Customer Reviews

Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting

5 star:		(56)
4 star:		(18)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(11)
1 star:		(15)

 

 

Reading reader reviews of books on writing for the screen is about like reading reviews of movies: There's a lot of disagreement between the eyes of beholders. I sometimes think I should ask the reviewers at Mr. Showbiz what I should get high on before going to see what they consider a masterpiece.

"Screenplay" was sent to me by a movie producer who asked me to write a screenplay for a book I wrote. When I lamented that I knew nothing about writing screenplays, he said the book he'd just read proved to him I could write; all I needed was to understand some important aspects of the screenplay vs. the book.

I've learned a lot from Syd Field. "Screenplay" clearly showed me the visual aspects of film, "It's all about pictures," Field stresses over and over. If I learned nothing else from him, how to put a screenplay into professional format would make "Screenplay" worth the trip.

Sure, I had to study the book, go back over it several times before I got this, or that. But gosh, diving into writing screenplays isn't like a lesson in Microsoft Windows -- click here, drag that over there.

There's a lot to learn, and Syd Field offers a lot of guidance for the serious student. I don't care if he's never written a screenplay. Some of the very best book editors wrote nothing except editorial marks on others' works. The fabled Scribner's editor of old, Max Perkins, who brought some of their best out of Scott Fitzgerald, Hemingway, James Jones, Marjorie Kennan Rawlings, etc. etc., never wrote a book.

I'll say this: If you want to read a book on screenplays and put it down with the feeling you're ready to roll, don't bother with anybody's book on the subject. But if you really want to learn, if you have the requisite creativity -- AND gritty energy -- you'll get your money's worth from Syd Field's "Screenplay."

Also, his "Four Screenplays" has been very helpful to me. Field has a way of reinforcing things by saying them a different way, in a different setting. I really didn't get his advice to "get into a scene late and get out early" until I read this book. And didn't he pick some dandies? "Thelma and Louise" and "The Silence of the Lambs" are the two I studied most diligently, and what a ride it's been. Two great, great movies, to my mind, both demonstrating what Syd Field repeatedy shows us are important elements of fine screenplays.

One other thing, Field's coaching has put a tiny new edge on my writing skills as regards books, too, a benefit he probably didn't expect a writer would obtain.

Syd Field's SCREENPLAY is a great book for a beginner. The author takes the reader through the basic steps of writing a screenplay, from the first idea to fleshing out the characters to the structure of the entire piece. He explains what a set-up is (and what it needs to be) and tips for beginning and ending the screenplay, two of the more difficult tasks a writer will face. Perhaps most importantly for those who have never written a script before, he devotes a chapter to the screenplay format, showing indentation and capitalization rules, defining terms used within the script, and explaining abbreviations.

Novices to the form should start with this book before moving to more advanced books. I also recommend studying actual professional screenplays in their entirety.

For the absolute beginner with no clue how to write a screenplay, this book (for better or for worse) is probably essential reading. It effectively describes the basic structure of a basic screenplay. The problem is that what Syd Field does not realize is that many truly great screenplays effectively break his "rules." Granted, that is only done by accomplished screenwriter who spent years following the rules when they wrote screenplays. But the fact of the matter is that if all screenwriters followed Field's advice to the letter, Hollywood cinema would be even worse off than it currently is!

A few examples: Field insists that a good screenplay's first plot point must occur around page thirty. The first plot point in Star Wars (a film Field makes reference to) occurs around page fifty. Additionally, I would love to see Field sort out the plot points of Pulp Fiction and fit it into his beloved paradigm!

Field insists that a good screenplay must have three acts. Shakespeare wrote the bulk of his works in five acts. Enough said.

Field claims that "a name is a name" as he names a character Sara Towsend in an example exercise. Would Huckleberry Finn have had the same magic if Huck had been named Jim Johnson? Dickens' names added another dimension to his stories, Oliver Twist for example. Other names to consider: Scarlett O'Hara, Yossarian, or even Dr. Wilbur Larch, as a more modern example. To Field's credit, he focuses on building a character in the same chapter that he downplays the importance of names. Undoubtably, what's inside a character is more important than the label slapped on him or her. But equally undoubtable is the ability of the perfect name to enhance an effective character.

I could nit-pick this book apart chapter by chapter, but the most troubling issue surrounding "Screenplay" is this: Syd Field is an awful screenwriter. He wrote a decent how-to book on the subject, but he can't write a screenplay himself. If you have a copy, take note of how the "about the author" section doesn't mention any screenplays Field has had produced. There's a reason for that. Then read the exerpt from Field's unproduced screenplay "The Run" in chapter 13 and you'll begin to understand. The story premise is laughable and the dialogue is an embarassment to screenwriters everywhere.

The bottom line: "Screenplay" is an fine choice for beginning screenwriters. It was my first screenwriting book and it gave me a good foundation. Just don't expect to follow Field's instructions to the letter if you want to write a truly unique and memorable screenplay. A better idea: read lots of screenplays, plays, and novels by people who are actually good at writing them.

I won't go into why Syd Field is a mistake. Plenty of reviewers have written at length about it (myself included). Instead, I offer 2 alternatives. These are two of the best books I've read on narrative structure:

"The Tools of Screenwriting" by David Howard and
"Good Scripts, Bad Scripts" by Thomas Pope

These 2 books go a long way towards providing a structural understanding of how and why stories work or do not work. It's not snappy dialogue, great performances, direction & cinematography, or even a collection of great scenes that make a great story. It's the STRUCTURE of the entire script/film that makes it work or not work. These books offer a good explanation of the components of drama and provide thorough case studies of numerous films. They also avoid the other big trap of working from some "universal" STORY MODEL. Things like the Hero's Journey or Mythic Structure, or other phrases tossed around all too often.

Having said that, these books ONLY cover story structure. Things like script formatting, characterization, backstory, etc., are outside the scope of these books. They are not how-to screenwriting books. Instead they teach something far more important - how to understand (and hopefully create) good stories.

Screenplay is a fine book, in a sense, simply because it has achieved such popularity that it has affected what studios expect from spec screenplays. A lot of it still holds true: most screenplays seem to have a "three act structure", whether or not the writer was thinking in these terms; most screenplays are very formulaic and created with buzzwords and phrases like "less black per page" and "show don't tell" in mind... Basically, most people want an easy paint-by-numbers approach to screenwriting. And all too often the paint-by-numbers crowd gets something produced (thankfully, most of them fail).

The problem with this book is that the "Syd Field paradigm" isn't such a hot thing anymore. Movies such as Pulp Fiction, LA Confidential, and Unforgiven, to name a few, have shown us and Hollwood that story is much more important than structure. The other major problem is that many suggestions within the book will get your work rejected at a glance. For instance, Syd Field basically suggests that we "direct on the page" when he advises occasional references to camera angles, reverses, POV, and close-ups in the slug line. Bad idea.

I found this book interesting but creatively stifling and a bit misleading. The author has his heart in the right place but seems a bit too sure of his theories.

Story and creativity are much more important than structure. The best way to tell if you're "on track" with your story is to ask yourself, "Do I like this?" Don't ask yourself, "How can I get Act One to end on page 27?"

This a great book for any writer. I picked it off a bookstore shelf back in 1980 and it changed my life. Suddenly I knew about structure. It told me what I needed to know. It was the key that opened the door to understanding, not just movies, but books, stories, essays and now I write my speeches based on the same structural moments. I look at movies and follow the structure and I know a good from a bad speaker depending on how his speech is formed and written. This book is the best little friend a writer can have and I would recommend it to anyone who needs to find the right way to grab an audience. As a matter of fact, I have given it to many friends who talk about writing. The screenwriters workbook is the companion volume to this book and together, they teach a writer how to find the basic structure.

Yes, there are more advanced books and more comprehensive books. And there are so many books on writing that you can buy, but when it comes to the basics and the most important elements of writing, this is it. Thank you Syd Field.

Many of the previous reviews have concentrated on the fact that Syd Field has given seminars on screenwriting, as if this fact makes him less worthy to write a book. They couldn't be more wrong. While Field has given seminars, he IS quite qualified. It is true that he has no "official" screenwriting credit, but he has done many, many years of re-writing, something Linda Seger has NEVER done, to my knowledge, although she does purport to be a "script doctor." As a former re-writer myself and the daughter of famed French director, Jean Renoir, I've seen many beginner's scripts and quite frankly, most of them are less than fifth-rate. ANYONE could learn all they need to know about screenplay structure from Field. I did. Previous reviewers have criticized him for making it seem too simple. Well, once you know the formula it IS simple. Just as Field says, screenwriting is formula writing and once you know the formula, you're limited only by your imagination. The previous reviewer says Field has gotten rich off seminars encouraging people to write screenplays that will never be made into movies. First, I doubt that Field has gotten rich off seminars. No one gets rich from seminars. I don't even know if Field IS rich and I don't think the status of his bank account should be a factor in evaluating his book. Second, Field makes it clear that very few screenplays will ever be made into movies, be they good OR bad. He doesn't give false hope, he doesn't suger-coat the difficulty of breaking into this area of writing. What he does do is help those determined to "make it" in the tough world of Hollywood screenwriting. I worked in Hollywood. I didn't care for it, so I left. I wouldn't encourage anyone to be a screenwriter--Hollywood is too much of a "closed society." But closed or not, there are those who "Screenplay" is a classic. It is simply the best book, written by the most qualified man, on the subject of screenwriting. If you really want to learn to write a first-class screenplay then go with experience. Field's the best. As for who remembers Witness. I do. It's a classic, just like this book. END

I am a professional screenwriter and I also teach advanced and beginning screenwriting at a prominent Bay Area university. Field is the benchmark teaching text, and I used it last semester to teach Screenwriting 1, the Basics. For this class, Field is as good as any text. I don't particularly like texts and don't usually use them to teach as I have a wealth of my own experiences to guide me and my students. But I did find Field useful, at least at this stage of the teaching process.

Field gives new students a good overview of what is important in a screenplay: formatting; setup, confrontation, resolution, known as the "arc;" and he is helpful in creating characters.

But it is my considered opinion that the best way to learn to write screenplays is to read screenplays. Personally, I would say that the person desirous of learning how to write a screenplay get his or her hands on as many screenplays as they possibly can. Reading them is what taught me to write them. And I had several bought, produced and shown in theaters and on TV. There is really no need to fill your shelves with textbooks on the subject.

So I give Field three stars. Not so much because his book is faulty (in some places it is out of date: the screenplay today should be closer to 100 pages long, not the recommended 120 pages in Field), but because I doubt the need for books to learn this craft. Still, one book, like Fields, can be useful as a quick reference for a problem.

One of the problems I had with this book is that Field's prose is incredibly mundane. The question I kept asking myself was "Why am I taking writing advice from someone who's such a boring writer himself?" It led to the old axiom: "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." I pegged Mr. Field as one who couldn't, so he's teaching. Another problem was that the book was ludicrously out of date. Two examples of this: 1) his reliance on 'Chinatown' as an example of good screenwriting; it definitely is, but it is also a couple of decades old; 2) the chapter on writing with a computer was unintentionally hilarious; it may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but just like the tacky clothes we all wore in eras gone by, it's best not to look back on it.

But I realized that it wasn't about the style of the prose, or whether Field's own screenwriting was any good, or whether the specifics of his examples were still relevant. He was able to simplify the basic tenets of the screenplay, and give practical and easy-to-follow exercises for overcoming any obstacles. His paradigm of the three-act story structure (which he must have diagrammed at least a million times!) is simple, and yet effective. After first seeing it visually portrayed, many of the pieces of the story that'd been floating around in my own head fell into place. He also gives helpful hints on how to develop character, how to construct scenes and sequences, and how to begin the story itself (you begin by starting with the end!). Maybe his ideas seem obvious to others, but they are a real help to me.

So my rating is not based on the style of the book. It's based on the effectiveness of the teaching. And this book does well in that regard.

I frankly purchased this book based on the 5 star rating offered by a 'Top Reviewer' and feel quite disappointed. Although, I would give it a two star rating because there are some useful points to ponder and use in this book.

The main reason I got disappointed: the author insists very many times that movie-goers will like/dislike any movie during the first 10 minutes (not necessarily so in my and others experience) and that, to entice their interest, the first 28-30 pages of the screenplay should be interesting enough; he follows it up in almost every chapter about how the movie 'Chinatown' is a splendid example of what screenplay is all about.

What stumped me is his admission in a later chapter that he fell asleep after the first few minutes when he watched 'Chinatown' for the first time! And that, it was only during his third viewing that he realized that it was an interesting movie and it was only later on - when examining some paintings during a Europe trip - that he realized what a great screenplay it was.

I am baffled that he praises a movie so much and uses that as an example frequently while happily confessing that he had to see it three times to realize that it had a great screenplay. What happened to his theory that the first 10 minutes is crucial to interest the audience?