This is a worryingly reductive discussion. Instead of picking a fight with Karel, why not take what is useful in what he says (and there’s a LOT) and use it – or not – as you wish. No one’s got a gun to your head screaming (your word) that this is the only way. Karel does great work assisting serious screenwriters communicate what they care about to an audience, in order to make them care about it too. Grow up.

That’s actually a really good suggestion. Thanks Kurt, I will start thinking about this one.

Do you have any suggestions?

Often the flaw has to do with a certain immoral behavior that is fueled by a lack of self-esteem as a result of a traumatic event (‘wound’) that happened in the Hero’s past.

Can you think of any movies you know that fit this description?

I wholeheartedly concur.

But who am I to give anyone advise on which artistic expression is worth expressing? And how?

See my post titled “IS IT LEARNABLE”, which deals with this discussion.

My point is that these successful filmmakers only started taking serious risks once they had managed to pay the bills.

From personal experience and that of many people I know in the industry, I believe this is a wise approach.

Although I greatly admire CITIZEN KANE I would surely not recommend young screenwriters to model their writing after it but instead look at more recent examples.

I haven’t seen TRANSFORMERS 2, so I cannot comment on that.

Scanners is indeed a terrific low budget indie horror, working within a relatively generic framework, and exploitation cinema using well trodden generic models can be a great place for cinematic artists to start. But I don’t think you’d ever hear David Cronenberg or any other director or writer worth their salt advising writers not to take risks.

As for “EVERYTHING WORKS FOR SOMEBODY”? No. You’re an informed viewer, presenting yourself as an expert. You, of all people, just like a film critic like Pauline Kael or an academic like Andre Bazin or a seasoned writer like William Goldman, you are in a position to state what works and what doesn’t and to support your position with evidence. You are short-changing yourself and your students if you do not.

Hi Neilan,

Thank you for your comments. I should have responded to Desi and I will now.

But first: my only criteria can be commercial success. If I don’t look at this, everything will end up being a matter of taste, right?

After all: EVERYTHING WORKS FOR SOMEBODY.

Every principle ever discovered has been successfully broken in countless films. So yes, you can also successfully break every rule of screenwriting.

But if you go by this, we should all stop writing about the craft and we’ll each have to re-invent the wheel.

I want my readers, my clients and my students to be successful. Although this industry is gruesomely tough, it is clear that those who understand the techniques and principles, stand a better chance of surviving. Those equipped with more and better tools will understand better why some aspects of their own writing work and others don’t.

On top of that (not in stead of it), they will need to apply their own genius and artistic talent to make their writing stand out.

So in order to give an aspiring writer the best chance, I aim to show them what has worked in the past. Of course there is no guarantee that they like it, nor is there any guarantee it will work in the future.

But it is the only info they can go by, apart from their gut.

And I cannot tell them what their gut says.

Over to Desi:

“cult movies with a strong fanbase”

Most aspiring screenwriters cannot afford to aim only at a small audience. “Cult” by definition means: small. Today it also invariably means: not commercially viable.

I should have noted that Cronenberg worked with 3 different writers on the works cited. It is also good to note that Cronenberg had done some pretty successful low budget formulaic stuff early in his career. Check out “Fast Company” (1979) and even the horror “Scanners” (1981). Check your stopwatch and you’ll see the beats fall where Syd Field wanted them.

Finally: the industry has changed MASSIVELY since the days guys like Cronenberg entered the scene. Today, even established arthouse filmmakers barely survive. Indie films have never had it so tough. So if you want to work and live as a writer, it is smart to look at TV and Hollywood.

If you don’t know the principles of screenwriting, you’ll have to be pretty damn lucky to break in.

That said, it is possible.

It’s also possible to win the lotto tomorrow.

Karel

PS: I recently wrote something titled “IS IT LEARNABLE”, which deals with roughly the same discussion.