the 30 years removed, “The Force Awakens”, is not only not a case of a rip off, but a believable turning of the pages of time that we can all relate to. Of course there’s a new hot-shot pilot. Of course there’s the “New Hope” of a promising young Jedi. These elements are not mindless reboots of a past economic success, but a realistic transition of the phases of life common to all of humanity.
The other brilliant element of the writing of “The Force Awakens” is it’s blending of new, with familiar. Screenwriters Lawrence Kasdan, J.J. Abrams and Michael Ardnt, did a fantastic job of allowing the audience to get used to new characters and some new entities, in a construct that is familiar to us. Part of the difficulty with the Star Wars prequels, is that from the opening frames, everything was new. Even with some familiar names like Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker, and Tatooine, we were presented with new faces, new places and a different story element that really cleverly combined trade politics and backdoor deals to set up war profiteering on a galactic scale. Everything was new, and I feel many people got lost or felt a sense of disconnect. With “The Force Awakens”, we get many familiar components as we are introduced to a few new characters, alongside our old favorites that we all know well. Indeed this idea of giving the audience something “familiar, but with a twist” is EXACTLY how producers are instructing writers and directors to construct their films.
“You must unlearn what you have learned.” – Yoda, Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
As we consume more and more media, we are faced with an evolving awareness, criticism and responses. Again, hailing back to the notion that everyone with a social media account and a voice has a desire to be heard and noticed, many people are falling into the trap of forming strong criticisms and biases based on incorrect notions or ignorance. There is inherently nothing wrong with this, everyone has the right to express his or her opinion, right or wrong. However, it would help if people spent a bit more time in seeking out the meat behind the sensationalist headlines and the sophomoric attitude of being anti-establishment simply for the sake of attention, or even worse, “clicks”. This is an extremely exciting time to be involved in the film and television business. Indeed even the notion that it’s limited to film and television, is becoming outdated and now includes a wide variety of web based media outlets. In order to fill those outlets with content, companies are constantly on the lookout for product to fill their time slots. The market for talented writers, directors, actors and producers has never been richer. However, in the efforts to fast track your burgeoning career, don’t forget to familiarize yourself with the history of your craft. Become an expert and don’t fall prey to those that are just looking to create web traffic. For us writers, that means gaining a solid understanding of story structure, tempo, and pacing. Embrace the blueprint, and then allow your inner interior decorator to turn your stalwart structure into an original masterpiece. Be better. Be productive. Be wonderful.
Now… Back to One!