Okay. So there's a new "Cameo" essay up today on the ScriptFrenzy homepage: How to Make Your Scenes Dance the WADOoGEe. Go there, read it, and then come back and tell me here if you agree with the author that:
There is a one and only purpose for every scene that is placed in your screenplay. Nope. It’s not the one you’re thinking of. No. Not that one either.
Your number one focus is to create a situation in which two characters each have an urgent, immediate need and those needs are in direct opposition to one another. The distance you deviate from this will measure the level of deterioration of your scenes’ health.
In general, I agree this is a good principle. And I definitely think there should be more scenes with some sort of conflict then scenes where everyone's just chillin' (like, 99.7% pf the scenes).
But I'm not sure that every, single scene in an entire two-hour movie must have the protagonist and antagonist squaring off over some life and death issue. What about scenes where a husband and wife are making love? Or a boy is playing tag with his new puppy? Can there be any scenes like these where the audience is just given a chance to breathe, or must there be some underlying conflict and irony under every frame of the film?
I don't go out to watch movies as much as many of the folks on my f'list (like maybe one every three years, or so), so I really don't know. Is it true, what he says, that every single scene in every single movie has conflict?
Or am I misreading what Mr. Ackerman is saying? Is "Scene," here, broader than just a particular interior or exterior location established on screen?
Also, I made a new icon, today... :-)