Screenplay Analysis

Return to Table of Contents

How does a producer or studio executive make a decision to buy one script instead of another? Setting aside Relationships for a few minutes, it often starts with a reader's "analysis" like the one below which acts as a yardstick to compare scripts against each other. The highest rated ones rise to the top of the stack and get read by the decision makers.

Premise:

The ratings are determined by the reader who gauges to what extent the writer has realized the commercial potential in each category.

The premise is the TV Guide synopsis of your film, boiled down to 20 words or less. "High-concept", plot-driven stories usually shine at this point, while character-driven scripts are often not done justice. Much depends on the reader's ability to identify and "sell" the idea in twenty words or less, an ability which is obviously out of the writer's control.

What you can do is to attempt to write your own premise based on your script, not based on your intent. If you find it too difficult to cull the central idea from the script, then a reader might too and it may be an indication that the central premise is unfocused, conflict unclear, or subplots too disparate. Even an ensemble piece tends to have a central focus, whether a group of friends come of age in the sixties, or find meaningful relationships in the nineties, the themes of the characters' seperate threads should be woven together cohesively.

Do the characters live and breathe? Are they sympathetic? Does the lead elicit rooting interest? Is the villain a worthy opponent, or is it no contest? Does your character develop during the course of the film (character arc)? Different genres will have different emphasis on plot vs. character but good films will not ignore the other completely. It is difficult to care about the kind of two-dimensional characters often written into action movies that have no weaknesses, no aspirations, no backstory and nothing they consider more important than their job--put these characters in jeopardy and it rarely creates much tension. Even Superman has two weaknesses--Lois Lane and Kryponite.

What motivates the character? What would drive a white collar family man to rob a bank? Suburban malaise, or money to maintain that high-overhead appearance of normality? If the motivations aren't set up as part of character, than the characters' actions will become directionless, and the audience will become distanced from the film.

For every convention there is a successful movie that defies it. Do all screenplays have to have lead characters who go through an "arc" in order to be successful? The answer is obviously NO. Movies like Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Crocodile Dundee, and Being There featured what is sometimes referred to as a "savior angel" character who changes the attitudes and lives of those with whom they come into contact, but who don't experience any profound changes themselves. Female driven action films were and still are avoided even after the success of the Alien series. Know the rules--study the successful rule breakers.

Is the dialogue natural-sounding? People speak differently than they write. They may write in a very proper, literary way that would come off as stiff, stuffy, and self-conscious if spoken out loud. Does the dialogue distinguish one character from another? We're not talking about speech impediments, accents, or regional, phonetically-spelled dialect, but the way the character communicates-- a shy character would skirt the real issue with peripheral questions, while a neurotic, paranoid type might blurt out direct questions in a more outlandish way that reveals his underlying irrational paranoia. If it is a comedy, how often do the verbal jokes work?

Does the dialogue have subtext or is it "on-the-nose"? People's real tendency is to talk in code and avoid confrontation by hiding the literal meaning of the dialogue in seemingly innocuous dialogue. There is a time for heart to heart talks, but the character who wears his or her heart on their sleeve continuously are usually one-dimensional and becomes tiresome quickly. Beware of precocious five-year olds who speak like seasoned psychologists about their parents' love life.

Does the story keep to a three-act structure for feature films-- setting up the story and characters in the first thirty pages, deepening the conflicts and adding roadblocks in the following sixty pages before creating the crisis that sends the script hurtling towards its resolution in the last 30 pages? Many scripts have a strong first and third act-- because the writer knows how it begins and ends-- but have a weak second act that fails to add plot complications or advance relationships. Another common fault is a first act that takes too long to set up the story. If it is an action picture, are actions scenes well-placed to break up the expositional scenes? Are there successful films that deviate from the three-act convention? Yes, but one should know the rules before breaking them so you know when you should be compensating for them. For more on story structure, read Syd Field's Screenplay.

It's about conflict, jeopardy, stakes, tension, subplots, revelation, and tone. How a character handles conflict defines the character, so is the conflict strong enough to test the character? If a character must make a choice between two paths, are the two choices presented in an equally fair way that makes the choice difficult, or are the scales so lopsided that it is a foregone conclusion? In many romantic comedies it is obvious that two characters were meant for each other but the fun comes from watching them resist the inevitable.

Is your character in jeopardy? Hanging from a cliff, being stalked, taking an important pop quiz after partying the night before? Are the stakes high? What are the consequences of failing? -- loss of a) life, b) romantic fulfillment, c) choice of college, d) professional or e) personal standing? Keep in mind the interrelationships of these analysis categories. What elevates the stakes' tension is the writer having established how important the goal is to the character, and creating a character who you want to succeed (rooting interest).

A sample of low stakes would be if a character makes the winning play in the championship game when he was already respected, already one up on the opposing team captain, and already had an academic scholarship in the bag to the school of his choice--who cares if he makes the winning play. If he were an undervalued, overlooked professional football player who risks the future of his family and himself to go free-agent instead of locking into a lowball contract, that winning play could be the difference between financial and emotional triumph or financial and emotional ruin (Jerry Maguire).

What is the tone? Is it unrelenting? A horror or thriller with no light moments can undermine the tension because the audience will go numb. The same genres can have their tension undermined by having too many light moments. It is common for a drama to start out on the light side, and, as the conflict develops, become more serious, but the transition can be too abrupt. A common problem is a script with an uneven tone that wavers between light and serious from scene to scene to a point where a reader doesn't know what is to be taken seriously, and what is a joke.

Plot logic. Does the story make sense? How often have you watched a film or television program and asked yourself, "why doesn't the hero just call in the cavalry". If the story is a fantasy, does it adequately suspend disbelief? If it is a fantasy, are the "rules" that govern this fantasy world properly set up? If not, tension and character rooting interest may suffer.

Production Values are the miscellaneous aspects that don't fit into the other categories. Maybe an action script has a mediocre story, but the writer has written some spectacularly original action "set pieces" (e.g. chase scenes). If the script takes place in an unusual or particularly visual location, that may elevate the marks, but the location must make sense. Location is part of what defines the characters-- you can't just transplant an E.T. in Tahiti for aesthetic purposes and expect the characters to react the same as kids in a cookie-cutter American suburb.

The reader is asked to estimate the cost of creating the finished negative (negative cost) based on the screenplay. It has been suggested that first time screenwriters avoid expensive epics, because decision makers are less likely to bank money on unproven writers and are deterred by marks in the "high" box. Well, this may be true, but there are enough first time writers who've sold action pictures to bankable stars to indicate that it is far from impossible. Mike France and Steve Maeda, both script readers for Tri-Star Pictures and first time screenwriters at the time, sold action vehicles to Sylvester Stallone and Eddie Murphy, respectively (Cliffhanger and Sandblast).

The point here is if the only script a first-timer feels driven to write is an epic, then write it: a script written out of the passion of the writer will be better received, even an expensive sci-fi action piece, than a lower-budget attempt to second-guess what someone will buy. At least the odds of getting a writing assignment are better based on a piece written with the care that passion often inspires.

With all the different elements being considered, a writer would have to be superhuman to get it all right the first time through. More likely, and less intimidating for the first time writer, is to get the script on paper, then work through the various elements in subsequent passes. Some writers highly recommend working out the story in outline form prior to writing even one scene. Doing this could save weeks of writing by editing out superfluous scenes before they're written.