10.
1177_17470218211013677
book-review2021
QJP0010.1177/17470218211013677Quarterly Journal of Experimental PsychologyBook review
Book review
Book review
Paul Gulino and Connie Shears. The Science of Screenwriting: The
Neuroscience Behind Storytelling Strategies. London: Bloomsbury,
2018, 164 pp., £16.99, ISBN 9781501327254 (pbk).
Reviewed by: Robin SS Kramer and Abi MB Davis, School
of Psychology, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK
As avid film fans, and taking inspiration from the authors’
discussion of how best to structure a script (Chapter 9), we
have decided to present this review in line with Field’s (2005)
“Three Act Structure.” So let’s dim the lights, open the cur-
tains, and sit back with our overpriced confectionaries . . .
Act I: setup
By joining forces, a cognitive psychologist and a professor
of screenwriting aimed to shed some much needed light on
the science behind storytelling. In recent years, scientists
have learned a lot about the psychology and physiology
that make humans particularly attracted to film and televi-
sion. It must be noted that our species did not specifically
evolve to try and make sense of static images displayed in
rapid succession before our eyes. But then we also didn’t
evolve to eat puffed up kernels of corn drowning in butter
and/or salt. On both counts, we have certainly adapted well
to our environment. Indeed, this ability to confuse the
brain (and entice it with the perfect combination of sweet
and salty) is precisely why films work so well on us. We
can be transported beyond the mundane, to other worlds
and times, and it would seem that we’re very much built to
enjoy such things.
This book embraces the overlap between science and
screenwriting, with the goal of applying what we know
about psychology to the process of making a better film. For
example, how can screenwriters make sure that viewers
connect with the main character (Chapter 2) and don’t lose
interest along the way (Chapter 6)? To this end, the book is
successful in a number of ways. First, it is surprisingly short,
and perhaps as a result, is very readable. The light-hearted
writing style emphasises the authors’ enjoyment of the sub-
ject matter, and readers might easily consume the material in
one sitting. Second, the book is filled with plenty of exam-
ples to illustrate each point, taken from both television and
film. While One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Breaking
Bad suitably epitomise the difficulties with presenting main
Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology
2021, Vol. 74(7) 1315­–1316
© Experimental Psychology Society 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17470218211013677
https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211013677
qjep.sagepub.com
characters who make questionable decisions (to put it
mildly), Silver Linings Playbook is presented as a study in
conflict. Third, a simple summary, along with some thought
experiments and exercises, round off most chapters. These
support readers in their understanding of the concepts pre-
sented and provide “homework” aimed at developing some
of the techniques discussed.
Act II: confrontation
Combining psychology and screenwriting surely makes for
interesting and entertaining subject matter. However, this
combination also represents the book’s biggest challenge.
What kind of audience will enjoy and/or gain the most from
reading it? The authors seem to target screenwriters and
filmmakers, acknowledging that upon completion of the
book, readers will be “more interested in success in writing
a screenplay or making a film than in continuing any scien-
tific inquiry” (p. 157). Although personally, our background
is in psychological research, we suspect that any informa-
tion such readers would gain is fairly rudimentary (and
likely covered in more detail in other texts, frequently cited
by the authors). And as experimental psychologists, the sci-
entific coverage is somewhat unsatisfactory.
To give an example, filmmakers know that conflict and
drama are vital ingredients that hold the attention of view-
ers (Chapter 7). As viewers, we like to see how characters
will overcome obstacles to achieve their goals—think of
the initial rivalry between Woody and Buzz in Toy Story.
However, the authors approach the scientific underpin-
nings of this concept through the example of the classic
Müller-Lyer illusion, where lines appear to differ in length
due to the arrows featured at their ends. This is quite the
stretch in terms of relevance. A second illustration of this
mismatch can be found in Chapter 3, where the authors
discuss the spectacle enjoyed by viewers at the beginning
of Star Wars when a tiny spacecraft is pursued by a giant
Imperial Stardestroyer. Here, the scientific explanation is
couched in terms of photoreceptors housed in the retina,
firing as a result of changes in light levels. Although inter-
esting to the inquiring non-scientist, we would very much
have preferred more high-level and in-depth explorations
of psychological explanations which better address why
such phenomena result in some of the most memorable
scenes in film history.
1316 Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 74(7)
This criticism applies throughout the book. Where sci-
entific parallels were drawn, we always felt like more rel-
evant literature could have been found. Let’s consider
Chapter 2. Here, the authors tackle the concept of the audi-
ence’s connection with the main character, which might be
particularly difficult if screenwriters have opted for a less
traditional “nonhero” (someone we wouldn’t typically
admire and who lacks many positive qualities). The authors
suggest that first impressions are important so it’s best to
introduce the character when in between transgressions.
Gulino and Shears argue that our connection to the charac-
ter is brought about by our evolved mechanisms that cause
them to be “adopted” by us as “family” (our in-group) via
survival instincts (p. 33). Problematically, no specific evi-
dence is presented to support these ideas. Alternatively, we
as psychologists might have incorporated more directly
related findings about how first impressions of social traits
are unavoidable, and once formed, are difficult to inhibit
(e.g., Goller et al., 2018; Ritchie et al., 2017). Or that sim-
ply being exposed to any character over time may result in
a liking or preference for that person (termed the “mere
exposure effect”—Zajonc, 1968; which we know applies
to faces too—Kramer & Parkinson, 2005). Or that others
disclosing personal information about themselves results
in our increased liking of them (Collins & Miller, 1994).
Again, we feel like the authors missed out on the opportu-
nity to present more relevant research.
Our final criticism will depend entirely on how enam-
oured the reader is with the Star Wars franchise. From our
perspective, we found the book to be inexplicably focussed
on these works. Along with mentions in virtually every
chapter, the authors chose to spend all of Chapter 10 (16%
of the book!) taking us through a literal “blow by blow”
account of the first film, framed as an illustration of many
of the concepts discussed throughout the earlier chapters.
For us, this was too much, and we sympathise with those
readers who actively disliked the films.
Act III: resolution
Don’t get us wrong, we both enjoyed reading this book. The
nuances regarding filmmaking were both interesting and
informative, and some of the screenwriting concepts were
new to us as psychologists. The problem for scientists is the
level at which the content is pitched, along with the target
audience. Our recommendation is that this book best serves
screenwriters with some scientific curiosity. However, we
don’t think that they will learn to take full advantage of the
brain’s inner workings. But they will enjoy an evening or
two with a fun read. And perhaps slightly higher scores on
the next pub quiz. For those of us with a background in psy-
chology and an interest in films or screenwriting, we sug-
gest approaching this book with an open mind and don’t
expect too much. The information won’t revolutionise your
thinking but the delivery will amuse and satisfy. Think Two
Weeks Notice rather than Inception.
ORCID iD
Robin SS Kramer https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8339-8832
References
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A
meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457–475.
Field, S. (2005). Screenplay: The foundations of screenwriting.
Random House.
Goller, J., Leder, H., Cursiter, H., & Jenkins, R. (2018).
Anchoring effects in facial attractiveness. Perception,
47(10–11), 1043–1053.
Kramer, R. S. S., & Parkinson, B. (2005). Generalization of mere
exposure to faces viewed from different horizontal angles.
Social Cognition, 23(2), 125–136.
Ritchie, K. L., Palermo, R., & Rhodes, G. (2017). Forming
impressions of facial attractiveness is mandatory. Scientific
Reports, 7, 469.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposures. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt. 2), 1–27.