I'm in the process of reading Syd Field's The Screenwriters Workbook, and Its a great read. Tons of info on screenplays for featured films. Set up, confontation, resolution etc. My question is, for those who are familiar with the paradigm, can that also apply to maybe a 5 minute to 10 minute short story? Or is the duration so short that it can go however you want it to be, and still have it be successful
-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
Syd Field's screenwriting book and short films
- Thread starter Trackrabbit21
- Start date
I find that while you can and should apply it to a short, you do have to adjust it as time is restricted. Setup, confrontation and resolution are all important parts as people have come to expect this, however you tend to find that there are no sub plots, no arcs in shorts and rarely any layers.
I have tried to make a couple of short films that follow the restorative 3-act structure, but it never really seems to work. At least it never gets the same kind of positive reaction as many simpler, less traditionally narrative films.
I have always said that shorts run on concept (I have even said "gimmick"), while features run on structure. Feature films need structure because of their long cumbersome lengths. A good premise or gimmick can hold the audience's attention for only 10-15 minutes. After then, a feature film needs some real plot to get moving to create the structural moments that give the story some shape. But a 5-8 minute short is comfortably within that time range. You entertain the audience with little to no plot at all as long as the film's concept is interesting and original.
I have always said that shorts run on concept (I have even said "gimmick"), while features run on structure. Feature films need structure because of their long cumbersome lengths. A good premise or gimmick can hold the audience's attention for only 10-15 minutes. After then, a feature film needs some real plot to get moving to create the structural moments that give the story some shape. But a 5-8 minute short is comfortably within that time range. You entertain the audience with little to no plot at all as long as the film's concept is interesting and original.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gotcha, makes sense
Yeah that makes sense, especially with all the viral youtube videos that grab millions of views
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing about youtube is there is now so much room for different niches, including good videos without structure.
I do know that I don't like stories without a resolution. The setup can be very quick if written well, and can essentially feel like Act 2, Act 3. This is simply my opinion, based on my preferences. Without an introduction, stories often feel like they have no reason or point of reference. While this isn't always the case, it certainly seems like the majority of cases. This is it not based on any facts or particular knowledge so taking my advice on this topic may cause you to fall into a never ending pit of doom
I do know that I don't like stories without a resolution. The setup can be very quick if written well, and can essentially feel like Act 2, Act 3. This is simply my opinion, based on my preferences. Without an introduction, stories often feel like they have no reason or point of reference. While this isn't always the case, it certainly seems like the majority of cases. This is it not based on any facts or particular knowledge so taking my advice on this topic may cause you to fall into a never ending pit of doom
In my opinion, the structure is a solid guideline, but it morphs to your format, not the other way around.
Normally with a short, you'll need your act 1 to conclude within the first minute. Often this causes the inciting incident to have happened before the short begins, but if done well that structure can be quite powerful.
Act two is where a short film lives and dies. You have ~3-5 minutes to drive the story to a point that demands conclusion: GO! There's no truly easy instruction to give for this phase, but roll out your plot with managed haste.
The third act in a short tends to fall into two categories: payoff or twist. Often the twist winds up being the reveal of the inciting incident. Usually the payoff is predictable, but not in a bad way.
But, yes, Fieldian/McKeensian methods can and likely should be applied to short script writing just as much as they should for features.
Normally with a short, you'll need your act 1 to conclude within the first minute. Often this causes the inciting incident to have happened before the short begins, but if done well that structure can be quite powerful.
Act two is where a short film lives and dies. You have ~3-5 minutes to drive the story to a point that demands conclusion: GO! There's no truly easy instruction to give for this phase, but roll out your plot with managed haste.
The third act in a short tends to fall into two categories: payoff or twist. Often the twist winds up being the reveal of the inciting incident. Usually the payoff is predictable, but not in a bad way.
But, yes, Fieldian/McKeensian methods can and likely should be applied to short script writing just as much as they should for features.
Every good story has an introduction to who and what the story is about ("Act 1"), tells the tale ("Act 2"), and most give an 'ever after' ("Act 3"). Shorts are no different. I would distinguish between a viral video which is often just a 'scene' or snippet of action. I've seen some writers post here snippets of action which they want to call a short. While the action and setup may be intriguing, it is ultimately unfulfilling on the screen. Viewers don't like to be frustrated. If the audience is left wondering (what was this about? who are these people? why should I care about them? etc.), it fails.
Story and structure are related but not necessarily the same. Every film needs a story. How it is told or presented is the structure. For example, I could start in the middle, flash back to the beginning, then jump to the end. This is a non-linear structure. You still need to do strong character development by starting in the middle of the story. But that's an entirely different thread. The story, however, has a linear continuity that the director/writer has repackaged.
For a short, yes, the same principles apply. You may only have 1 or 2 pages of script to accomplish your mission. Also, the notion of 'acts' is artificial, so in shorts they often blend. My introduction of the characters may coincide with the story action (combining 1 & 2) or lead to a crisis which is the resolution (combining 2 & 3).
Another piece that is often overlooked is that the script is only a blueprint. A lot of story is told visually. What goes on in the action line can be as important or more so in a short. To write a good short, it is often useful to watch silent movies and kids cartoons. How do they do the set up, tell the story, and resolve it quickly? To be successful, a short has to tell a story. Fields, McKee, and others provide guidance in making the story engaging.
Here is an example of bad story that would make a miserable short.
"A guy wakes up in his bed, stretches and dresses. He walks along the street smiling, picks up a cup and tosses it into a can. He walks and gets to the bus stop. Waits then gets on the bus. Later, we see him get off the bus. He walks back to his home. He turns on the light, makes himself dinner and eats. He brushes his teeth then climbs back into bed. Light goes off."
Is it a story? yes and no. It has an intro, action, and a conclusion. Is it interesting, well, perhaps to someone it is. Really it is just a sequence of events. Adding meaning to the relevance or seeming irrelevance of those actions lies at the heart of storytelling. What happens between getting on and off the bus? What does he dream about? Is this sequence the dream? When you can take the events and give them a different meaning, you start the storytelling sequence. You transform events and draw in the viewer.
Because storytelling and structure overlap, most intro books treat them as identical when they are different. Create your story (intro, action, resolution) then decide on the best structure (presentation) to provoke the viewer's interest. It's true for features and shorts.
Story and structure are related but not necessarily the same. Every film needs a story. How it is told or presented is the structure. For example, I could start in the middle, flash back to the beginning, then jump to the end. This is a non-linear structure. You still need to do strong character development by starting in the middle of the story. But that's an entirely different thread. The story, however, has a linear continuity that the director/writer has repackaged.
For a short, yes, the same principles apply. You may only have 1 or 2 pages of script to accomplish your mission. Also, the notion of 'acts' is artificial, so in shorts they often blend. My introduction of the characters may coincide with the story action (combining 1 & 2) or lead to a crisis which is the resolution (combining 2 & 3).
Another piece that is often overlooked is that the script is only a blueprint. A lot of story is told visually. What goes on in the action line can be as important or more so in a short. To write a good short, it is often useful to watch silent movies and kids cartoons. How do they do the set up, tell the story, and resolve it quickly? To be successful, a short has to tell a story. Fields, McKee, and others provide guidance in making the story engaging.
Here is an example of bad story that would make a miserable short.
"A guy wakes up in his bed, stretches and dresses. He walks along the street smiling, picks up a cup and tosses it into a can. He walks and gets to the bus stop. Waits then gets on the bus. Later, we see him get off the bus. He walks back to his home. He turns on the light, makes himself dinner and eats. He brushes his teeth then climbs back into bed. Light goes off."
Is it a story? yes and no. It has an intro, action, and a conclusion. Is it interesting, well, perhaps to someone it is. Really it is just a sequence of events. Adding meaning to the relevance or seeming irrelevance of those actions lies at the heart of storytelling. What happens between getting on and off the bus? What does he dream about? Is this sequence the dream? When you can take the events and give them a different meaning, you start the storytelling sequence. You transform events and draw in the viewer.
Because storytelling and structure overlap, most intro books treat them as identical when they are different. Create your story (intro, action, resolution) then decide on the best structure (presentation) to provoke the viewer's interest. It's true for features and shorts.
Every old Loony Tunes cartoon uses the same basic three act structure in the Field book. I find very little more inspiring to short screenwriting than Loony Tunes. They cram a ton of story into 7 minutes. Every one.
