I like how Robert is bluntly honest. It can be hard to find that kind of honesty in the creative art world and tons of good advice here for us creative writers.
Certitude is not arrogance, though it is mistaken as such by the ignorant. If you follow this man's advice you will produce more thoughtful stories with greater emotional depth. If that doesn't matter to you then you are in the wrong place.
The part that I like the most about this, is the part that he talks about how life is. I think he's right. The emphasis on the storytelling is what comes down to it. Maybe not so much on the story, but how you tell one story, very well. I hate sitting in the modern theaters for a 2-3 hour movie. Yet, I like movies that keep me holding my piss for 3 hours to see what happens next. And I think that's what I want to write. A story that turns into a movie that make you piss in your pants at the movie theater. Yet, at the end of it, you go home happy with soiled pants. Also, Pi was just a great story. I think the flow of that movie is confusing as hell, the dialogues are crazy, but I think at the end, I can understand everything at the end. I think it has amazing characters, and it taps into a reflection of how far a group of people in our country will go to gain control or money. Although, it's really a cluster fuck of a story. It's like, Searching for Bobby Fisher, but not as relatable.
He sounds very opinionated and very harsh. But to be successful in his trade, you must have strong opinions, right or wrong. You can't go through the trials of writing a play, or a book, a process that will last about a year, and then submit to editors and then agents or producers, without believing very strongly in what you've created.
Harsh is right, imagine having your art teacher judging your art work, then again imagine Leonardo Da Vinci judging your art. I sure be expecting some harsh words from the latter.
@@G1pp4l his teachings has resulted in 100+ Writers Guilds of America nominations, 100+ Directors Guild of America nominations and 60+ Academy Awards and that was in the 2014 Print version of his book. Some would consider that an achievement
He is a guru ,straight talk he cuts too the chase remember take what works for you maybe all doesn't apply to you. But hey you only know when you yourself test for your self. He talks more sense and its aided me, don't know about the one's who don't get nuffing from it. He good, I don't care that he hasn't written a script what i do know is things i encounter he knows about and explains and breaks down in a straight easy to understand.
I love this guy and his straight ahead comments on his ideas of what makes his chosen art an art form. He's unlike a critic, most of which are only looking to critique for the purpose of doing so and puffing up their own overvalued opinion of themselves, while providing no real value.
Classic, great stuff... although he is very unfair to M. Night Shyamalan. McKee is an atheist. Just because Shyamalan has spiritual things to say (that McKee doesn't relate to) doesn't mean he has nothing to say... or has a "cartoon mind". It just means he has nothing to say that McKee wants to hear.
In all fairness to McKee, from a "spiritual context" Shyamalan has said nothing that needs to be heard at all, by anyone. "Want" has nothing to do with it.
I never read his book, and the reason is evident here. Every time I hear him express a thought about screenwriting, I agree with him, but it's also an obvious observation. I've never heard him say anything I didn't already know.
too few consider the former, to our great loss as a society (ironically due to conflict, societal pressure, personal relations, self-confidence etc.) and far too many obsess over the latter. You do not choose to be famous. But you can choose to make great art, if you have the talent, the graft and the heart to do it.
@@artistsometimes2729 I believe humans are at their creative best when restrained. When forced to work within a set of boundaries. These boundaries are found in a craft such as screenwriting. You can build a house out of wood, aluminum, plastic. Paint it any color. Furnish it with western, European or contemporary décor but there must be a foundation. A house with a poorly designed or missing foundation will crumble. A movie script is the same way. A clear understanding of the craft of screenwriting begins when the writer answers the question posed at the outset.
Just because his screenplays never got produced doesn't make him any less of a professional. There is no need to be insecure about that. I mean, when he mentions "their first ten screenplays never get made", that's I believe a big overgeneralization. I watched Paul Haggis interview recently where he mentioned that his first produced sceenplay was his fourth one. I don't believe it necasserily has to take 15 years to get something published or produced (and to create a fine work).
20:54 - "If they care about creative control so deeply, they should be writing novels." Oh, that's a good point maybe I'm just doing all the right work in the wrong field. I suddenly feel inspired. Let me go get a pen and see what I can 21:01 - "The vast, vast majority of all novels written never get published." Fuck.
Agreed. Mckee is probably the only instructor I know that separates literacy from storytelling. What he simply calls good writing is effective character and story like you said. It has nothing to do with a degree of literacy, beyond what is needed to be coherent.
That's deep what Robert McKee said at 30:51 about the two clashing mentalities in society today of "my brother's keeper" vs. "every man for himself" and I think that reflects some elements within contemporary U.S. culture. The lack of social services for people in some neighborhoods and the nuclear family model I think reflects the individualist thinking so there aren't as many people collectively helping each other out. So you have single parents trying to pull the weight all by themselves which can be challenging if they don't have much money and have a long commute to work.
+Jonathan Akerele and of course you can multiply the effect you speak of by ten or even a hundred and have the world that blacks in America deal with. This in and of itself would make a great plot for a film...
+Jonathan Akerele That moment struck me too Jonathan...So much so, that I felt compelled to make a note of it. I could listen to Mr. McKee speak for hours. Best of luck in your writing!:)
I think his point is that story can be communicated through images effectively, with no literacy required. Charlie Chaplin movies and Wile E. Coyote cartoons are very good examples of this. But I definitely think that if I were a producer, I'd be very skeptical about producing something if the guy simply couldn't write.
Ahhhhh I get it now. Why I can’t shake this Filmmaking Quest I am on. I’m in love with the Art in me not myself in the Art. That’s why there’s no rush for me I love expressing my artistic feelings.
I seriously doubt back then people understood the plague: there were always questions like: "why me?" or "why did God take my sister?" or "What did I ever do wrong to deserve this?". I would suggest that every time has its own challenges and obstacles. Their form is ever changing with tides of time but I think the principles behind it, in its essence, remain the same: just like every story has already been told but the possibilities of form are probably infinite. Apart from that; very illuminating ideas in this man's head.
Confused? I'm my brother's keeper = liberal / progressive (personal and social responsibility) Every man for himself = conservative (self-disciple is rewarded)
Remember "Wisdom" in the 80s with Emilio and Demi? In the last scene he's still in the bathtub and imagined the entire movie. I think it got criticized for that, people got pissed and it got bad word of mouth. People get pissed when it's done that way, the 6th Sense had positive word of mouth but it wasn't the same thing.
You need to learn the difference between criticism and 'calling out'. Spielberg isn't a particularly brilliant writer, his screenplays are devoid of subtlety or subtext. He simply tells the story as it is. That's fine for entertainment, but McKee is exactly right when he says Spielberg has 'nothing to say'. The idea of a 'twist at the end' is entertaining for the audience, but it often reveals that the story lacks something, or it resolve on it's own. It's very definitely a cheap trick.
I disagree with McKee when he says that illiteracy in screenplays doesn't matter because it will ultimately be turned into images on the screen anyway. The problem is, though, when a producer reads a screenplay with poor spelling, grammar etc, it takes him away from the story he's supposed to be picturing and reminds him that he's reading words on a page. It;s like if you're watching a movie and you spot the boom mike hanging down above the actor's head. It takes away your suspended reality.
To toddmg:When one is forced to pay, it is NOT charity! It is TAX! Charity is a self-decision, followed by a self-action with no obligation - it is an option of the heart from the one giving it! Tax, in your case, is a forced taking away of one's own property, while the rich citizens use their high powered accounts to avoid said tax. With charity, I can give my money to whomever I please and the amount I choose! With tax, I have no say at all - none. You're analogy is flawed todmg.
I don't think anybody should be teaching other people how to write successful screenplays when they haven't ever had a screenplay made into a movie. m night Shyamalan isn't my favorite but the fact that this guy is criticizing his work is a joke when m night can write circles around him.
With China as the major market for Hollywood's blockbuster movies, a major reason for ditching the 2nd act, may be that this is to make it less likely that the Chinese censors will delete material that they consider inappropriate, for political reasons. The biggest problem with modern blockbusters, explained by Independence Day: Resurgence www.vox.com/2016/6/29/12046656/independence-day-resurgence-bad-review-no-second-act-problem
I didn't like the third act of Adaptation. It was exactly what was said to be a bad Hollywood ending earlier in the movie. I know people get all 'but that was the point' about it, but I'm still stuck with a cliched crappy third act. Wonder if it was any better in the script earlier.
Nice guy, smart and is genuine, but his worldview on liberals and conservatives is a tilted, slanting on liberal favoritism. He said liberals = "I am my brother's keeper" and conservatives = "every man for himself." Not reality in the least! This is the problem of why we have a great divide and it's called misunderstanding of view points. He seems to be propelling it. Study after study proves that conservatives give more to charities than their fellow liberals do. I still like the guy.
***** Still can't believe how bad AI was. And Kubrick had written the unsuccessful scenes! Of course, when one reads Kubrick scripts, one finds there's nothing there. Nothing but dialogue. And he showed up on set with no ideas, just figured it out. That's why his shoots were so long, and that's why he used such a small crew. I kinda liked "Story" and expected more from this video, to be perfectly honest. Writing a film is indeed a different beast next to writing about writing a film.
no successful screenwriter will EVER be a screenwriting teacher of this kind of detail because no screenwriter would ever want to concede to having to rely on forumula or structure or templates to go to when theyre stuck , or a foundation to begin with. Writers are artists and see themselves as such and need to conjure it from the wellspring of subconscious. So perhaps he hasnt got many credits,but teachers are often not practitioners, just as coaches are sometimes never players.theres a reason.
Spielberg has nothing to say? That’s why you’re living in a leaky, dank, 350sqft basement studio in Van Nuys and Spielberg resides in a 70 Million Dollar Mansion in the Hills.
It's a greater problem than that. I've seen writing with such poor grammar and punctuation that I literally couldn't understand what was meant. However, if you watch the entirety of what he said on the subject you'll find he wasn't making an unqualified assertion about it. The 'literary sensibility' that he associates with good storytelling is probably crucial.
What if you're in love with yourself in the art and the art in myself? I also thought (and although I understand his view with cheap surprise) The Usual Suspects was a brilliant movie.
Also, I think he probably hasn't seen "Schindler's List" or "Empire of the Sun". Hell, I'll argue that "Jaws" even goes beyond simple popcorn entertainment.
He comes across as being arrogant, superior, dismissive and all-knowing. He supports nothing, condemns everything. He's an intellectual snob, making the classic mistakes: children's literature doesn't count, entertainment is valueless, only his interests count. You just want to stab him in the face. Even though he's absolutely right for the most part. Worth watching, even though it drives you crazy.
It looks like Neil Young and Dan Rather ran full-speed at each other and formed this man when they collided. I'm not making fun of him either, man. That would be very bad-ass.
Glad to hear him criticize the endings of "Sixth Sense" and "Usual Suspects," two movies I despise for exactly the reasons he states: cheat surprise. Any schlub can pull the rug out from under an audience. Those two films amount to nothing more than practical jokes.
If it fits the theme of the movie it's not a "cheat", it's deliberate and plays into the theme. In the usual suspects it's about the devil convincing the world the doesn't exist - the myth being real. In the sixth sense is about mis-perceiving things and mental illness. Misdirection, twists and surprises are completely viable tools and used by several respectable directors such as Martin Scorcese (Shutter Island), Christopher Nolan (Memento), Roman Polanski (Chinatown), etc.
+pkingo1 I liked Shutter Island...But it seems like that movie got buried under a rug!...Wait a minute...That's 'swept' under a rug...Who would bury something under a rug?!...That reminds me...
Maybe we like cheap surprises though. Those endings had more of an impact on the audience than most other films. And even though in hindsight it might seem like a practical joke to some, the question is if that really matters, if you were more entertained by those films than most other films, they succeeded, right? Any schlub can pull of a twist ending, but not one that becomes legendary and cherished.
BenRangel If "entertainment" is the standard, then that's not art. That's kitsch. That's Stephen King, cheap entertainment at the expense of real skill. King tells good stories but without much literary flair or skill. The masses are easily entertained. That's a pretty cheap standard. Art has to aspire to more than just the ooooos and ahhhhhs of the observer.
It certainly is not mostly about inner conflict. There is no indecision in American Beauty. It's a multiplot story and everything Lester wants, Lester goes after. The conflict is his wife and family, not himself or just in his head. Inner conflict takes no action.
Well my point is that American Beauty is full of voice over and this guy says voice over isn't good and is "lazy." I was writing a script over the summer and for the opening scene I tried to hard not to do it with out a voice over for a while, but then I was able to find a way to write it so it was entertaining enough without a voice over. But I do think some movies NEED a narration. I'd like to see his thoughts on that movie especially since it's a well liked film in general but it has a lot of voice over.
Regarding voice over, It all depends on how you choose to implement it, just like anything else. If it's V.O. that is just the character's internal dialogue of what's happening in the scene, yeah it's lazy. But take for instance Fight Club, where the narration is used to great effect on a few levels. The voice over itself actually elevates the style of the visual storytelling in some sequences. It also is used in order to subtly deceive the audience with an unreliable narrator.
I like the guy and what he has to say, but anyone who uses comic books or cartoons as an example of "immaturity" has obviously read comic books in their life.
Judging the the comments here, it seems bitterness and resentment are commonplace for wannabe writers - extreme reactions from any side and insults flying around. Makes sense when you consider 99% of writers are failures.
A few interesting remarks and then--BAM!--straight to LunaticVille. The Third World suffers now when before they never used to? This boy better put down the bottle--quick! Or when he says: "Who can understand the banking system? Who can understand Love? Who can understand parenting?!" Or "The plague, at least, was clear." Anyone taking this guy seriously should consider mental health counselling. I mean, it's as if they handed him a crack pipe before hand and said "have at it, champ!" When was it the world understood Love, exactly? What day was that? Did I miss it? I've read everything going back to Homer and and I'm looking for when Love was something everyone understood. Holy GOD with this guy!!!
I definitely struggle to get past his generally cynical, critical attitude. I thought his remarks about film being conservative around the 40-43 minute mark were interesting, and how film compared to television in that regard.
I'm almost finished his book. while it has lots of good information (based on his thorough study of many references) what is painfully obvious by his book, this interview, and his own failure as a screenwriter is that he doesn't give a shit whether or not he communicates to other people, which is the whole point of art. there are uncountable instances in his book where it almost seems like he is determined to suffocate his readers with intellectual language that would make it impossible for a reader to duplicate what he is talking about (except if they have an advanced dictionary and a lot of time to look up all the words). mckee and other writers I've encountered similar to him put coming off as extremely intelligent as a higher priority than being duplicated by his readers. some of the words he uses are even difficult to find on google! and some of the words such as "value" he flat out invented his own defintion for and cannot even be found in even the most advanced dictionaries! disagree with me if you want to but this critique is coming from someone who read his book for no other reason to learn about screenwriting honestly and have read the book over a 5 month time period extremely thoroughly.
