Outdated Screenwriting Rules to Reconsider
Film and TV are often seen as being more accessible mediums than literature. But the truth is, there are enforced screenwriting rules-- more stringent expectations than guidelines around poetry or prose-- that can sometimes be treated as sacrosanct. Of course, this depends on who is reading the script and who has done the writing. The gatekeeping of the screenwriting world is bemoaned with a fervor that surpasses any other writing discipline. The seemingly random but staunch implementation of these rules is the source of much anxiety. After all, some screenwriters are celebrated for shirking any notion of a rule while rising hopefuls are rejected for getting a little too brave with their styles a little too soon. Here are just a handful of screenwriting rules that are thankfully going out of fashion.
“If you want to send a message, write a telegram.”
The above quote is a paraphrase of a one-liner uttered by Old Hollywood producer Samuel Goldwyn. Unfortunately, this relic made its way into screenwriting instruction as late as the 2010s. It’s a flippant dismissal that can be and has been used to discourage creators from using the limitless platform of the screen to make change. Given the industry’s historically strong reliance upon literature-- humanity’s most respected vehicle for cultural advancement-- it seems as though this thinking might explain why screen adaptations draw so many complaints. In today’s world, there’s no room for gatekeepers who demand that an artist with a vision squander the potential global impact of a brilliant screenplay.
“Three-Act Structure or Bust!”
For anyone who understands the historical lineage of the Three-Act Structure, it becomes clear that claims of its superiority have a Eurocentric, Greco-Roman-Classics-worshipping lean. At least one professor has described it as “the way humans just like a story to be told.” That is categorically false. It’s true that in the Western world, where the dominant culture still esteems Greek philosophy and art as the ultimate bastions of humanity’s Golden Age, our storytelling traditions have trained us to be receptive to Aristotle’s definition of “beginning, middle, and end.” However, there are global storytelling traditions from Asia, Africa, and beyond that completely (and brilliantly!) subvert those expectations. Thankfully, those story structures have not been totally eclipsed and continue to inform storytelling today. It’s Hollywood’s job to work on being receptive to them because, arguably, it’s a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion issue.
“Your protagonist must be likable.”
This is one of those rules that is applied so capriciously, that it amounts to an insult. The anti-hero is an old standard by now. The only issue is that seems to be a title-of-honor reserved for cishet white male characters, while writers who center characters of marginalized experience are often bound to respectability politics. Some sounded a call for “messy, complicated” women on screen specifically because imperfect women historically entered the frame just to be disposed of-- but even the subsequent wave of anti-heroines who answer that call can come off as narrow and exclusionary. The best solution is the caveat of this rule: “Your protagonist must be likable and/or interesting.”
“[Famous Filmmaker] can pull this off, but you can’t.”
This rule is sometimes handed down with the best of intentions. “You have to learn the rules before you break them” is incredibly sound advice. But, “You haven’t proven you’ve learned the rules because you’re not yet a famous millionaire” is classism. Many of the filmmakers who have carte blanche (creatively, not just in terms of budget-- but that’s another post) are also of a certain privileged demographic. With very few exceptions, creators of marginalized experiences are not given the same freedoms that Tarantino, Scorsese, or Nolan would have enjoyed at the time they entered the film industry. Innovation is genius, and genius is just that-- whether or not it has yet been championed. And the industry’s skittishness around supporting novelty just may be one of its biggest weaknesses.
If treated like a tip or suggestion, some rules can be incredibly helpful for telling the most effective story possible. And let’s be honest-- many of them do shed light on the consensus of professional expectations. However, rules like the above are dated for a reason-- they come out of implicit bias, which was a term not yet defined or studied when they were originally conceived. But now that we have that language in our toolbox, maybe it’s time to focus on some guidelines that encourage a wide array of viewpoints. So many years have been wasted parroting rules built to swat them down.