Robert McKee (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Writers Roundtable



Message

Giulia -> Robert McKee (9/10/2008 10:34:01 AM)

Robert McKee is coming out here. I am not going to see him. I not only find the 500 he's asking is way too much to be asking a student, but I also found that for a person who has studied Shakespeare; to be getting the famous 'Hamlet' line wrong is tremendously uninsightful. In his 'Story' (1998) book he quotes "oh that this too, too solid flesh would melt". When in fact it is the sullied flesh he longs would melt. The fact that he misquoted may have been a typo or else it is a misunderstanding, in which case he doesn't get the concept; in which case I refuse to put up with the rest of his arrogance and talking down to people.

If the guy studied Shakespeare since he was 9, then he should get the lines right. I am not that intelligent. I don't have a huge vocabulary, nor do I have a vast command of the English language. I do, however know and understand the line of the sullied flesh because I have a body of flesh of which I am well aware of how it limits me and annoys me at times as I seek a higher existence in heaven.

'Story' has a tremendous amount of insight but for one who has never written a successful screenplay I don't understand why he is like a god in the film scene and in the literary scene, I prefer Vogler if I had to choose; but if he too is arrogant then I think I can find my own way looking through things under the sun already done and learning from them.

People tell me that what I am criticising is the screenwriters bible. I only have one bible and One God to whom I bow and that is the Holy Bible in which my Lord Jesus Christ is spoken of.



techne -> RE: Robert McKee (9/11/2008 12:14:55 AM)

from http://shakespeare.about.com/od/act1sce3/g/solid.htm

Many scholars ask whether Shakespeare intended "solid" to be actually "sallied", a form of the word "sullied." The second quarto of Hamlet contains "sallied", but the First Folio prints it as "solid." Modern editors have been quite divided on the issue. Editors of The Arden Shakespeare choose to use "sullied", while editors of The New Cambridge Shakespeare have decided upon "solid." The reasoning for the use of "solid" is fairly evident, as it logically corresponds to "would melt" (131). However, there are good arguments to support the claim that Shakespeare did mean "sullied." With "sullied" we have the "suggestion of contamination" (Jenkins, 437), which is apparent throughout the soliloquy.

References: Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Harold Jenkins, ed. London: Methuen, 1982.

there doesn't seem to be a consensus -- some of the online references say "solid" (as does my pelican collection from uni), while others say "sullied". of course, shakespeare's plays as we have them aren't necessarily the definitive version - they are simply the version we have. his plays were a collaboration with the actors and improvisation and rewrites were ongoing, even during performances. besides, even if he did get one thing wrong, does that nullify the [many] others helpful or insightful things he may have to offer? i think the biggest issue would be whether or not the $500 is a worthwhile investment. but that's just me. i hope that - overall - you're enjoying your classes, though.



Giulia -> RE: Robert McKee (9/12/2008 7:30:18 AM)

quote:

there doesn't seem to be a consensus -- some of the online references say "solid" (as does my pelican collection from uni), while others say "sullied". of course, shakespeare's plays as we have them aren't necessarily the definitive version - they are simply the version we have. his plays were a collaboration with the actors and improvisation and rewrites were ongoing, even during performances. besides, even if he did get one thing wrong, does that nullify the [many] others helpful or insightful things he may have to offer? i think the biggest issue would be whether or not the $500 is a worthwhile investment. but that's just me. i hope that - overall - you're enjoying your classes, though.


You know $500 would be better spent towards my new computer. No it doesn't nullify the other helpful insight he has given and I did like Kojak and also liked Columbo.

It is obvious to me the line is sullied because that gives the melting a motive. I would like my sullied flesh to melt too. Perhaps not melt but certainly transform. Yes I am enjoying my classes tremendously, mainly because they are leading me to learn of the wonderful world in me[:D].

I get turned off when someone is overly popular. When everyone walks clockwise I have to walk anti-clockwise. Just the way I am[:D] I have heard of some accounts of his arrogance and it winds me up. I learn in my own way. Often it is not the way everyone else learns. In class I was baffled by structure and thinking about it I could not grasp the concept. Yet the fairy tale I wrote was beautifully structured, so my teacher told me and it seems to be happening to my other stories as well so perhaps it's learning in some part of me I am not fully aware of.

You know you are the first to come to his defence. I totally ripped him to shreds in class the other day and not one person could say anything, they were laughing too much . You have come up with some type of defence for his blunder; a typically post-modern one, nevertheless a defence.



Giulia -> RE: Robert McKee (9/18/2008 8:23:10 AM)

So what's this? He plans to come here on the 27th of feb and the screenwriter's national conference is from the 25th to the 27th. Does that not display disrespect for the gathering. It seems that way to me! My teacher said it may have been a coincidence???



rgod -> RE: Robert McKee (9/18/2008 11:17:52 AM)

Hi Giulia,

Why do you find McKee to be arrogant? I've not read anything in your posts that seems to point to this so I'm confused. He has his workshop/talk on the same day as the screenwriter's national conference. But, in my limited conference planning experience, planning for these things usually take place well in advance - dates are sometimes influenced by venue availability and schedule preference - sometimes years in advance. Workshops are sometimes sponsored by others (I don't know if that is the case with McKee) and even in the case of workshops, those can sometimes be scheduled a year or so in advance, particularly for international speakers. So often coincidences do occur.

Also, can we attribute the use of the word "solid" in the Shakespeare quote in published version of "Story" to McKee? Usually there are copyeditors or proofreaders who check quotes I think (maybe I'm wrong). Given that there is some dispute over whether Shakespeare wrote "solid" or "sallied" - do you think that possibly they felt it best to use a reference that uses the word "solid" instead of "sallied"?

I do agree that $500 is a lot of money - especially for a student (I'm in that boat myself). But, in the Writer's Market for 2008, the median price that writer's charge for a workshop session is around $1600. Given that McKee is internationally known in this field, his price seems to be under the going rate (but still expensive for me!).

I guess, I'm having a hard time understanding why you are finding McKee to be arrogant. Is it the tone of his book? Is it because he has not written a successful screenplay? Or something else? I've wondered too why his book is the definitive work - mostly because I feel that it can be written more concisely. But the information there is solid and it helps me to understand some of the choices that many screenwriters of popular films have made. And many have used what he has written to write movies that have been popular and/or well received. Perhaps that is why he is considered an expert - because in practical application - his methods and advice work? I wonder if he was the first to systematically lay all of this information out in a way that is accessible to the general public? (Do you happen to know?)

Also Giulia, do you have some other books that are in this genre that you could recommend? You mentioned Vogler ...



techne -> RE: Robert McKee (9/18/2008 12:34:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
You know $500 would be better spent towards my new computer. No it doesn't nullify the other helpful insight he has given and I did like Kojak and also liked Columbo.

so then why focus on a few small (and debatable) failings? why not honour the good things as well? we often throw phil 4.8 around as an excuse or justification to judge and malign things, but i think another reading is possible, namely, that we are supposed to look for the good in things as much as, if not more than, what is wrong. words of life, dear, words of life...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
It is obvious to me the line is sullied because that gives the melting a motive. I would like my sullied flesh to melt too. Perhaps not melt but certainly transform. Yes I am enjoying my classes tremendously, mainly because they are leading me to learn of the wonderful world in me[:D].
fine. i'm glad that it's obvious to you. that's your preference. and one possible reading. however, the literary world and experts in the field are divided, and shakespeare's text - as a text in continual flux - is open to interpretation and is unfixed. shakespeare himself left no definitive letter stating that it must be "solid" or "sullied" (or "sallied" for that matter). i think both provide for interesting readings within the soliloquy, the scene and the larger context of the play...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
I get turned off when someone is overly popular. When everyone walks clockwise I have to walk anti-clockwise. Just the way I am[:D]

not sure that is any justification of anything...popularity is not evil, nor is individualism good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
I have heard of some accounts of his arrogance and it winds me up.
well, it is always best to base judgements about people on second-hand gossip...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
You know you are the first to come to his defence. I totally ripped him to shreds in class the other day and not one person could say anything, they were laughing too much . You have come up with some type of defence for his blunder; a typically post-modern one, nevertheless a defence.

i'm not so much coming to his defense as addressing the issue of shakespeare's text. your rant was that, as an expert, mckee should "get the line right" - my contention is that there may be no way for us to know what the right line is. what was the point of ripping him to shreds in class? would you have addressed him in a similar manner face to face? again, please refer to my first point in this post.

also, how is my so-called 'defense' "a typically post-modern one"? because i base it on the text(s) available to us as well as possible interpretations of said texts, as well as the context of its cultural and literary (and collaborative) production?



Giulia -> RE: Robert McKee (9/19/2008 3:58:54 AM)

quote:

Why do you find McKee to be arrogant? I've not read anything in your posts that seems to point to this so I'm confused. He has his workshop/talk on the same day as the screenwriter's national conference. But, in my limited conference planning experience, planning for these things usually take place well in advance - dates are sometimes influenced by venue availability and schedule preference - sometimes years in advance. Workshops are sometimes sponsored by others (I don't know if that is the case with McKee) and even in the case of workshops, those can sometimes be scheduled a year or so in advance, particularly for international speakers. So often coincidences do occur.


The people who have told me about him paint him in that arrogant light. Apparently he cuts people down a lot and has this arrogant attitude. The accounts that are published of him all paint a picture of an arrogant person. If it is the case that it is a coincidence perhaps he should reschedule. Heaps of venues in Australia[;)]

quote:

i'm not so much coming to his defense as addressing the issue of shakespeare's text. your rant was that, as an expert, mckee should "get the line right" - my contention is that there may be no way for us to know what the right line is. what was the point of ripping him to shreds in class? would you have addressed him in a similar manner face to face? again, please refer to my first point in this post.


Before I do that I just want to say that I don't say anything unless I am willing to say it to someone's face. I don't talk behind backs or around corners.

quote:

also, how is my so-called 'defense' "a typically post-modern one"? because i base it on the text(s) available to us as well as possible interpretations of said texts, as well as the context of its cultural and literary (and collaborative) production?


Because in the post modern world there are always discrepancies and no one knows the truth according to how it was originally. There's always that excuse of different opinions. I never heard solid in the place of sullied yet. Never heard anyone misquote it like that and straight away I knew it was sullied. In the context of what he says it makes sense.

quote:

so then why focus on a few small (and debatable) failings? why not honour the good things as well? we often throw phil 4.8 around as an excuse or justification to judge and malign things, but i think another reading is possible, namely, that we are supposed to look for the good in things as much as, if not more than, what is wrong. words of life, dear, words of life...


Yes I do and have and yes I agree. I just like a good fight[:D]. I am not always contentious. I also edify.

quote:

not sure that is any justification of anything...popularity is not evil, nor is individualism good.


I just don't like it when people get led up the wrong garden path and me I don't follow, only follow Jesus.

quote:

well, it is always best to base judgements about people on second-hand gossip...


It's what I've read of him, perhaps I change my mind if I meet him, perhaps I won't. I also saw a film of him and he's got a shocking mouth, every second word begins with an f and I don't mean fruit. Some of the writers and actors I know talk about him like he's god and I don't like that at all. You know if you're going to come in like a soldier you better have no chinks in your armour otherwise you're gonna get shot.

Not nice to tear someone to shreds if they ask a silly question or they have a problem they want help with and it seems he does this often unless all the stuff printed about him are lies in which case I am happy to admit I am wrong. Only time I rip into someone is when they can handle it. I never pick a weak target.



Giulia -> RE: Robert McKee (9/20/2008 8:23:10 PM)

This is not about me but the integrity of my country. If I was looking to win friends and influence people I wouldn't be a Christian. People stop talking when I walk into the room, that's ok. They always respect me to my face so God is obviously looking after my honour.



writerchick -> RE: Robert McKee (10/14/2008 4:31:49 PM)

As someone who has taken McKee's class, I found the positives of the workshop to far outweigh the negatives. He can come across as a little intense, but it's been my experience that you get what you give. That said, his arrogance - if that's what you want to call it - didn't bother me at all.

It seems to me that there is a deeper issue at work here. Otherwise, the depth of your venom toward the man is quite hard to understand. A good bit of your rant makes me wonder how much actual experience you have in the world of screenwriting. I have yet to come across anyone who has built McKee up to the heights you have. The general consensus on all the gurus is that they have valid points, but at the end of the day you have to make your screenplay your own.

If you don't want to be bothered with McKee. Then don't. However, might I suggest you look into sites like Zoetrope.com or Trigger Street. You can post your work on both and get feedback. There are also forums where you can learn quite a bit about screenwriting if you're open to it.



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI