What do you think?
Rate this book
The Nutshell Technique: Crack the Secret of Successful Screenwriting
"The Nutshell Technique cracks the code behind why we love the movies that we love. It guides you to organically write the story you want to tell."― Callum Greene, ProducerStar Wars Episode IXVeteran script consultant Jill Chamberlain discovered in her work that an astounding 99 percent of first-time screenwriters don't know how to tell a story. What the 99 percent do instead is present a situation. In order to explain the difference, Chamberlain created the Nutshell Technique, a method whereby writers identify eight dynamic, interconnected elements that are required to successfully tell a story.Now, for the first time, Chamberlain presents her unique method in book form with The Nutshell Crack the Secret of Successful Screenwriting. Using easy-to-follow diagrams ("nutshells"), she thoroughly explains how the Nutshell Technique can make or break a film script. Chamberlain takes readers step-by-step through thirty classic and contemporary movies, showing how such dissimilar screenplays as Casablanca, Chinatown, Pulp Fiction, The Usual Suspects, Little Miss Sunshine, Juno, Silver Linings Playbook, and Argo all have the same system working behind the scenes, and she teaches readers exactly how to apply these principles to their own screenwriting. Learn the Nutshell Technique, and you'll discover how to turn a mere situation into a truly compelling screenplay story.Since its publication in 2016, The Nutshell Crack the Secret of Successful Screenwriting was an instant classic. It is the go-to manual many professionals swear by, and it's on the syllabus at schools across the world including the world renowned programs at UCLA and Columbia University. It has also been published in Mandarin Chinese, Korean, and Italian.
236 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 1, 2016
213 people are currently reading
753 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
January 20, 2020
The perspective on screenplay structure is interesting and valuable, but this book could have been 1/4 the length it currently is. The author repeats phrases so often (verbatim, usually) that I got the impression she was deliberately trying to make the book longer. Each chapter could have been condensed, and the majority of the book should have been devoted to examples. Also, I felt it was a bit pretentious to claim that Casablanca could have been a better film had the screenwriters followed this book's technique.
September 26, 2020
This is by no means a book! It’s an endless repetition of 5 or 6 very well known notions of screenwriting disguised as something miraculously new. But worst of all... the author states 25% of 90 is 15, which really got me annoyed.
September 18, 2019
While some visual formatting of the book's content made it difficult to read at first, Chamberlain does a magnificent job of decoding the genetics of successful storytelling. This book targets film as its source material, but it is equally as valuable to the novelist or short story writer.
I would highly recommend this book if you are looking for tools to help you hone your craft.
I would highly recommend this book if you are looking for tools to help you hone your craft.
October 1, 2018
The Nutshell Technique is the most comprehensive book on screenwriting I have ever come across. It's not convoluted with personal anecdotes, and it's never self-important like many of the other books out there. It's straightforward, easy to comprehend, makes total sense, and the layout is so easy to follow. There are even basic layouts to track movies. It makes something as seemingly impossible as a screenplay seem doable for anyone. Would recommend this book to people just entering, or writing veterans who need a brush up on how to fill in plot holes they may not even know are there!!!
April 27, 2020
The Nutshell technique is a two half-page chronological check lists which I quote below. And that is not enough to make a book, by most standards that is not enough to make a blog post. I agree that the author has spent a lot of time tinkering with the checklist, but that does not reflect in something marketable.
Charmberlain is also not a writer. He is a fixer. You call him to fix your broken script. And that becomes obvious after a few pages. The text is dry and annoyingly repetitive.
The book is a long list of a few popular movies that fit the bill. I am sure for each block buster fitting the bill, there are a few hundred terrible failures fitting the same formula, but the author is selling failed writers the dream of being an Oscar nominee in the near future, if only they would follow the check list. Anyway, I had to stop reading this book a few times simply because repeating the same movie names over and over and the constant markings of the time at which something happens in the repeatedly named movie like someone reading a table of betting rates for too much. I also strongly disliked how Chamberlain blends over aspects leaving the impression that the script writer had anything to do with this book, or where Aristotle's collaboration for this text ends and where Chamberlain starts.
1. For Comedy:
* Does the protagonist get their SET-UP WANT immediately and directly in the POINT OF NO RETURN?
* Does the protagonist get something immediately in the POINT OF NO RETURN that they don't want, the CATCH?
* Is the CATCH the perfect test for their FLAW?
* Is the CRISIS the lowest the protagonist can go? (What if they were in jail? Or considering suicide?)
* In the CRISIS, is the protagonist in the exact opposite state of mind or situation of where they were in the SET-UP WANT?
* In both the CLIMATIC CHOICE and the FINAL STEP, does the protagonist move away from the FLAW and towards the STRENGTH?
* Are the FLAW and the STRENGTH exact opposites?
2. For Tragedy:
* Does the protagonist get their SET-UP WANT immediately and directly in the POINT OF NO RETURN?
* Does the protagonist get something immediately in the POINT OF NO RETURN that they don't want, the CATCH?
* Is the CATCH the perfect test for their FLAW?
* Is the TRIUMPH the highest the protagonist can go?
* Does the protagonist get the ultimate manifestation of their SET-UP WANT in the TRIUMPH?
* In both the CLIMATIC CHOICE and the FINAL STEP, does the protagonist fail to move toward the STRENGTH and instead further the FLAW?
* Are the FLAW and the STRENGTH exact opposites?
Charmberlain is also not a writer. He is a fixer. You call him to fix your broken script. And that becomes obvious after a few pages. The text is dry and annoyingly repetitive.
The book is a long list of a few popular movies that fit the bill. I am sure for each block buster fitting the bill, there are a few hundred terrible failures fitting the same formula, but the author is selling failed writers the dream of being an Oscar nominee in the near future, if only they would follow the check list. Anyway, I had to stop reading this book a few times simply because repeating the same movie names over and over and the constant markings of the time at which something happens in the repeatedly named movie like someone reading a table of betting rates for too much. I also strongly disliked how Chamberlain blends over aspects leaving the impression that the script writer had anything to do with this book, or where Aristotle's collaboration for this text ends and where Chamberlain starts.
1. For Comedy:
* Does the protagonist get their SET-UP WANT immediately and directly in the POINT OF NO RETURN?
* Does the protagonist get something immediately in the POINT OF NO RETURN that they don't want, the CATCH?
* Is the CATCH the perfect test for their FLAW?
* Is the CRISIS the lowest the protagonist can go? (What if they were in jail? Or considering suicide?)
* In the CRISIS, is the protagonist in the exact opposite state of mind or situation of where they were in the SET-UP WANT?
* In both the CLIMATIC CHOICE and the FINAL STEP, does the protagonist move away from the FLAW and towards the STRENGTH?
* Are the FLAW and the STRENGTH exact opposites?
2. For Tragedy:
* Does the protagonist get their SET-UP WANT immediately and directly in the POINT OF NO RETURN?
* Does the protagonist get something immediately in the POINT OF NO RETURN that they don't want, the CATCH?
* Is the CATCH the perfect test for their FLAW?
* Is the TRIUMPH the highest the protagonist can go?
* Does the protagonist get the ultimate manifestation of their SET-UP WANT in the TRIUMPH?
* In both the CLIMATIC CHOICE and the FINAL STEP, does the protagonist fail to move toward the STRENGTH and instead further the FLAW?
* Are the FLAW and the STRENGTH exact opposites?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
October 8, 2020Really liked this one. I find screenwriting books tend to click with me more when it comes to story structure than books about plotting a novel.
June 4, 2017
Ever since I read this, I can't stop "nutshelling" movies!
The nutshell technique follows the formula for tragedies and comedies that Aristotle laid out thousands of years ago. In a tragedy, the protagonist gets the ultimate manifestation of their initial want despite their flaw. They achieve more and more success, but because of their failure to move away from their central flaw, the story ends with their downfall. In contrast, in a comedy the protagonist hits their lowest point, but moving away from the flaw (turning it into a strength) brings them a happy ending.
Sorkin said in his screenwriting Masterclass that stories are driven by conflict, and conflict is driven by intention and obstacle. This technique describes how to create relevant and engaging conflict that creates a true story. Otherwise, you just have a situation.
Screenwriting advice can be full of hard and fast rules that end up making a screenplay feel stiff. The nutshell technique is the skeleton, but there's an infinite number of skins you can put on top. Since the technique is detailed pretty early, half the book is dedicated to applying it to well-renowned movies. Despite their enormous differences, they all apply these key structure points in one way or another.
It comes with two templates, one for tragedies and another for comedies, that I'll without a doubt use in any screenplay I write.
The nutshell technique follows the formula for tragedies and comedies that Aristotle laid out thousands of years ago. In a tragedy, the protagonist gets the ultimate manifestation of their initial want despite their flaw. They achieve more and more success, but because of their failure to move away from their central flaw, the story ends with their downfall. In contrast, in a comedy the protagonist hits their lowest point, but moving away from the flaw (turning it into a strength) brings them a happy ending.
Sorkin said in his screenwriting Masterclass that stories are driven by conflict, and conflict is driven by intention and obstacle. This technique describes how to create relevant and engaging conflict that creates a true story. Otherwise, you just have a situation.
Screenwriting advice can be full of hard and fast rules that end up making a screenplay feel stiff. The nutshell technique is the skeleton, but there's an infinite number of skins you can put on top. Since the technique is detailed pretty early, half the book is dedicated to applying it to well-renowned movies. Despite their enormous differences, they all apply these key structure points in one way or another.
It comes with two templates, one for tragedies and another for comedies, that I'll without a doubt use in any screenplay I write.
November 26, 2019
There’s some useful insight in here but it’s convoluted and cyclically written, using terminology unique to this book but not defining these terms and phrases until after using them with others and creating a lot of confusion. I wanted the heart of the ideas but it felt like reading a messy recipe. The first twenty pages also explained what was wrong about every other approach to screenwriting, whereas I was interested in learning this specific approach; not a self defense.
February 9, 2020
Should be added to the Canon
This book teaches something I’ve never learned before and I’m very glad I read it. I’ve read the canonical screenwriting books that teach structure. This book doesn’t replace them but supplements what they failed to teach about the protagonists emotional journey. She does repeat things A LOT but that helps the terms stick in your head so I don’t mind. This technique NEEDS to stick in every screenwriters head.
This book teaches something I’ve never learned before and I’m very glad I read it. I’ve read the canonical screenwriting books that teach structure. This book doesn’t replace them but supplements what they failed to teach about the protagonists emotional journey. She does repeat things A LOT but that helps the terms stick in your head so I don’t mind. This technique NEEDS to stick in every screenwriters head.
July 13, 2017
I've read 'Story' (Robert McKee), 'Inside Story' (Dara Marks), 'Screenwriting' (Syd Field) and many others, but I have found this to be the best book so far for story. It's simple and direct and is a very practical guide to making your own stories. Loved it!
February 24, 2025
While I tend to disagree with strict structural interpretations and the supply of unified theories in aesthetics, I still enjoyed Chamberlain's book a lot. The downside is too much repetition, but I can guess why she needed to make the same points repeatedly in various elemental contexts. Nevertheless, this is one of the best modern interpretations and applications of the Aristotlean framework—concretely applicable and empirically verifiable.
Here is one mysterious thing about the dynamics of storytelling. Let's say we cannot nutshell a particular screenplay in the Aristotlean framework, and still be able to tremendously enjoy it, would it mean that it is still a comedy or tragedy but the respective elements and arcs are so subtle that we cannot possibly pinpoint them?
The answer is probably No. There might be instances where the characters and their motivations are so intricately complex and layered that it is impossible to analyze them in a formulaic framework. Those films—for instance, Coen Brother's Fargo— are likely to challenge the structuralist interpretations big time.
Here is one mysterious thing about the dynamics of storytelling. Let's say we cannot nutshell a particular screenplay in the Aristotlean framework, and still be able to tremendously enjoy it, would it mean that it is still a comedy or tragedy but the respective elements and arcs are so subtle that we cannot possibly pinpoint them?
The answer is probably No. There might be instances where the characters and their motivations are so intricately complex and layered that it is impossible to analyze them in a formulaic framework. Those films—for instance, Coen Brother's Fargo— are likely to challenge the structuralist interpretations big time.
April 4, 2025
Amé la forma de analizar las historias, pero es demasiado repetitivo todo.
March 14, 2020
Great little primer to digging out the guts of your story. I think the concepts are useful for any writing. I'm new to the form, so no idea how effective her method actually is.
May 28, 2020
A short, quick read that gives some application of Aristotle's ideas, dividing the world into either Comedy or Tragedy. She sets forth eight essential points and explains how they should work together. There was some insight, but overall I thought she had to torture some of the movie plots to fit her conceptions. It didn't leave much room for the real brilliance of a plot that breaks really new ground. It's a worth a quick read, but there's not much depth there.
June 28, 2021
I've been involved as a published writer and then a freelance professional story reader for many years now. I've worked for a mid-sized agency literary agency in NY as well as being a judge and script reader for an annual film festival for years in my community. I had one script which was awarded first prize locally and another which was a quarter finalist in the Nicholls Screenwriting Fellowship, coming in, in the top 300 out of some 16,000 submissions the year I submitted my two scripts (the other script was also a quarter-finalist).
I've taught screenwriting at the college level and was offered a contract by the WMA years before they merged with UTA. Just thought it was important to give you an idea of my background because I've read almost every screenwriting book out there from the mid-70s onward. From the earliest offerings like Syd Field onward and this was easily the most over-written and difficult book I've read so far, and needdlessly sol
I picked up "The Nutshell Technique" out of curiosity based on the glowing reviews. I was sadly disappointed as ultimately, all Chamberlain has done is to merely repackage old concepts in new finery and promoting it as a unique breakthrough method.
It isn't.
She's taken a relatively simple subject and presented it with a gloss of heavy academia (not surprising as "The Nutshell Technique" is published by a university press. But it's unnecessarily wordy and unnecssarily complex without improving on any of the other books already out there. Merely changing terminology doesn't improve upon old and classic concepts methods. She's needlessly complicated ideas without actually offering any new insights or approaches whatsoever.
As others have mentioned her "concepts" here could easily have been reduced to a 2 or 3 page pamphlets and saved the purchaser a ton of money. You will learn far more by simply Googling and re-reading the earliest Syd Field books or Robert Anderson's "25 Questions for a Playright" (which is, by the way, free). But please, please save your money on this terribly overwritten book.
I can't explain to you why the glowing positive review except to speculate that many of these praiseworthy reviews were from relatively younger readers who've limited experience in screenwritin and were "snowed" by Chamberlains academic style of writing.. I've however, been reading as well as writing scipts and writing about scripts since 1975 and I will simply advice to Save Your Money. Yes, some times anything can be over-hyped and I believe that is the case for it.
Go over your early Syd Fiend and later Hero With a Thousand Faces by Vogler and a few other the well know other books out there ands you'll be far far ahead of the game. But this was hurled into the game and offers almost nothing in the way of new game.
Jonathan Kaplan
I've taught screenwriting at the college level and was offered a contract by the WMA years before they merged with UTA. Just thought it was important to give you an idea of my background because I've read almost every screenwriting book out there from the mid-70s onward. From the earliest offerings like Syd Field onward and this was easily the most over-written and difficult book I've read so far, and needdlessly sol
I picked up "The Nutshell Technique" out of curiosity based on the glowing reviews. I was sadly disappointed as ultimately, all Chamberlain has done is to merely repackage old concepts in new finery and promoting it as a unique breakthrough method.
It isn't.
She's taken a relatively simple subject and presented it with a gloss of heavy academia (not surprising as "The Nutshell Technique" is published by a university press. But it's unnecessarily wordy and unnecssarily complex without improving on any of the other books already out there. Merely changing terminology doesn't improve upon old and classic concepts methods. She's needlessly complicated ideas without actually offering any new insights or approaches whatsoever.
As others have mentioned her "concepts" here could easily have been reduced to a 2 or 3 page pamphlets and saved the purchaser a ton of money. You will learn far more by simply Googling and re-reading the earliest Syd Field books or Robert Anderson's "25 Questions for a Playright" (which is, by the way, free). But please, please save your money on this terribly overwritten book.
I can't explain to you why the glowing positive review except to speculate that many of these praiseworthy reviews were from relatively younger readers who've limited experience in screenwritin and were "snowed" by Chamberlains academic style of writing.. I've however, been reading as well as writing scipts and writing about scripts since 1975 and I will simply advice to Save Your Money. Yes, some times anything can be over-hyped and I believe that is the case for it.
Go over your early Syd Fiend and later Hero With a Thousand Faces by Vogler and a few other the well know other books out there ands you'll be far far ahead of the game. But this was hurled into the game and offers almost nothing in the way of new game.
Jonathan Kaplan
November 3, 2021
I'm reviewing this book while considering what it was supposed to accomplish. I feel that this book wanted to present a new way of looking at the hook/ the core of a story. In that regard, it did present an easy and alternative way. I did learn some things here. What I didn't like, and the reason why I'm not giving it 5 stars is that I found large chunks of the book unnecessary or even expendable. Chamberlain repeats the same points quite a lot and while it might help you remember her model better, for me it muddled the information.
An interesting perspective and worth adapting to your story if you're stuck.
An interesting perspective and worth adapting to your story if you're stuck.
December 3, 2022
There's some useful perspective on the three-act structure here but really that material and the example film nutshells are no more than a pamphlet's worth of information. The rest of it is padded out by interminable repetition of the same points over and over, (multiple paragraphs on the same page will make the same points with almost interchangeable language), especially about the CATCH having to come immediately after the protagonist gets their SET-UP WANT. I don't like being a reviewer who says "Was an editor even involved in this?" but the utter redundancy of whole pages makes this excrutiating at times.
November 30, 2019
Jill Chamberlain is a self-declared structuralist, and so am I. Maybe my chaotic childhood is to blame, but I want something more from fiction than I ever seem to get from real life: I want fiction to make sense, and even more, to have meaning and resonance. The Nutshell Technique offers insight into how to shape a screenplay to create a satisfying narrative. Soon, later today maybe, I will begin using what I've learned. I look forward to seeing my stories through the lens of The Nutshell Technique.
August 16, 2016
Great technique for creating a dynamic story, not just a situation. Print/sketch out the worksheet, mark it up as you go, and you'll have an abundance of suggestions on how to whip your screenplay into shape, from set-up to final step. A tad repetitive in spots, but a small price to pay for fantastic overall advice.
September 8, 2017
This is a must read for all screenwriters. Most books have similar advice - 3 act structure, inciting incident, etc. - but this book provides fresh insight into screenplay writing and analysis.
March 2, 2020
A bit repetitive and professorial, but her unique contributions regarding the connections between the protagonist, their motivations and various plot points will stick with me.
April 23, 2025
I tend to be skeptical of screenwriting books that are too prescriptive, because while I believe there are universal dramatic principles, I think there's quite a bit of latitude to how they can effectively be applied. For instance, does the "point of no return" have to happen by page 25? Really?
I like that she does admit some great films don't fall into her "Nutshell" structure, particularly the Coen Brothers' later works (including Fargo, which she admits to loving, but not understanding —at least structurally).
I also like how Chamberlain bases everything on Aristotelian Tragedy and Comedy, which does help make sense of her technique, so that it's not all entirely new terminology which has to be translated in my mind to fit into the jargon of other screenwriting gurus.
Her emphasis on the character's flaw as the engine of story is interesting, and I think she's onto something when she distinguishes a situation from a story by the ways in which a story tests a specific character's flaw whereas a situation is not a problem unique to that character. In other words, if you can swap your protagonist with another one and your script works just as well, it's not a story. I think that makes a lot of sense.
I like the plethora of examples in the book, a few of which are undeniable masterpieces that help prove her points. I do find it funny that in the case of Godfather, which I think is the greatest story ever put to film, she admits that it doesn't fit perfectly into her Nutshell stages. There's also something interesting about classifying Godfather as an Aristotelian Comedy, because in the world of the film's gangsters, Michael overcomes his fatal flaw of naïveté, and moves towards his "strength" of realism. I don't know if I agree that Godfather isn't a tragedy, but maybe there's something to the fact that it can be seen both ways that makes Godfather feel transcendent, whereas some films that fit neatly inside the typical formula can feel a bit morally simplistic by comparison.
Something to think about.
I like that she does admit some great films don't fall into her "Nutshell" structure, particularly the Coen Brothers' later works (including Fargo, which she admits to loving, but not understanding —at least structurally).
I also like how Chamberlain bases everything on Aristotelian Tragedy and Comedy, which does help make sense of her technique, so that it's not all entirely new terminology which has to be translated in my mind to fit into the jargon of other screenwriting gurus.
Her emphasis on the character's flaw as the engine of story is interesting, and I think she's onto something when she distinguishes a situation from a story by the ways in which a story tests a specific character's flaw whereas a situation is not a problem unique to that character. In other words, if you can swap your protagonist with another one and your script works just as well, it's not a story. I think that makes a lot of sense.
I like the plethora of examples in the book, a few of which are undeniable masterpieces that help prove her points. I do find it funny that in the case of Godfather, which I think is the greatest story ever put to film, she admits that it doesn't fit perfectly into her Nutshell stages. There's also something interesting about classifying Godfather as an Aristotelian Comedy, because in the world of the film's gangsters, Michael overcomes his fatal flaw of naïveté, and moves towards his "strength" of realism. I don't know if I agree that Godfather isn't a tragedy, but maybe there's something to the fact that it can be seen both ways that makes Godfather feel transcendent, whereas some films that fit neatly inside the typical formula can feel a bit morally simplistic by comparison.
Something to think about.
October 23, 2022
This book presents an excellent framework for looking at and creating plots. Though the book focuses exclusively on screenplays, I read it as a novelist/short story writer, and most of the ideas translate very well. I do plan on incorporating this technique into the way I think about new novel plots (and some short stories) before I start writing them.
Another thing that I really appreciated about this book was that, while it uses many different movies as examples, it is actually very easy to navigate the book without spoiling any of the movies for yourself if you don't want to. I think this is particularly important since, given this book is a discussion of plot structure, any example movies need to be thoroughly spoiled in order to serve their purpose as examples. Each chapter lists every movie that is mentioned at the beginning, and the examples are signaled well enough that, when you get to a movie that you don't want to spoil, you can skip past it. There are also tables in a few places listing movies with their plot elements, and I didn't find it difficult to cover the table with my hand and peek ahead at the movie title so I could skip over and keep covered the two movies that I really cared about not spoiling for myself. Of course, the more movies you are willing to read about, the better you will be able to understand the concepts, as the examples are sometimes integral to the explanations, so if you haven't seen the majority of the example movies and aren't willing to be spoiled, you may not get as much from the book.
Another thing that I really appreciated about this book was that, while it uses many different movies as examples, it is actually very easy to navigate the book without spoiling any of the movies for yourself if you don't want to. I think this is particularly important since, given this book is a discussion of plot structure, any example movies need to be thoroughly spoiled in order to serve their purpose as examples. Each chapter lists every movie that is mentioned at the beginning, and the examples are signaled well enough that, when you get to a movie that you don't want to spoil, you can skip past it. There are also tables in a few places listing movies with their plot elements, and I didn't find it difficult to cover the table with my hand and peek ahead at the movie title so I could skip over and keep covered the two movies that I really cared about not spoiling for myself. Of course, the more movies you are willing to read about, the better you will be able to understand the concepts, as the examples are sometimes integral to the explanations, so if you haven't seen the majority of the example movies and aren't willing to be spoiled, you may not get as much from the book.
Read
December 29, 2022How? A friend interested in screenwriting mentioned this to me.
What? It's just another writing book, strictly for movies and really Hollywood movies.
Yeah, so? Chamberlain is explicitly Aristotelian and implicitly very reductive. I'm 100% fine with her definition of comedy (someone overcomes their flaw) and tragedy (someone gives in to her flaw), and I even buy the thesis that a movie is essentially asking a question. But I kind of lose my patience when Chamberlain poo-poos writing books that give specific page numbers for beats -- and then gives percentages for when something should happen.
And, feh, I just think there's a difference between writing advice you can use and post-facto cutesy notes like "In Groundhog Day, the protagonist doesn't want to spend another day in the town, so he gets what he wants: not to spend another 24 hours in the town, but to spend the same 24 hours over and over." I mean, I'm most annoyed about that because it's clever, but it's not helpful.
And so on and on. Overall, what we have here is very similar to a lot of other writing books and advice for movies: ask a question, show a character struggle with that question. But when the author starts talking about what's wrong with Argo and Casablanca, according to her formula, while also stretching that formula to try to cover other movies, feh. It just doesn't really feel actionable.
What? It's just another writing book, strictly for movies and really Hollywood movies.
Yeah, so? Chamberlain is explicitly Aristotelian and implicitly very reductive. I'm 100% fine with her definition of comedy (someone overcomes their flaw) and tragedy (someone gives in to her flaw), and I even buy the thesis that a movie is essentially asking a question. But I kind of lose my patience when Chamberlain poo-poos writing books that give specific page numbers for beats -- and then gives percentages for when something should happen.
And, feh, I just think there's a difference between writing advice you can use and post-facto cutesy notes like "In Groundhog Day, the protagonist doesn't want to spend another day in the town, so he gets what he wants: not to spend another 24 hours in the town, but to spend the same 24 hours over and over." I mean, I'm most annoyed about that because it's clever, but it's not helpful.
And so on and on. Overall, what we have here is very similar to a lot of other writing books and advice for movies: ask a question, show a character struggle with that question. But when the author starts talking about what's wrong with Argo and Casablanca, according to her formula, while also stretching that formula to try to cover other movies, feh. It just doesn't really feel actionable.
February 27, 2022
Of all the screenwriting books out there, so far, I have found that The Nutshell Technique to be the only one that addresses the *content* of a story, rather than the structural plot points. For example, Save The Cat (a great book, and perfect for an introduction to structure) talks a lot about "lowest points", but there are many ways to send a character to their lowest point. Should the protagonist randomly develop a drinking problem? Or try to kill themself? Or drop out of school? This is the only book that ties the elements together, and while I don't think it's the only book you need to read on screenwriting, I really appreciated the focus on content. Every character has a flaw. Act 2 needs to test their flaw. Their lowest point should be a flip of what they wanted at the beginning of the story (for Aristotelian comedies). I also appreciate Chamberlain honestly admitting when a film doesn't quite fit her structure. Overall, The Nutshell Technique is a good jumping off point, but not necessarily the only book you need.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 14, 2017
I’ve read a lot of books on screenwriting and this book is definitely one of the best. A filmmaker friend recommended it to me and I saw right away that the attention to story and framing in The Nutshell Technique is articulated in a way that’s much clearer and straight-forward than most of the other books. Jill Chamberlain is a top expert in the field.
This book emphasizes how story needs to put emphasis on moving from the protagonist’s flaw toward her/his strength. The rest of the book is about how to get there. Setting it up, getting the protagonist to the point of no return, through the climax of the story, to a killer ending. It’s a simple, straight-forward, no nonsense explanation that should be of help to any screenwriter wanting to make his/her work stronger. Definitely recommended.
This book emphasizes how story needs to put emphasis on moving from the protagonist’s flaw toward her/his strength. The rest of the book is about how to get there. Setting it up, getting the protagonist to the point of no return, through the climax of the story, to a killer ending. It’s a simple, straight-forward, no nonsense explanation that should be of help to any screenwriter wanting to make his/her work stronger. Definitely recommended.
April 10, 2024
I mean, it is ok. Nothing on it is wrong.
This might just be me but it seems screenwriting books and writing books in general have nothing to offer me anymore. I may be reminded of an idea or an approach here and there, but it all seems a rehash of the same concepts and practices.
When it comes to writing, nothing beats Lajos Egri’s The Art of Dramatic Writing followed by Mckee’s Story, then Dialogue, Character, and Action as a summary of sorts. The rest is either personal approaches or loose paraphrasing with new words and examples. So if you have read Egri or Mckee, you can’t go wrong going with one. Whatever you do, don’t “save the cat”.
This might just be me but it seems screenwriting books and writing books in general have nothing to offer me anymore. I may be reminded of an idea or an approach here and there, but it all seems a rehash of the same concepts and practices.
When it comes to writing, nothing beats Lajos Egri’s The Art of Dramatic Writing followed by Mckee’s Story, then Dialogue, Character, and Action as a summary of sorts. The rest is either personal approaches or loose paraphrasing with new words and examples. So if you have read Egri or Mckee, you can’t go wrong going with one. Whatever you do, don’t “save the cat”.
August 17, 2018
Its alright
I've read other books including Story by McKee as well as Stephen King's On Writing. Then there's the Screenwriting Bible, How To Write A Screenplay in 30 Days, No Plot No Problem, and the countless others as well as the screenplays I've read to master form. And some point you just gotta let it all go and write. What I've learned from this is that you can write with structure but the part of the brain that writes, doesn't need nor want structure. It can write. This book just clarified for me that anyone with some talent and a whole lot of discipline can write.
I've read other books including Story by McKee as well as Stephen King's On Writing. Then there's the Screenwriting Bible, How To Write A Screenplay in 30 Days, No Plot No Problem, and the countless others as well as the screenplays I've read to master form. And some point you just gotta let it all go and write. What I've learned from this is that you can write with structure but the part of the brain that writes, doesn't need nor want structure. It can write. This book just clarified for me that anyone with some talent and a whole lot of discipline can write.
June 21, 2019
If you are trying to write a film or TV pilot, you won't find a better book than this. It is at once simple to understand and yet very deep. It is the only technique I've seen that shows the direct connection between the protagonist's character development and how it ties into the plot. It's not a template that confines you to story beats. It's fairly new to the scene, having been published in 2016, but the method is rooted in the theories of Aristotle. It takes classic story theory and makes it workable for a writer trying to apply it to their own scripts.
March 17, 2021
This may very well become my new writing/analyzing story guide.
I’ll admit it could be 3/4 the length, but the gems are in there and it’s worth the redundant reinforcements to get them.
This is the first book about screenwriting I’ve read that actually seeks to understand and explain the “why” behind a character’s choices and how that drives the story/film. I feel like I actually took a course, and not like I just read what some old white guy who wrote a spec script once has to say about his own success (looking at you, Save The Cat).
I’ll admit it could be 3/4 the length, but the gems are in there and it’s worth the redundant reinforcements to get them.
This is the first book about screenwriting I’ve read that actually seeks to understand and explain the “why” behind a character’s choices and how that drives the story/film. I feel like I actually took a course, and not like I just read what some old white guy who wrote a spec script once has to say about his own success (looking at you, Save The Cat).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews