Bob-Odenkirk-Nobody-Film-Review-2

One of the struggles of being a screenwriter is trying to decode the matrix that is the feature length screenplay. If you could master all the individual pieces and put them together like so, you’d be living the dream – making a living off screenwriting. But decoding the matrix is a lot harder than it looks on the surface. There are an untold number of variables that need to come together in just the right way for a screenplay to work.

One of things I’ve found helpful is identifying what your CORE SCREENWRITING PHILOSOPHY is. What this allows you to do is measure any script you’ve written against that philosophy to see where you’re making mistakes. If your philosophy is A, B, and C and your script is B H and Q, you know you have to replace H and Q with A and C.

Conversely, if you’re just winging it – if you’re just making up new rules with every screenplay you write – you can expect a lot of failure because you’re always in uncharted territory. So what I thought I’d do today is share my screenwriting philosophy. Ironically, I didn’t have this philosophy as a writer. I formulated it once I started consulting because I realized that 90% of writers were making the same mistakes. Namely, they were making their screenplays way too complicated in one area or another.

So what is my philosophy?

Simple story, complex characters.

Yeah yeah, I know. Not revolutionary. I believe this is Pixar’s philosophy and a few other screenwriting professors out there. But I adopted it because it works.

Let’s talk about this in more detail. What do I mean by “simple story?” A simple story is a story with an easy-to-follow plot. Some movies that you may be familiar with that follow this formula: A Quiet Place, Nobody, 1917, The Invisible Man, Parasite, Uncut Gems, Aliens, Good Boys, Lion.

In every single one of these films, a clear story is laid out. A Quiet Place – survive an onslaught of aliens. Nobody – take out a drug lord. 1917 – deliver a message. The Invisible Man – survive, and ultimately defeat, the ghost of a dead husband. Parasite – a poor family tries to take over a rich family’s home. Uncut Gems – A man has to make enough money on betting in a single day to pay off his debtors. Aliens – Go and kill all the aliens. Good Boys – Retrieve an expensive drone. Lion – A grown man tries to find his parents.

We are never confused about anything that’s happening in these stories because they KEEP THEIR PLOTS SIMPLE. Now let’s look at a few films that didn’t follow this rule: Tenet, Cloud Atlas, Glass, Ready Player One, Wonder Woman 1984, Alien Covenant. Note how all of these films fell apart halfway through their viewing, if not sooner, for believing that MORE STORY COMPLEXITY was better.

What was driving the story in Cloud Atlas? Who knows? There were too many characters and too many timelines to keep track of. What was going on in Tenet? I don’t know. There were a thousand different rules, many of which seemed to contradict each other. The script also had too many “guy behind the guy behind the guy” moments. Glass? There was literally no point to that movie other than to see three people with “sort-of” powers being kept in a mental ward. Ready Player One – More like Ready Player What The Hell Is Going On There’s Way Too Much Plot In This Movie. Wonder Woman 1984 – We don’t even have to get to how disastrous the plot was with WW1984 as it couldn’t even decide what genre it was (Romantic Comedy? Action Superhero?). Alien Covenant – Probably the best example since you can compare it to one of the best action sci-fi films ever, Aliens. Aliens = go kill the aliens. Alien Covenant = Go to a planet, look for source of distress call, find a few aliens, learn there used to be a civilization here, a robot meets a version of himself, they hang out, the people try to figure out whether to leave or stay?

Simple story, guys. Adapt that mindset and it’s going to make your screenwriting life A WHOLE LOT EASIER.

On to the second half of the equation – complex characters.

Why does the story have to be simple but the characters complex? Why not the other way around? Because there’s nothing more frustrating than watching a film where you don’t know what’s going on. You don’t have to worry about that as much on the character end. Sure, you can overload a character to the point where we lose our feel for them. But audiences like characters who have depth, who are interesting, who are dynamic.

Which brings us to “what is a complex character?”

A complex character is any character that is experiencing conflict both internally and externally. The external part is a given. That’s what the movie is for – to put a bunch of stress on your hero (aliens trying to kill Ripley, for example). But you can add more than just concept conflict. You can add conflict from other characters.

In a lot of movies, you’ll see broken family relationships as an issue. An absent father. A married couple who separates. Sibling rivalry. A deceased family member. Any element of external stress you place on your character makes them more “complex.” Peter Quill (Guardians of the Galaxy) lost his mother. That loss defines almost everything about him. This is even more true for one of the most famous characters of all time, Bruce Wayne. The loss of a parents birthed one of the most powerful characters ever.

The trick with broken family relationships is that there has to be some authenticity to the way you write them. If all you’re doing is creating a “daddy didn’t hug me enough” character because people like me told you to, it won’t work. You need to dig into your own life and expose some of your own family experiences to make that feel honest. And if you didn’t have those experiences yourself, draw on your friends’ experiences. If you just try to make it up out of whole cloth, it won’t work.

Once you’ve got the external taken care of, you want to move to the internal. This is an area where a lot of writers get it wrong because it can be confusing. Some people say give your character a fatal flaw. Others say give your character some “inner conflict.” Others say give your character a “vice,” like alcohol or sex addiction. A lot of writers don’t know the difference between these things and they don’t know if you’re only supposed to use one, two, or all of them.

Here’s the way I look at it. Your character should be going through at least one INTERNAL STRUGGLE. That struggle can be a flaw. That struggle can be some sort of inner conflict. That struggle can be addiction. Take your pick. The important thing is that there is a struggle. Because struggle tends to be the thing that makes characters interesting.

One of the reasons Michael Corleone (The Godfather) is considered one of the best characters ever is because his internal struggle is so intense. Does he continue to live a good honest life or does he submit to a life of crime in the family business? More recently, you have a character like Wade Wilson (Deadpool). His internal struggle is the inability to be with the woman he loves because he looks like a monster. That’s the baggage he carries throughout that story (and the baggage he eventually overcomes).

You can go with traditional fatal flaws as well. A flaw is just an internal belief system that is holding your character back in life. A “fear that you are not enough” is a flaw. Being stubborn is a flaw. Being too prideful is a flaw. Thinking that the world is against you is a flaw. Always putting yourself before others (selfishness) is a flaw. Always putting others before yourself (selflessness) is a flaw. Keep in mind movies are about taking these internal belief systems (or flaws) to the extreme. It’s okay to put yourself first. But if you’re doing it to the point where it’s destroyed all of the relationships in your life, then it’s a serious flaw that needs fixing.

What happens when you have too simple of a character? Go watch Dunkirk. A technical masterpiece. But do you feel anything during that movie? Very little. Because there was zero complexity to any of the characters.

I’m already anticipating that some of you are going to bring up films like Avengers. Or Fast and Furious. Or Star Wars. “Those stories,” you will say, “are anything but simple. So why do they get passes?” I agree with this assessment to a point. With so many characters to keep track of, it’s impossible for the story not to get complex. However, here’s the thing that those movies do that keep them on track. They tell you the goal IN BIG BRIGHT LIGHTS. And then, fifteen minutes later THEY TELL YOU AGAIN. Fifteen minutes later, THEY REMIND YOU OF THE GOAL. Fifteen minutes later, HEY! REMEMBER THE GOAL! HERE IT IS AGAIN!!!” In other words, they know their story is complex so they go out of their way to remind you what’s going on. And they often choose plot points that are easy to understand. For all the craziness going on the final two Avengers movies, we’re never lost because the goal – STOP THANOS!!!!!! – is so clear. So if you are writing a movie that has some intricate plotting, keep that in mind. You want to keep reminding the reader what the point is.

As I wrap this up, I’ll remind you that this is my screenwriting philosophy. It doesn’t have to be yours. But you should have one. Or you should be in the process of figuring out what your philosophy is. That way, whenever one of your scripts goes haywire, you’ll know how to get it back on track.

So I ask you, what’s your screenwriting philosophy?