When looking over both McKee's and Weston's methods at analyzing a scene, I was surprised to discover that I preferred what I will call, The Weston Approach.
The Weston Approach allowed for a bit of whimsy in telling your gut reactions over characters and allow musing into lines, whereas McKee's formulaic approach seems more of an equation to jam ill-fitting reactions with actions.
But I pressed on anyway, shelving my preferences.
Once I had broken down the scene, I saw a lot a emotional jousting between Grahm and John, with Ann kind of bounced around either unaware of the "man-battle" going underneath the surface, or feigning ignorance. Needless to say, the majority of ACTION/REACTION was John/Graham.
I'll admit, the strange hybrid of McKee and Weston (though I'll always side with Weston on this) turned into a good, if rather nebulous, way to analyze this scene. If anything, McKee gives the analyzer (?) a good jumping off point if he/she is completely mystified about the scene, while Weston allows a more elegant touching of the bases.
1. I thought Weston was way off when she maintained that Graham was "not a liar" because he said so. I thought he solidified himself as a liar if his fumbling, repetitious answer. What do you think of Graham?
2. Who's "Approach" do you prefer? The more structured McKee, or more free Weston?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
McKee FTW! his approach is much more black and white, and it's better for someone who has to analyze multiple scripts and doesn't have time for preliminary ideas, who was liked the most, and other opinion based questions.
Weston is better for the screenwriter who wrote the scenes, because they can then dive deep into the characters and answer the many questions that Weston thinks need to be answered for the scene to exist.
Post a Comment