His book The Power of Film is well worth reading.

I’ve written before about Dr. Howard Suber.  Pretty much everything I know about pattern recognition, story theory and character development comes from his classes at UCLA and further research on topics he had covered.  Here he gives an amazing account of how “conventional wisdom” is often wrong.  This article first appeared on MovieOutline.com

.

.

Everybody in Hollywood knows the top three rules of screenwriting:

1. Write what you know.

2. Films must have a happy ending.

3. Films must have three acts.

But few people know what these rules all have in common:

They are all wrong.

Rule #1: Write What You Know

There is no writer alive who has not been advised, “Write what you know.” And there are few writers who have not, in the course of following this advice, spent months or years producing a personally cathartic but boringly predictable work.

Too often, writers take “write what you know” to mean “write what you’ve lived.” Yet, few writers lead dramatic lives; if they did, they wouldn’t have much time or energy for writing. Writing what you know, therefore, can constrict a writer to a very narrow and uninteresting perspective.

What you “know,” if you have any creativity at all, is not just what you have experienced. Paul Schrader had no experience as a pimp or a taxi driver when he wrote the screenplay for Taxi Driver. He had studied to be a minister at Calvin College, a small fundamentalist school in Michigan, and earned his M.A. degree in academic film studies at UCLA writing about the spiritual dimensions of the work of the Danish director Carl Theodore Dryer.=

Mario Puzo wasn’t a made man or even a member of a Mafia family, he was a novelist looking for a commercial hit, and what he knew about the Mafia when he wrote The Godfather came mostly from his research in the New York Public library.

George Lucas grew up in rural Modesto, California, where there were no space ships, hyper-drives or even robots. What he knew about “The Force” he got largely from Joseph Campbell’s The Hero of a Thousand Faces and popular studies of comparative religions.

If all that a writer “knows” is his own personal experience, it will never be broad enough to sustain him throughout a productive career. Experience, in itself, is never enough. The more one relies on it exclusively, the more one runs the risk of restricting one’s imagination, which is where most creativity originates.

Rule #2: Films Must Have a Happy Ending

Here are some memorable popular films that do not have a happy ending:

Amadeus

American Graffiti

Annie Hall

Apocalypse Now

Bonnie and Clyde

The Bridge on the River Kwai

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Casablanca

Chinatown

Citizen Kane

A Clockwork Orange

The Deer Hunter

Doctor Zhivago

Double Indemnity

Dr. Strangelove

E.T., The Extra-Terrestrial

Easy Rider

Frankenstein

The French Connection

From Here to Eternity

The Godfather

The Godfather: Part II

Gone with the Wind

The Grapes of Wrath

High Noon

King Kong

Lawrence of Arabia

The Maltese Falcon

The Manchurian Candidate

Midnight Cowboy

Mutiny on the Bounty

Network

On the Waterfront

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest

Patton

Platoon

Psycho

Pulp Fiction

Raging Bull

Rebel Without a Cause

Schindler’s List

The Searchers

Shane

The Silence of the Lambs

A Streetcar Named Desire

Sunset Boulevard

Taxi Driver

To Kill a Mockingbird

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Unforgiven

Vertigo

The Wild Bunch

The press, audiences, and people in the film industry itself all seem to believe that, to be a success, a Hollywood film must have a happy ending, but as this list demonstrates, this is not born out by the evidence. While comedies and musicals generally end happily, a very large proportion of the most memorable popular films (those that were popular in their own day and have remained popular) do not.

The endings of the vast majority of memorable popular films consist of Pyrrhic victories, in which the central characters have gone through such trauma, loss, pain, sacrifice, and suffering that calling their final state “happy” would be a maddeningly insensitive joke.

The Declaration of Independence and every politician who invokes it may speak of the “pursuit of happiness,” but happiness has nothing to do with being a hero; in fact, happiness is something heroes learn to live without.

Rule #3: Films Must Have Three Acts

What is the authority for this rule? Surely, not empirical observation, for the history of drama and film is filled with great dramatic and filmic works that cannot be said to have three acts. So, why in recent years have so many people tried to force films into this Procrustean bed?

The authority most often cited for the “three act rule” is that oldest of dramatic theorists, Aristotle. In his other works, Aristotle often obsessively numbered things, so had he observed three acts in the works of the great Greek playwrights, surely he would have reported it. But none of the plays Aristotle was familiar with had acts in the modern sense of the term. Not surprisingly, therefore, Aristotle said absolutely nothing about an act structure – and certainly nothing about three acts.

Aristotle said that drama has a beginning, middle, and end, but he did not make a big deal about it, which is a good thing because when one looks at the statement it is so self-evident that one has to wonder why such a great thinker bothered to make it or why his students thought it worthy of preserving for posterity.

World War II, this article, and your last bowel movement all have a beginning, middle, and end. Everything that takes place in time or space has a beginning, middle, and end. But this is not the same thing as three acts.

Some people suggest that an alternative to three acts is the five act structure they ascribe to Shakespeare. But a large proportion of Shakespeare’s works did not have such a structure – it wasn’t until nearly a hundred years after his death that a publisher decided to impose the five act structure on all of his plays. So, neither the three nor the five act structures came from the revered source so often claimed for them.

The three act structure was invented two thousand years after Aristotle, when Ibsen and other nineteenth-century dramatists found that their audiences – unlike those in Periclean Athens – were unable to sit still for the entire duration of a full-length play.

In Ibsen’s theater and most theatrical works since, the audience is aware of acts because the curtain comes down, the house lights come up, and they get a chance to go to the bathroom. In film, the curtains don’t come down, the houselights don’t come up, and anyone who goes to the bathroom has to miss whatever keeps running on the screen. No one in the audience knows about “acts.” Greek, Elizabethan, and contemporary film audiences have not needed and as far as we can tell have never cared about the act structure that so many people say the “rules” demand.

It is useful, of course to remember the self-evident fact that things have a beginning, middle, and end, but is difficult to explain why so many people think this is the same as three acts, or why so many people make up rules about how long they should be and what should take place within them, especially when the results of such rule-making all too often resembles painting by the numbers.

Rules and Writing

What I have learned from more than forty years of teaching a continuous stream of students at UCLA who have gone on to be successful film and television makers is that film storytelling is one of the most difficult of all art forms, and that it usually takes years to become competent, let alone to master it. Such mastery comes not from slavishly following forms and formulas, but from learning the psychology of storytelling, which is ultimately the psychology of human beings.

About Howard Suber

Howard Suber has taught thousands of aspiring filmmakers and screenwriters over more than 40 years on the faculty of UCLA’s film school. Recipient of a Distinguished Teaching Award and a Life Achievement Award, Howard recently distilled his handouts from more than 65 different courses into his book The Power of Film.

This post is inspired by a “blogette” sent out by Dr. Howard Suber, founder of the UCLA Producers Program, to his UCLA class on film structure.  I’ve been fortunate to receive these posts as his former teaching assistant and long time admirer.

Dr. Suber is the man from whom I have learned nearly everything I know about film.  His recent post also considers a topic of discussion that has been on-going at the workshop in Schloss Elmau.  Here is a very brief excerpt.

In Monday’s discussion of Citizen Kane, I’ll be talking about what I call “The Reality Fallacy.” Those of you who have had Film Structure before know that one of my foundation principles is that, for most people, the function of film and television is not to provide a reflection of the world, but to provide a compensation for it.

Life is chaotic, messy, confusing and confounding.  Audiences don’t go to movies to see the difficult, harsh and often terrible tribulations of life.  They get enough of that in their own day-to-day existence.

Audiences go to movies to help make sense of life.  They go to movies looking for what it all means.  The most successful movies provide some kind of deeper meaning, lesson or glimpse of the triumph of the human spirit.  This doesn’t mean audiences want a “Hollywood happy ending,”  It means that they want an ending that has consequence and is transformative on some level.  They want an ending that is emotionally satisfying because it has been earned.

The best movies do this by creating rich, deep relationships between the characters.  Dr. Suber also teaches that there are no interesting characters per se– there are only interesting character relationships.  It is in their relationships that characters truly come alive, are forced to make hard choices and discover where their values truly lie.

Dr. Suber has written a wonderful book, The Power of Film, that should be required reading for any one who is serious about pursuing a career in television or movies.

Dr. Howard Suber, author of The Power of Film, says that the majority of all great films could be titled “Trapped.”  Here he talks on a panel at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum about the enduring interest in Holocaust films, illustrating that theme:

The treatment of the Holocaust in film dates back to the 1950s when Judgment at Nuremberg and the Diary of Anne Frank earned 21 Oscar nominations between them. But today, 65 years after the end of the war, the number of films seems greater than ever. This year, among the 65 films submitted for Oscar consideration in the foreign language category, 8 were related to the Holocaust or World War II. The question, of course, is why?

Responding to that question, Meyer Gottlieb, president of Samuel Goldwyn Films and a child survivor, said “The Holocaust has 6 million compelling stories and Hollywood is always desperate for a good story. It is only the media that think the public is tired of the subject.”

Howard Suber, a UCLA film professor, believes that all Holocaust films are variations on the world’s greatest storyline. A character is trapped in a situation and the question is will he get out? Professor Suber has said, “the moment a Nazi storm trooper or a swastika appears on the screen, the audience knows a survival story is coming. That story always works — from baby Moses floating down the Nile, and Joseph and his brothers to Robinson Crusoe and the TV survivor series.”

Clearly the Holocaust is a powerful setting for exploring universal themes about human nature — evil, apathy, heroism, guilt and redemption. And maybe by making and by watching these films, we, as a society and as individuals, find ways of confronting, or perhaps more importantly not confronting , our innermost anxieties — our own potential for evil, our tendencies to apathy, our longing for heroism, our sense of guilt and our need for redemption.

Towards the end of The Reader, the protagonist, masterfully played by Mr. Fiennes, confronts a Holocaust survivor who tells him, “people ask me all the time what I learned in the camps. Go to the theater if you want catharsis. Go to literature. Don’t go the camps. Nothing comes out of the camps.”

In one sense, that may be true. But at least one thing that came out of the camps was the human need to keep telling the story of the camps, whether through history, novels, art, theater, film, or even museums.

Are there too many Holocaust films? Maybe the better question is what is the role of film in transmitting history, communicating common values, helping us understand what we don’t know, and in asking us to confront who we are and who we can be.

Dr. Howard Suber, author of The Power of Film, teaches an extraordinary class on strategy, storytelling and strategic thinking at UCLA in the MFA Producers Program.  During his course, he has an on-going email conversation with students present and past on the key topics of the class.  We had dinner the other night and discussed the importance of online entertainment.  He is a bit more of a skeptic than I am– I am a true believer, I admit it.

In his class emails he talks about the truism “it’s not what you know, but who you know” which reflects the nepotism, name dropping and almighty rolodex or contact list in Hollywood.  He turns this notion on its head and says the more important thing is “who knows you.”  In his class, Dr. Suber emphasizes the importance of having credibility and a stellar reputation.  In my email to him, printed below. I reference his more accurate and useful truism and apply it to my experience and the importance of “being watched” in the context of making a deal or getting a job in the entertainment industry and how New Media affords you the best platform.

Dear Howard–

For several years, I have been a consultant for FreMantle Media, one of the leading worldwide media companies. I’ve met and worked with their executives, producers and writers across Europe and Australia. I recently started developing my own online series with them.  The reason I got my deal was management had an opportunity to watch me work.   They knew my work ethic, how I relate to their business and what my general approach to drama development was.  They watched and knew me personally.

I think “being watched” is how any one gets any deal or any assignment in this business.  It absolutely goes back to the principle you articulate about “who knows you.”  No one is going to risk any kind of a substantial budget on someone they don’t know on some level.  Spec scripts used to be the way people got to watch and get to know a new writer.  But those days are pretty much gone.  Budgets are too high and most everything is an adaption, a franchise property or a remake.  There are plenty of better known writers ahead of a newbie.  What a newbie brings to the table is a new eye, a fresh take and original ideas– not easily financed any more (with the rare exception).  Then there is the nightmare of distribution even if you do get financed.

That is why I believe online comedy and drama is the future for talent.  The barrier to entry is low.  Productions values can be minimal because the screen is small.  What makes a series successful is really clever, interesting and engaging writing.  The online series is very much a writer’s showcase.  All you really need is a distinctive voice. Distribution is equally available to everyone.

To prove how clever writing emerges in even the most minimal format– take a look at the article below from THR:

“Twitter sensation Shit My Dad Says is headed to television.  CBS has picked up a comedy project based on the Twitter account, which has enlisted more than 700,000 followers since launching in August and has made its creator, Justin Halpern, an Internet star.”

“Will & Grace” creators David Kohan and Max Mutchnick are on board to executive produce and supervise the writing for the multicamera family comedy, which Halpern will co-pen with Patrick Schumacker. Halpern and Schumacker will also co-exec produce the Warner Bros. TV-produced project, which has received a script commitment.  The comedy’s title will change if it gets on the air.”

“Halpern, 29, had moved back in with his parents in San Diego, and on Aug. 3 he launched “Shit My Dad Says,” a Twitter feed featuring colorful — often profane — comments and pearls of wisdom made by his 73-year-old father during their daily conversations.”

Full article is here:  Shit My Dad Says

So Justin Halpern got a deal based on 140 character Tweet depictions of his dad.  He translated his ear for dialogue and sense of humor into a running comedy.  The Powers That Be watched him do it.  Believe me.  They are watching everywhere!  There are staff people whose only job is to troll the Internet for new talent.  If you are talented enough to develop a following they will find you– guaranteed.

Don’t forget Juno scribe Diablo Cody first got noticed for her blog about being a stripper among other things.

From her Wikipedia page:

“Cody began a parody of a weblog called Red Secretary, detailing the (fictional) exploits of a secretary living in Belarus. The events were thinly–veiled allegories for events that happened in Cody’s real life, but told from the perspective of a disgruntled, English–idiom–challenged Eastern Bloc girl.  Cody’s first bona fide blog appeared under the nickname Darling Girl after Cody had moved from Chicago to Minneapolis, Minnesota.”

“Then, Cody signed up for amateur night at a Minneapolis strip club called the Skyway Lounge. Enjoying the experience, she eventually quit her day job and took up stripping full-time.  Based on the popularity of Pussy Ranch (her City Pages Newspaper blog) received, she was able to secure a publishing contract with Gotham Books. At the age of 24, Cody wrote her memoir Candy Girl: A Year in the Life of an Unlikely Stripper.”

As another site says:  “she gonzo-blogged about the local sex industry until people with money began to notice. ”

Cody wasn’t the overnight success everyone depicted– she put in long hours developing a distinctive voice that got noticed online.  She was being watched until they knew her well enough to invest in her.

Last but not least, the WGA has just admitted its first member for writing a self-financed online series– her name is Ruth Livier.  Her Writers Guild membership is based entirely on her online credits.  Livier is a 30+ actress who feared the roles were dwindling for her age range and for her ethnicity.  Here is the story and a whole Guild issue about writing online series in general in  WGA Written By Magazine

Here is what Livier has to say about creating her series:

“In the entertainment community there is typecasting. The ‘powers that be’ don’t really know what to do with you. In my case I am not dark enough to fit their Latina stereotype and not white enough to be white. That’s why writing and producing for New Media is such a fantastic option. It affords us the opportunities that traditional media hasn’t. Let’s be real, the opportunities to break in through ‘traditional’ channels are slim. Like my friend Dennis Leoni says, “The oldest form of affirmative action is the ‘Good Ol’ Boy’ network.” And he is right. Try breaking through that! If you are not a part of the GOB network, mainstream media is super expensive. I don’t know about other Hispanic Americans with similar upbringings to mine, but rich relatives do not abound. No one has the private money to fund theatrical projects. I am not complaining. I’m grateful for my life experience.

I’m just saying New Media, the vehicle we are now using for Ylse, is a fantastic resource and a wonderful opportunity for us. We have immediate and unaltered access to a world audience and are circumventing traditional media platforms which are controlled by a small few.”

Read the full article in Hispanic Tips: News and Ideas

As the old foundations of Media Empires crumble there is plenty of opportunity for talent willing to think and create in a new way.  This is the good news in the Old Media Armageddon.  My advice is don’t waste your time on a dying paradigm that’s more interested in excluding you than including you.  This is a tremendous time to be a pioneer and create new ways to tell stories.  As Gary Carter says in his lecture on Storytelling in the Digital Age,  Old Media is based on exclusion (scarcity) and New Media is based on inclusion (abundance).   I know which one excites me.