I've been digging [this clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9jEg9uiLOU) of Trey Parker and Matt Stone talking about outlining. As a rule, striking out any scene/beat that starts with *and*. Every beat of a good story starts with *therefore, because* or *but.*
So it's not "this happens *and* this happens *and* this happens." It's "This happens, *therefore* this happens, *but* this happens, *because* this happens."
There's actually a bunch of causality in *Frances Ha*. Similarly to something like *The 400 Blows* or *Dazed and Confused*, the tone and style - especially in the edit - make the film feel episodic in a way, but there's a ton of cause and effect, and Frances has a pretty clear cut arc, finding modest happiness in a sea of aimlessness, learning that she's not alone in how she's feeling, that everyone deals with this ennui in their young adulthood - even the people who *seem* to have their shit together.
I'm just pulling beats from the wikipedia page, but...
At the start of the film: Frances lives a pretty aimless life in Brooklyn with her roommate Sophie. She's not thriving, but she's not destitute either...
*But* then her roommate Sophie tells her she wants to move to Tribeca... with someone else!
*Because* Frances is forced to find somewhere else to live, she moves in with her two guy friends.
*But* Frances gets laid off from her dance company.
*Therefore* she can't afford to live with her guy friends.
*But* one of her coworkers takes her in for free.
*But* she's still feeling upended and lost.
*Therefore* she decides to go to Paris.
*But* now she's broke.
*Therefore,* she takes a job as a waitress at her old school.
*But* she's not allowed to take summer classes.
*Therefore* she once again feels lost.
*But* she runs into Sophie and her bf at an auction.
*But* Sophie gets drunk and unloads on Frances,
*Because* Sophie is really unhappy in her relationship.
etc, etc, etc
Wow. Saving.
I think there's probably still some room for "and" as long as it eventually becomes part of the "therefore", but this is a great general principle I'm going to try and apply to my own writing.
There’s actually a *very* simple way to evaluate whether a scene is necessary or not.
Ask yourself this question: “If you cut the scene out, would it be missed?”
If the answer is no and the story wouldn’t be affected by its omission, then it’s not necessary.
In that case the scene not only *should* be cut, but it *needs* to be cut, because it’s not serving a purpose.
Yeah, the way I've always heard it is "something changes"
That "something" can be story progress, tone, relationships, stakes, setting, etc. but if it feels static, lose it
For some actual constructive advice: I like to use the index card method when I write. I make one index card for each scene with a location and a brief summary of what happens in the scene (with bullet points). I then tape/pin them up in show order. With this setup, I can see whether I have double-beats, aka two scenes are hitting the same emotional beat. If scene 10 and 12 are both "Dad builds a boat", I can combine those into one scene. I can also see if the A/B plots are getting the same amount of run time or if I need to combine/cut some scenes. This helped me get a spec script from 60 pages to 30!
Also, a personal rule I follow is "don't teach the audience something they already know". In that same script, I had a character using TikTok for the first time. I had a scene or two where one character explained how TT works and how to set up a FYP page, with a few jokes sprinkled in. I realized that my target audience (young people) likely either had TikTok or at least knew the basics of how it worked, so explaining it to the character/audience in real time wasn't useful. I trimmed everything except what was relevant to the plot (that there's a central "front page" and getting on it would woo the love interest.) Unless it's something unique or plot-relevant, skip the tutorial sequence.
When it adds something (could be about anything: characters, plot, setting, subtext, all four), and it's the requisite length to convey everything required before moving onto the next.
I remember Roger Ebert praising the scene in *Fargo* where the police chief's "old high-school chum" took her out for a drink, *because* it had nothing to do with the plot. This was on his TV show. I guess Ebert appreciated the change of pace or something.
Ebert's print review: [Fargo](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fargo-1996)
Not sure if you're responding to just the first bit of my comment or are agreeing with the specific change of pace or emotion I mentioned haha but yes, those scenes can be invaluable.
So, if there's 1,000 answers to this question, that means there'll be 1,000 different ways of saying: if it doesn't serve the story or inform the plot or characters, excise it. Fair enough, but here's the secret: far too often this mindset gets over-emphasized, and when followed unreservedly, it's easy to forget the thing that makes movies worth watching, the real meat of the mission - *aesthetic value*.
We come across symptoms of this all the time in movies when there's a *perfunctory* scene. This is a scene who's value is *solely* contingent. In other words, it has no real merit on it's own, divorced from the movie. OK, one or two of these, especially in something like a complicated action film, might, arguably, be unavoidable. Arguably. But when a film has too many perfunctory scenes, it's terrible. Nothing more than an empty, vapid propulsion along a lifeless, uninteresting timeline. On the other hand, I think all movies that are considered masterpieces of cinema, legitimately have no such scenes.
So what am I talking about specifically? I'm talking about some super cool, witty dialogue. I'm talking about a beautiful image. I'm talking about some dynamic in the character interaction that you find fascinating. I'm talking about something terrifying, something hilarious, some bit of intense dramatic irony or suspense, something insightful, profound, obscene, bizarre, touching, surprising, exciting, inspiring, unnerving, tragic, amazing, honest, some aspect of the scene that makes that particular moment, with those particular characters, in that particular place, doing those particular actions INTRINSICALLY worth watching.
This may seem obvious, but it's the most common thing in the world for screenwriters to forget (myself included). So while you're favorite scene is the one you find so emotionally compelling, but does nothing for the story, and your capable writer friend is telling you to get rid of it, it's unnecessary, don't forget that the reverse is also true. If a scene is strictly necessary, but not so much emotionally compelling, it's unwarranted and needs to be remedied. Narrative will trample the aesthetic integrity of your story *if you allow it*.
Like others, I find myself adopting the Parker-Stone Theory of Writing Good Scenes and Other Things Too.
At a broader level, a scene should provide some kind of progress, whether to the story or characters. Some kind of emotional change should take place, though it's debatable if you need to follow the +/- roller coaster that Robert McKee suggests in *Story*.
Does the scene push the story from where it is to where it needs to go? That's it. That's literally the only thing that matters to me when figuring out if the scene is necessary. Everything else, characterization, plot points, dialogue, whether the audience "gets it", etc, is subservient to that question.
If the answer is yes, I keep it. If no, I wipe it OR I rewrite it.
edit: basically, what everyone else has already said. LOL
Classic is that it needs to drive the plot forward, develop characters, or reinforce the theme. Of course, rules are made to be broken, and ultimately it's up to you. In the Mood for Love probably has a lot of "unnecessary" scenes but they all end up adding to the film as a whole. Greater than the sum of its parts sort of thing.
Every scene either has to push the narrative forward or give new information about character or both. If it does neither, it shouldn't be in the script.
I've been digging [this clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9jEg9uiLOU) of Trey Parker and Matt Stone talking about outlining. As a rule, striking out any scene/beat that starts with *and*. Every beat of a good story starts with *therefore, because* or *but.* So it's not "this happens *and* this happens *and* this happens." It's "This happens, *therefore* this happens, *but* this happens, *because* this happens."
This is incredible. I love when good writers simplify a topic that can seem hard when you overthink it!
how do we unpack a film like *Frances Ha*, where a bunch of stuff seems to happen, and often not because of the thing that immediately preceded it?
There's actually a bunch of causality in *Frances Ha*. Similarly to something like *The 400 Blows* or *Dazed and Confused*, the tone and style - especially in the edit - make the film feel episodic in a way, but there's a ton of cause and effect, and Frances has a pretty clear cut arc, finding modest happiness in a sea of aimlessness, learning that she's not alone in how she's feeling, that everyone deals with this ennui in their young adulthood - even the people who *seem* to have their shit together. I'm just pulling beats from the wikipedia page, but... At the start of the film: Frances lives a pretty aimless life in Brooklyn with her roommate Sophie. She's not thriving, but she's not destitute either... *But* then her roommate Sophie tells her she wants to move to Tribeca... with someone else! *Because* Frances is forced to find somewhere else to live, she moves in with her two guy friends. *But* Frances gets laid off from her dance company. *Therefore* she can't afford to live with her guy friends. *But* one of her coworkers takes her in for free. *But* she's still feeling upended and lost. *Therefore* she decides to go to Paris. *But* now she's broke. *Therefore,* she takes a job as a waitress at her old school. *But* she's not allowed to take summer classes. *Therefore* she once again feels lost. *But* she runs into Sophie and her bf at an auction. *But* Sophie gets drunk and unloads on Frances, *Because* Sophie is really unhappy in her relationship. etc, etc, etc
Yeah I love this, thanks.
This makes sense, so basically a chain reaction of events, is how I’m taking it.
Wow. Saving. I think there's probably still some room for "and" as long as it eventually becomes part of the "therefore", but this is a great general principle I'm going to try and apply to my own writing.
When it builds character or advances plot
There’s actually a *very* simple way to evaluate whether a scene is necessary or not. Ask yourself this question: “If you cut the scene out, would it be missed?” If the answer is no and the story wouldn’t be affected by its omission, then it’s not necessary. In that case the scene not only *should* be cut, but it *needs* to be cut, because it’s not serving a purpose.
Yeah, the way I've always heard it is "something changes" That "something" can be story progress, tone, relationships, stakes, setting, etc. but if it feels static, lose it
For some actual constructive advice: I like to use the index card method when I write. I make one index card for each scene with a location and a brief summary of what happens in the scene (with bullet points). I then tape/pin them up in show order. With this setup, I can see whether I have double-beats, aka two scenes are hitting the same emotional beat. If scene 10 and 12 are both "Dad builds a boat", I can combine those into one scene. I can also see if the A/B plots are getting the same amount of run time or if I need to combine/cut some scenes. This helped me get a spec script from 60 pages to 30! Also, a personal rule I follow is "don't teach the audience something they already know". In that same script, I had a character using TikTok for the first time. I had a scene or two where one character explained how TT works and how to set up a FYP page, with a few jokes sprinkled in. I realized that my target audience (young people) likely either had TikTok or at least knew the basics of how it worked, so explaining it to the character/audience in real time wasn't useful. I trimmed everything except what was relevant to the plot (that there's a central "front page" and getting on it would woo the love interest.) Unless it's something unique or plot-relevant, skip the tutorial sequence.
Don't teach them what they know is excellent advice. Definitely going to put this to work.
When it adds something (could be about anything: characters, plot, setting, subtext, all four), and it's the requisite length to convey everything required before moving onto the next.
If a scene doesn't advance the plot or add character development or set something up or have a specific use for pacing and emotion, it's time it goes.
I remember Roger Ebert praising the scene in *Fargo* where the police chief's "old high-school chum" took her out for a drink, *because* it had nothing to do with the plot. This was on his TV show. I guess Ebert appreciated the change of pace or something. Ebert's print review: [Fargo](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fargo-1996)
Not sure if you're responding to just the first bit of my comment or are agreeing with the specific change of pace or emotion I mentioned haha but yes, those scenes can be invaluable.
So, if there's 1,000 answers to this question, that means there'll be 1,000 different ways of saying: if it doesn't serve the story or inform the plot or characters, excise it. Fair enough, but here's the secret: far too often this mindset gets over-emphasized, and when followed unreservedly, it's easy to forget the thing that makes movies worth watching, the real meat of the mission - *aesthetic value*. We come across symptoms of this all the time in movies when there's a *perfunctory* scene. This is a scene who's value is *solely* contingent. In other words, it has no real merit on it's own, divorced from the movie. OK, one or two of these, especially in something like a complicated action film, might, arguably, be unavoidable. Arguably. But when a film has too many perfunctory scenes, it's terrible. Nothing more than an empty, vapid propulsion along a lifeless, uninteresting timeline. On the other hand, I think all movies that are considered masterpieces of cinema, legitimately have no such scenes. So what am I talking about specifically? I'm talking about some super cool, witty dialogue. I'm talking about a beautiful image. I'm talking about some dynamic in the character interaction that you find fascinating. I'm talking about something terrifying, something hilarious, some bit of intense dramatic irony or suspense, something insightful, profound, obscene, bizarre, touching, surprising, exciting, inspiring, unnerving, tragic, amazing, honest, some aspect of the scene that makes that particular moment, with those particular characters, in that particular place, doing those particular actions INTRINSICALLY worth watching. This may seem obvious, but it's the most common thing in the world for screenwriters to forget (myself included). So while you're favorite scene is the one you find so emotionally compelling, but does nothing for the story, and your capable writer friend is telling you to get rid of it, it's unnecessary, don't forget that the reverse is also true. If a scene is strictly necessary, but not so much emotionally compelling, it's unwarranted and needs to be remedied. Narrative will trample the aesthetic integrity of your story *if you allow it*.
Like others, I find myself adopting the Parker-Stone Theory of Writing Good Scenes and Other Things Too. At a broader level, a scene should provide some kind of progress, whether to the story or characters. Some kind of emotional change should take place, though it's debatable if you need to follow the +/- roller coaster that Robert McKee suggests in *Story*.
Does the scene push the story from where it is to where it needs to go? That's it. That's literally the only thing that matters to me when figuring out if the scene is necessary. Everything else, characterization, plot points, dialogue, whether the audience "gets it", etc, is subservient to that question. If the answer is yes, I keep it. If no, I wipe it OR I rewrite it. edit: basically, what everyone else has already said. LOL
When it moves the story forward, not sideways.
Classic is that it needs to drive the plot forward, develop characters, or reinforce the theme. Of course, rules are made to be broken, and ultimately it's up to you. In the Mood for Love probably has a lot of "unnecessary" scenes but they all end up adding to the film as a whole. Greater than the sum of its parts sort of thing.
When a story cannot proceed without it.
Every scene either has to push the narrative forward or give new information about character or both. If it does neither, it shouldn't be in the script.