Understanding treatments
Like much of the vocabulary
used in writing, ‘treatment’ seems to have many different meanings. I therefore wanted to spend some time
researching what ‘treatments’ are, key information about treatments and what
makes a good structure.
“…the treatment is a
strange animal, quite unlike any other kind of writing. If a screenplay is the
blueprint for a film, the treatment is the blueprint for a screenplay.”
Carlton-Ross (n.d.)
From my research, it seems
that one of the main reasons for producing a ‘treatment’ is its ability to
communicate the story to a wide audience.
This audience may be a test group, publisher or studio. However, there appear to be differing views
on the need for conciseness within a treatment. Mackendrick
(2005:69) describes treatments as the “bare
bones; plot and essential action”, and Horowitz (n.d.) appears to concur with this view: “…the point of the
treatment is to communicate your story as quickly as possible, so brevity
without sacrificing juice is the key here.”
However, Atchity & Wong (2003:10) seems to
contradict both Mackendrick and Horowitz by stating that a successful
treatment, “both tells and shows a story,
moving from one to the other as the writer sees fit in his overall aim of
helping his audience”.
Of course publishers and studios alike receive thousands of potential
scripts each day, making it all the more important for writer to follow certain
rules in order to ensure a good, interesting treatment is designed. Carlton-Ross (n.d.) suggests, “By reading a short treatment, the editor
obtains a perspective that may be lost sight of when reading a faulty script.” In contrast to this, Robert
McKee (n.d.) writes, "A true treatment is something that you would never show anyone!
It's an elaborate plan which describes scene by scene what the characters say
and do, and what they're thinking and feeling." Here,
McKee offers a completely different reason for composing a treatment document,
suggesting that it has great benefits when used as a ‘writing tool’ to help the
author further develop characters and story events.
How to write a treatment
Having obtained a good idea
of why a treatment is a useful document, I now want to explore how to write one. As discussed above, it seems that a large
part of writing a treatment is to ‘sell’ the story to potential publishers or
studios. The Light Film School (n.d.)
says that a good film a treatment enables the audience to “visualize
your film” and Horowitz (n.d) states that any good treatment should
contain:
“1. A Working title
2. The writer's name and
contact information
3. WGA Registration
number
4. A short logline
5. Introduction to key
characters
6. Who, what, when, why
and where.
7. Act 1 in one to three
paragraphs. Set the scene, dramatize the main conflicts.
8. Act 2 in two to six
paragraphs. Should dramatize how the conflicts introduced in Act 1 lead to a
crisis.
9. Act 3 in one to three
paragraphs. Dramatize the final conflict and resolution.”
To my mind, a treatment document has many different uses. If written well, the treatment provides a
true reflection of the story, drawing in the reader and awakening their
imagination, whilst leaving them wanting to know more. Whether this reader is a potential buyer, a
critic or the author himself, the treatment provides the skeleton of the story
and can therefore be used in many different capacities.
Although a number of authors have suggested that a treatment is a
‘working document’, its use as a marketing tool would require careful
consideration of the language used and information given. As my research has shown, a good treatment
could be the difference between a script being read or thrown away, so ensuring
the treatment contains the ‘juice’ of the story without overloading the reader
with irrelevant information is paramount.
The Three-Act Structure
Whilst researching the
structure of treatments, I came across quite a few mentions of the three-act structure. Having spent some time looking at Aristotle’s
ideas surrounding a clear beginning, middle and end, I wanted to further
explore the ideas and ‘rules’ behind the three-act structure to help me create
a well plotted and balanced treatment, and therefore screenplay.
Much like Aristotle’s
Poetics, Horowitz (n.d.) places much emphasis on the three-act structure,
highlighting the importance of very separate set-up, conflict and resolution. Without these basic elements, it seems that a
story will not hold enough drama, truthfulness or meaning to capture the
audience’s imagination.
The excerpt below suggests the fundamental
elements of the three-act structure:
Act I:
The set up—show your protagonists
natural habitat—her day-to-day life (this is necessary to measure the change
she undergoes through her journey). The
inciting incident—the thing that happens that sets a course of
motion—the reason why your protagonist goes on her journey.
The point of no return—your protagonist is so
committed to her goal that she cannot turn back.
Act
II:
The middle—your protagonist
begins to try to achieve her goals Here, she can either achieve her goal and
find a new one.
Or, she can pursue her goal through the whole second act and face
obstacle after obstacle End of act II—something
must happen that makes us think that our protagonist will never reach her goal.
This is where we think that all is
lost.
Act III:
Resolution—What does your
character learn, prove or discover? This is where we begin thinking about
themes and what we are really trying to say.
Janowitz,
B. (n.d.)
However, despite the long history of the
three-act structure, many writers have a very different view of its usefulness
in writing. Bonnet (n.d.) suggests that
the three-act structure is used more as a psychological ‘break’ for the
audience’s attention and that “A much better way to look at a story, when you are creating one, is not
through any arbitrary division into acts but through the eyes of that problem,
which is the central event and the heart of a great story's structure.” He, along with
others, suggests that the craft of writing should allow the story to flow,
without the rigidity of fitting within a three- (or indeed five-, seven-, etc.)
act structure.
These ideas lead me to question whether my story
would fit within the classical three-act structure or whether it would be
better suited to a less structured method.
It is clear from the popularity of shows such as Charlie Brooker’s Black Mirror (1997),
that a slightly more shocking and unpredictable approach works well with
today’s audience. I feel that the modern
audience’s diminishing attention span and a growing desire to be shown new and
exciting things could lead to a drastic revision, or even deletion, of the
three-act structure as we know it.
However, I believe that many elements of the
‘act’ structure remain entirely relevant to ensure that a story is believable
and entertaining. Lavandier (2005)
shares interesting ideas about ‘tweaking’ the structure to fit with the story,
which are of particular interest to me as my story contains a ‘twist’:.
“…the
modified third act is constructed like the whole of which it is part: it has
its own inciting incident (the twist in question), its own climax providing the
second dramatic answer to the same dramatic question, and its own third act.
Which gives the following diagram:”
Lavandier (2005)
Pulling together all of my
research on the three-act structure, I have come to the conclusion that the
three-act structure still holds a relevant place within screenwriting, but
perhaps could be tweaked to suit the particular story, genre or audience. However, there is a psychological element to
screenwriting, which must look at the audience’s expectations. As today’s audience seeks different and more
exciting stories, it is essential for my story to offer these attention-holding
techniques, even if that means straying from the structure. I will, therefore, attempt to use a
variation of Lavandier’s three-act model shown above to plot my own treatment.
No comments:
Post a Comment