My Script Analysis Methods

Posted by Jennine Lanouette on Tuesday, January 15th, 2013

I view a film’s screenplay not so much as the bunch of words that appear on the page but, rather, as the scenes, characters, and dramatic structure that we finally see on screen. Thus, I analyze from the finished film. I operate under the assumption that, with the great films anyhow, what ended up on screen is what was deemed in the end to work best, whether by the writer on paper, the director on set and in the editing room or the viewers who vote with their feet. Nonetheless, it is certainly a valuable exercise to make comparisons with the manuscript versions of the screenplay, which are sometimes numerous, to speculate as to why one choice was made rather than another.

While there is a long history in the film business of the beleaguered screenwriter deserving more credit than they get, which I know can be true, I have to also admit that, in a few films I’ve studied, it has become my conclusion that the credited screenwriter, in fact, deserves less. It is not uncommon for a close examination of a film’s genealogy to reveal that the director actually had the lion’s share of influence on how the screenplay turned out. But there are also occasions in which background research suggests that the producer or the lead actor had much more influence on what’s great about the screenplay than is generally known. Every film is different. While I share the screenwriter’s resentment of the auteur theory, in which the director is considered the “author” of the film and the screenwriter is barely considered, in the end, for me, the point is to acknowledge what ultimately worked on screen, and then to learn from it.

My intention has always been to select films for analysis that are widely considered to qualify as “great.”  Obviously, this designation can be debated at length. But I have come up with a set of criteria that have been useful for my purposes.

1. The film has had staying power over time, which is to say, so many years later, people are still watching it and talking about it. To me, this enduring appeal is an indicator that there is something about the film that has resonated deeply in people’s consciousness.

2. The film had a significant cultural impact when it was released, which is not to be mistaken for box office success. What I’m interested in is if people talked about it and wrote about it, if it got a bunch of awards, if it turned up on critics’ “top ten” lists, if its title or a bit of dialogue became part of our speech.

3. I like the film. However, I will also, from time to time, study a film that made me go “Eh!” but that everyone else went gaga over just to find out what they’re all so excited about. Often, I will then gain a new respect for the film, even counting it among my favorites, although it has also happened once or twice that my “Eh!” feeling was only confirmed by deeper study.

Finally, I try to go for a diversity of form among the films I analyze to look at different ways that structure can be applied. And I like to challenge myself with films that are generally considered to be unconventional in their narrative style.

Given that a film fulfills these criteria, then I am curious to look at its inner mechanisms to find out what makes it tick. However, my method of analysis is as much driven by instinct as it is by rational thought. First, I will write an outline of the film, playing the DVD and summarizing each scene, to get a look at the whole forest, rather than being stuck among the trees, as we inevitably are when immersed in watching it. I want to be able to see the big picture view of it.

This outlining process can be time-consuming, but there is great payoff in it. I recommend it highly as a way to study the films you admire and want to emulate. Invariably, while doing it, I will already begin to see patterns. When I’m finally done, I print it out and “meditate” on it. I will literally stare at it, allowing for a sort of free association to happen as I read it again and again, looking for more patterns and more connections and more layers, while scribbling copious notes in the margins. Finally, I will grab a sheet of paper and draw a timeline, making little hash marks for the first, second and third acts, to start charting out the structure.

The benefit of learning about structure from time-tested, cultural impact films is you know going in that the film constitutes a cohesive whole and resonates deeply in the collective consciousness. The question is how does it achieve that? Looking at it through the lens of three-act structure is a convenient jumping off point for figuring that out. It’s a template that you can lay on top of the film’s outline to see where it matches up to the commonly agreed-upon model. Look! There’s a clear point of attack! Plain as day. But you don’t want to be satisfied with simply naming it. You want to look at how it’s functioning. First you determine how it is being used in common with other films, then you look at how it is being used differently. That is where we begin to see the art of the story. The goal is to look into the film and see what the film is offering, how it has taken the conventional structural components and used them in service to that particular story.

Most of all, I am interested in seeing if there is a thematic cohesion and then finding how the story’s structure creates and supports that overarching meaning. Sometimes this will mean drawing multiple timelines to chart interweaving structures. Sometimes I use color coding to represent different time frames or story lines. With a non-linear story, I may try charting it in chronological order to gain some insight into what the writer hoped to achieve by jumbling the events in time.

The first time I lecture on a film, I crack it open. The second time, I go a little deeper into it. The third time, deeper still. Often, it’s not until the fourth or fifth time working with a film in class that I begin to feel I’ve got a handle on it. Then comes the stage where I start reciting the dialogue from memory.

The films listed here are ones I’ve lectured on so many times I’ve probably gone about as deep into them as I’m likely to go. Thus, it’s time to “retire” them from the classroom, which is to say, make them available to a wider audience. I have lately discovered that my lecture content converts very nicely into multimedia eBook form, with photos, video clips and interactive charts. This list represents the films I am planning to make into eBooks over the next couple of years. When I’ve got these done, I’ll likely go back into the classroom to develop new lecture content for future eBooks.

Be sure to subscribe to Screentakes for regular updates on new content. And I welcome your thoughts and questions in User Comments. Then we can all feel like we’re still in the classroom together.