What do you think?
Rate this book
Constructing a Story
"Constructing a Story" is designed for writers of fiction in any medium. Yves Lavandier, himself a filmmaker, breaks down the inner workings of narrative and proposes an accessible step by step method. Whether you’re an experienced writer or just starting out, you’ll be captivated by Lavandier’s original and cheerful approach to storytelling. Learn how to build the foundations to any story, and master such tools as milestones, the enriched structure, and thematic subplots. Discover how to create a complete character arc, and how fractal theory can be applied to storytelling. See how to avoid deus ex machina and easy outs, and how to install, exploit and resolve the powerful tool of dramatic irony. Find hundreds of tips on meaning, comedy, endings, exposition, stakes, villains,... and the real three-act structure. "Constructing a Story" takes a global view. Its many rich story examples from around the world include The Apartment, Casablanca, A Christmas Carol, Citizen Kane, City Lights, Cyrano de Bergerac, A Doll’s House, Groundhog Day, Hamlet, The Lives of Others, North by Northwest, Once Upon a Time in the West, Oedipus Rex, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, 1001 Nights, Some Like It Hot, Tootsie, and Toy Story.
- GenresNonfiction
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
11 people are currently reading
63 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 - 5 of 5 reviews
Read
January 20, 2025Excellent manuel pour comprendre les bases d’un bon récit.
J’ai particulièrement aimé le passage sur comment éviter les clichés sur les personnages féminins et éviter consciemment ou non le sexisme dans son histoire.
J’ai particulièrement aimé le passage sur comment éviter les clichés sur les personnages féminins et éviter consciemment ou non le sexisme dans son histoire.
October 14, 2017
This book was gifted to me by the French publisher Le Clown & L'enfant, because I have for many years published a blog on the subject of screenwriting (Adelaide Screenwriter). My review rightly belongs against the English translation, as that is what I read, but I cannot locate that version on Goodreads. I need to emphasize that I read a translation, as the thought occurred to me frequently while I struggled my way through the book and sought to excuse the writer as best I could.
This book is, first and foremost, an advertisement for another of Lavandier's books, Writing Drama. The first reference to Writing Drama appears on page 2. There are two references on page 3, two more on page 5, and so on.
The second striking characteristic is an entrenched anti-American spirit to the writing. Instead of simply laying out his own theories, he first attacks the prominent American theorists. These have offended him (Syd Field in particular) by, I think, being successful. Also because their theories differ from his. Lavandier's theories are rigid, complex and intimidating. They are presented as being the only reasonable way to approach the business of writing such a screenplay as would make for an internationally successful movie; this despite having failed to write such a screenplay himself.
Yes, I know that that is a common complaint against screenwriting gurus in general; the principle of "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach" being well in evidence in the world of screenwriting.
Does this book have anything good to offer?
I thought the small section on Loglines was very good. Other than that, anybody seeking a more complex approach to analyzing their own script would probably enjoy wrestling with his Rules.
I have read almost all the available texts on the subject of screenwriting. I found myself grinding my teeth in irritation at this one. It took me months to get through this short paperback, a sure sign that I wasn't thrilled by it. Enough said.
This book is, first and foremost, an advertisement for another of Lavandier's books, Writing Drama. The first reference to Writing Drama appears on page 2. There are two references on page 3, two more on page 5, and so on.
The second striking characteristic is an entrenched anti-American spirit to the writing. Instead of simply laying out his own theories, he first attacks the prominent American theorists. These have offended him (Syd Field in particular) by, I think, being successful. Also because their theories differ from his. Lavandier's theories are rigid, complex and intimidating. They are presented as being the only reasonable way to approach the business of writing such a screenplay as would make for an internationally successful movie; this despite having failed to write such a screenplay himself.
Yes, I know that that is a common complaint against screenwriting gurus in general; the principle of "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach" being well in evidence in the world of screenwriting.
Does this book have anything good to offer?
I thought the small section on Loglines was very good. Other than that, anybody seeking a more complex approach to analyzing their own script would probably enjoy wrestling with his Rules.
I have read almost all the available texts on the subject of screenwriting. I found myself grinding my teeth in irritation at this one. It took me months to get through this short paperback, a sure sign that I wasn't thrilled by it. Enough said.
May 14, 2018
Dense mais très complet. A relire par morceau au fil de l'avancement de chaque projet.
May 15, 2021
Un excellent manuel sur la construction d'histoires et récits, utilisant des exemples de films récents!
August 10, 2013
This book comes as a companion and follow-up to Lavandier's seminal la dramaturgie (it actually was part of that huge book in past editions). Construire... can, in fact, be read without or before La Dramaturgie, as it is very rich in useful analyses of examples and sound advice, but you may be slightly disappointed, as I was, for two reasons:
- Some of the "rules" offered may tend to feel too strict as they get very specific (though Lavandier does address the issue of "rules" and gets away with it quite well). One example is the warning against the danger of having empathy move from one character to another. I happen to disagree, as many excellent films (Revolutionary Road, The Master) rest precisely on the change in our perception of the characters and the way we empathize with them or not. Another example is the admonition not to give the same trait to too many characters because it might appear to be the way the author perceives the world. This may be safe advice in general, but it misses those cases where you precisely gain something from pulling this card as a way to characterize a community or the world of the story. I'll try to remember a non-comedy example, but in a film like Blues Brothers, a very funny but also deep element comes precisely from the fact that most of the characters never ask why they are the target of numerous assassination attempts, in a sort of metaphor of Man moving on through life without asking too many questions. This occasional lack of subtlety is too bad as la dramaturgie was rich enough to avoid creating that feeling.
- As for the process of scriptwriting itself, the book expounds the ideal to go step by step from the idea and dramatic pitch to a fully-fledged script, but I doubt that most writers work that way. Indeed, the three examples given to illustrate that point have a definite smack of artificiality to them (kind of "Ok, so now in this scene I want to establish that the character is nice but has a tendency to blunder, so let's think about what should happen") -- though we would need to see the finished films to be sure.
That said, this is a very useful book, if only because it forces one to ask a lot of essential questions, and provides keys and examples to help you answer them.
- Some of the "rules" offered may tend to feel too strict as they get very specific (though Lavandier does address the issue of "rules" and gets away with it quite well). One example is the warning against the danger of having empathy move from one character to another. I happen to disagree, as many excellent films (Revolutionary Road, The Master) rest precisely on the change in our perception of the characters and the way we empathize with them or not. Another example is the admonition not to give the same trait to too many characters because it might appear to be the way the author perceives the world. This may be safe advice in general, but it misses those cases where you precisely gain something from pulling this card as a way to characterize a community or the world of the story. I'll try to remember a non-comedy example, but in a film like Blues Brothers, a very funny but also deep element comes precisely from the fact that most of the characters never ask why they are the target of numerous assassination attempts, in a sort of metaphor of Man moving on through life without asking too many questions. This occasional lack of subtlety is too bad as la dramaturgie was rich enough to avoid creating that feeling.
- As for the process of scriptwriting itself, the book expounds the ideal to go step by step from the idea and dramatic pitch to a fully-fledged script, but I doubt that most writers work that way. Indeed, the three examples given to illustrate that point have a definite smack of artificiality to them (kind of "Ok, so now in this scene I want to establish that the character is nice but has a tendency to blunder, so let's think about what should happen") -- though we would need to see the finished films to be sure.
That said, this is a very useful book, if only because it forces one to ask a lot of essential questions, and provides keys and examples to help you answer them.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews