"Winning" a scene?

June 17, 2018 3:11 AM

Looking for writing resources: I'm having a hard time finding anything substantive about "winning the scene" in writing that doesn't link to this Tony Zhou video about Silence of the Lambs.

I also get results about winning writing contests, or writing about fight scenes, or scenes in which people win things. None of that is what I'm after.

What does it mean to "win" a scene that isn't a scene about winning something?

Like, nobody wins at visiting their parents. And if anybody in that scene thinks they have to win, then someone in that scene is probably psychotic. But totally prosaic scenes appear in books and movies all the time. So what does it mean for someone to win?

There's probably a better search term for this, but I haven't been able to think of it.

posted by Mister Moofoo to Writing & Language (5 answers total)

This seems to be based on the same logic as what I've heard expressed* as the idea that, in every dramatic interaction, you have at least one "petitioner" and one "granter". That is to say, someone who wants something (the petitioner) and someone who has the power to give it or withhold it (the granter). Of course, in some two-handed scenes both parties will be both petitioner and granter, and there are infinite variations in more complex scenes.

An interaction (this theory posits) where nobody wants anything, or there is no possibility of resistance, is not an interesting scene. Yes, there are arguably interactions that don't work like this is real life, but they don't make good drama. Hence when writing a scene you should identify who wants what, from the outset, and observe and decide whether they get it and what the consequences of that are.

In a really simple scene, your protagonist is hailing a taxi and the taxi driver ignores them. Petition rejected. The scene is "won" by the driver. But maybe later in the story the hero sees the taxi driver again and runs off without paying. Hence winning often comes at a price.

To take your example of visiting parents, let's imagine our character Mac is going to see her mom and dad. There's no ulterior motive, she's just been feeling down and she wants to feel loved and looked after. Her parents, meanwhile, have just had a huge argument about a silly thing that touches on some aspect of their relationship they've learned to cope with but will always struggle with. Mac turns up and lets herself in, surprising her parents who are in the middle of a painful conversation about their relationship. So now Mac wants attention and love, while her folks want space to resolve their difficulty. All of the characters have petitions and the power to grant them, but their desires are not compatible with each other. How those incompatible interests play out tells you who "wins" the scene, which in turn gives you an idea about its structural significance in the plot.

I think it's a useful way of giving life and purpose to fictional interactions. I don't think it's at all the only possible analysis, but it's simple and efficient from the standpoint of the author, so I think it's a good one.

* By Robin D Laws, whose DramaSystem RPG is built on this premise.
posted by howfar at 3:51 AM on June 17, 2018 [10 favorites]

Not sure if this is relevant to your question (because it's about losing rather than winning), but it reminds me of this David Mamet memo that emphasizes building scenes around failure.
posted by johngoren at 5:59 AM on June 17, 2018 [6 favorites]

The things Zhou and Mamet say have a lot in common with the "Status" chapter in Keith Johnstone's Impro (1979), which encourages actors to notice high/low status indicators implicit in their interactions. It's roughly 40 pages, arriving at "I'd suggest that a good play is one which ingeniously displays and reverses the status between characters."
posted by Wobbuffet at 8:20 AM on June 17, 2018 [2 favorites]

Scenes are dramatic when characters want things from each other. Things that they are not getting.

If no one wants anything, then there's not even a story, there's passivity, people standing around doing nothing.

If someone gets something too easily, then there are no stakes, and again, no drama.

So, if the characters want things from each other, then they will either get them or not. That's the win. Did the character get their objective?

This goes back to Stanislavski. Probably before, but in terms of modern drama, the emphasis on characters pursuing objectives, having tactics to get around obstacles, etc., starts with Stanislavski.
posted by MythMaker at 2:27 PM on June 17, 2018

Yep. I wouldn't call it so much as winning as shifting the balance somehow. If everyone agrees and there's no friction, there's no shift in the balance, and there's no scene. And characters can come to a compromise, but there's always a shift in the value of that compromise.

"Hey Lauren, wanna go to the movies?"
"Sounds great, Tom"

That's not a scene because there's no shift in the balance. You learn nothing about either character here. So you'd leave that out.

"Hey Lauren, wanna go to the movies?"
"Sounds great, Tom. As long as it's not another one of those awful romantic comedies you like."
Tom went silent. He thought the new romcom might be a way to get his mind off his upcoming deadline, but Lauren never wanted to go to the movies he wanted to see. If he picked the movie, she'd sulk and shift in her seat. By the second act, she'd whisper to him that she was getting some popcorn and most times she'd never come back. After the credits rolled, he'd find her playing pinball in the lobby. But it was a holiday weekend and everyone else was busy. And he hated to watch movies alone.
"Fine, you pick," he said.

So this is an OK scene because it tells you something about both Lauren and Tom. You learn that Lauren is pretty rude and thoughtless. She thinks nothing of insulting Tom's taste in movies. She's perfectly content to abandon him when they're doing something he likes. And Tom, he likes romantic comedies but he hates going to the movies alone. And even though he knows Lauren is super rude about going to his pick of movies, he still asks her to go, and is willing to let her pick which one.

It's also an OK scene because Lauren gains more power. He knows she's awful, but he still acquiesces, even to the point of letting her pick the movie. She wins again. It sets up a possible larger scene where the power changes.

"Hey Lauren, wanna go to the movies?"
"Sounds great, Tom. As long as it's not another one of those awful romantic comedies you like."
Tom went silent. Lauren never wanted to go to the movies he wanted to see. If he picked the movie, she'd sulk and shift in her seat. By the second act, she'd whisper to him that she was getting some popcorn and most times she'd never come back. After the credits rolled, he'd find her playing pinball in the lobby. But he had to get her out of the house for an hour so Mike could bug Lauren's phone and they could get the evidence they needed to get Lauren convicted once and for all.
"Fine, you pick," he said.

See, so in this version, Tom wins. He seems to be acquiescing, but he's changing the balance of power because he's doing just enough to get what he wants.

Great scenes have more teeter-tottering, of course. I always love Casablanca, for example, because the power-balancing is a delight to watch as characters make their way through the movie.
posted by mochapickle at 3:23 PM on June 17, 2018 [1 favorite]