I have been facilitating the monthly Dramatists Guild Writers Group since 2018. We use the Liz Lerman-esque feedback model for submitted material: what excited/intrigued you, what bumped you out, questions to consider in process? Yesterday I tried something different. After reading "Story and Plot" article about 5 key things for each scene, I added their 5 questions for each scene in my feedback.
1. What change needs to happen to move the story forward?
-This is the most elemental question of all. Why does this scene exist? What is different at the end of the scene? What is true that wasn't true at the beginning? What new understanding is there for the characters and for us?
2. Whose scene is it?
Every scene is a mini-story in itself, so whose story is it? Who changes? Who is most affected? Know who the most important person in the scene is, and how the events affect them and how this relates to #1.
3. Who wants what?
Someone trying to get what they want is what drives a scene.
A scene that lingers is usually because no one is trying hard enough to get what they want. Identify who wants want in the scene. Why is it challenging to get it? Do they get it? What tactics do they use?
4. What's the emotion(s) of the scene?
How do you want us to feel? Sad? Angry? Joyful? Tense? Dread?
Track this through each moment as it ebbs and flows from beginning to end. The writer is directing the emotional experience of this script just like a director guides the emotional experience of a film, tv show or stageplay.
5. Why is the scene compelling to WATCH?
Every scene should be interesting in its own right. Never write a scene just to get to the next. Surprisingly, this is the one people forget most. Not with the big scenes, but with the smaller scenes. Here, we are interested in how the scene is conceived and the mechanics of its execution. Why is it funny? What generates the humor? Why is it scary? What generates the scares?
With this method, I could go scene by scene, have my immediate Liz Lerman response and then frame my feedback into constructive observations. Instead of 'this scene bumped me out' it could be 'this scene bumped me b/c I didn't know #3: whose scene it was? Or I couldn't track #1: what changes happen by the end that make it a scene?
Across the board, the best scenes in all the diff works answered all 5 questions with clarity and confidence. The weakest scenes answered only a few or left me feeling like there were partial answers. I could immediately tell writers "scenes 3, 6, 10, 11 were your strongest scenes' and concretely explain why, and then suggest they go back and answer those questions for the weaker scenes by using their best scenes as architectural examples of their style.
It removed the writers' group epidemic of vague feedback... 'oh I liked that' or 'consider rewriting this scene' or 'I didn't respond to that.' It became about what specific things in the scene architecture to look at in rewrite mode. And just as importantly, it removed the feeling of being attacked as a writer and kept it to the scene-by-scene blueprint, and starting off with the best scenes that were clicking on all 5 Qs so that the writer could note how their own unique style works when it's operating at an optimal level. Constructive, specific, focused observations with a clear template.
No comments:
Post a Comment