Given that it's one of the first (and maybe only) things most movie execs learn in Movie Executive School, along with the Lightbulb Theory (Q: How many movie development execs does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: Does it have to be a lightbulb?), seeing that the term's so screenwriting-ubiquitous that it's become a cliche, I was startled when I recently asked a roomful of screenwriting students to define the term set piece, and only a couple of them were able to give it a shot.
C'mon, people! Especially if you're writing comedy, having at least one set piece in your script is absolute necessity. Because Movie Exec School teaches its acolytes that the most fail-proof response to being pitched anything, to convince anyone that you are, in fact, a legitimate movie executive, is to ask: Where are the set pieces?
So where be your set pieces, and to take this bit of bull by the horns, what is a set piece?
Ask the question at today's university of choice, Google (soon will come the day when people will present their academic credentials as, "I went to Google"), you'll find the dictionary definition: a piece of scenery intended to stand alone as part of the stage setting.
Well, yeah, okay, but that's not it. This definition does speak to the origin of the present-day concept, though, and presents the model for a working metaphor we could call That French Door Thing. Picture the row of half a dozen French doors traditionally found on stage in an old-fashioned bedroom farce. During the big scene where all the comedy's duplicitous adulterers and confused dupes end up caught in the same tight spot, this bunch of doors, though nice enough as scenery, exist for one real purpose: to send various characters flying in and out of the bedroom with escalating hilarity.
A broader definition, more conceptual, is nicely summarized in part by this American Heritage entry: an often brilliantly executed artistic or literary work characterized by a formal pattern. In other words, you got your set, and you got your piece, which is essentially what you do with that set: if it's an action movie, literally and figuratively blowing everyone away, and if it's a comedy, making your audience laugh HA-HA! and, if you're doing it right, keep laughing, from smaller guffaws to bigger near-screams and tears.
And that's the key factor: a set piece is not a one-shot deal. It's not a bit, a line or a riff. A set piece is an extended scene or sequence that exploits the setting or "world" of the movie to build from one joke or thrill to a series of same, climaxing in a satisfyingly big pay-off topper.
In Star Wars, it's Luke's wild dog-fight charge through the Death Star's trenches, which ends, pinball-style, in the mega-tilt of the Death Star being blowed up good. On a vastly smaller scale but with the same principle at work, it's Sally's faux-orgasm in When Harry Met Sally's deli.
What's it come to mean in movieland is: the thing everyone talks about when they've seen the movie. It's Facebook discussion-worthy, e-mail and Twitter-fodder. It's also become, in a very pragmatic way, the element in a given screenplay that justifies the project being a big-screen theatrical feature (i.e. a sequence that really fills the screen, thus suggesting viable box office returns). When the movie exec asks of a script, where are the set pieces? he's echoing the uber-query of the music exec when faced with a new album release: where are the hit singles?
In fact, the term used to come up in opera, to describe a flashy aria. And it's used today in sports (particularly soccer), to describe a well-executed maneuver that scores a goal with panache. This points to the one mandatory requirement for a set piece: it scores with its audience by delivering its goods in a memorable way, and the subtext of its being memorable is originality. The best cinematic set piece induces a very specific Wow Effect, born of the viewer thinking, "I've never seen that before!"
For a crash course in classic set piece construction, see Hitchcock. The Master never made a movie without at least one, and the best are things of beauty exemplifying Heritage's secondary definition: "a carefully planned and executed military operation." North by Northwest features half a dozen, from the famous "that plane's dusting crops where there ain't no crops" sequence to its shoot-out on Mount Rushmore climax. And in terms of milking a literal theater set for every conceivable drop of suspense, nobody's ever really topped the Royal Albert Hall heart-pounder at the end of The Man Who Knew Too Much.
What too often gets overlooked in thinking up a set piece is that it should be organic in its conception. Utilizing the "world" of a movie means: find your comedic idea in some person, place or thing that's inherent in the material. It ought to arise naturally from its story's trajectory, like a found object becomes art.
The most effective romantic comedy set pieces are an inspired collision between character and circumstance. If your story takes place on a soap opera set where episodes sometimes get shot live, then it stands to reason it'll climax in that context, e.g. Tootsie's fabulous "Michael Dorsey unmasks Dorothy Michaels, live on the soap set's staircase" set piece. If you're in an Amazon rain forest, then why not get swept away by a mudslide (Romancing the Stone)?
Thus, given the title Groundhog Day, it's inevitable -- and immensely satisfying -- when Phil (Bill Murray) kidnaps the town's beloved groundhog Punxsutawney Phil and drives, with hog in his lap at the wheel, to a flaming suicidal death. It's essentially an old-fashioned chase sequence, but its air of "of course!" makes all the difference.
"Killing Two Phils" begins with a mini-set piece, the actual kidnapping (managed cleverly, deftly, an amusement in itself). It builds exponentially, adding supporting characters as the chase intensifies. It gains emotional ballast and additional humor from producer Andie MacDowell's concern for newsman Murray and cameraman Chris Elliot's cynical detachment (his reaction to Phil going bonkers is a barely contained "This'll be good!" as they join the chase).
I love the wonderful detail work in Murray's Phil-the-man to Phil-the-groundhog driving commentary ("That's not bad for a quadruped... hey, don't drive angry!"), and especially the topper. After a wild chase, Phil's car goes over the cliff, bounces, slo-mo crash-lands upside down. Pause. "Phil!" cries horrified Andie, looking down at the wreck. Chris, camera on shoulder, hazards "He might be okay." Boom! and the car explodes in a massive fireball. "Well, no, probably not now," says Chris, and hurriedly starts filming the holocaust.
The groundhog, the small town environs, the news team stuff -- all of it's already in place, ripe for the heightening. Using what's there (what the audience might expect to be utilized) is key in set pieces. Stuck in an apartment for a pivotal scene? Hey, sometimes even a couch might do.
Along with its "build from small laughs to big" structure and the necessity of a winning topper (it's not for nothing that Meet the Parents' rooftop set piece ends with the entire family caught in a literal shit storm, as the septic tank blows), having your set piece involve your primary protagonists and arise organically from the story is what can make all the difference. An audience feels the contrivance when a set piece is arbitrarily imposed.
One is a necessity for any comedy script these days, but there's no fixed number beyond that. The danger zone arises if you do too much, and get too derivative. I read a spec this morning that suffered from this. Lots of set pieces, all of them with a warmed-over which two movies did they cobble together to yield this gag we've seen before? feeling. They had the requisite "someone put pot in Mom's brownies" scene, the obligatory "someone put ex-lax in Dad's brownies" scene, the old "golf game that gets violent" scene... I had the sensation of reading some Frankenstein-ian "Standard Generic Set Pieces From American Comedies, 1980-2005" gag reel, and this was one of the reasons I gave it a Pass.
On the How To Do It Right side, another rom-com set piece that will reward study is Some Like It Hot's brilliant cross-cut seduction sequence, which features Tony Curtis faking impotence to seduce Marilyn Monroe, while Jack Lemmon in drag dances a tango with Joe E. Brown (two reversals, topping one another). Bogdanovich's What's Up Doc? has an incredible third act that's virtually one giant set piece. More recently, Something About Mary delivered a handful of set piece greats, among them, its fabulously painful "Ben Stiller caught in a zipper" scene (memorably topped by the line "We've got a bleeder!"). And then there's the hair-gel.
Even if your romantic comedy is largely urban interiors, you can find a way to exploit the most mundane of settings if you're alert to comedic possibilities (e.g. When Harry...'s diner). And if you're writing a rom-com... find one. Do it. Explore the world you've created and see what's there to tap into. Because it can help turn a "small" rom-com into a bigger, more accessible movie-movie. Because comedy audiences have come to expect this kind of sustained, belly-laugh entertainment. And because believe me, when you go out with a comedy spec, you're going to hear That Question.
And like those movie execs on the hunt, as a rom-com appreciator I'm always looking for good set pieces to savor. Got any faves you'd like to cite?
[First person to name the movie this pie fight comes from gets a free Mernitman CD.]
Would that be "Dr. Strangelove?"
I'll cite a few fav set pieces later. It's time for work now!
Craig
Posted by: Craig | May 19, 2006 at 03:40 AM
Wow - thanks for this. I got the idea from the way the term "set piece" is thrown around that it refers to a scene like the Michael Dorsey unveiling in Tootsie (probably my favorite). But now it's much clearer.
The Break Up looks like one of my favorite unromantic comedies, Love Stinks. In Love Stinks, the lovers end up hating each other at the end. I bet in the Break Up, the apartment burns down whilst their love re-ignites....
Posted by: christina | May 19, 2006 at 07:04 AM
Jack Nicholson ordering that sandwich in Five Easy Pieces -
Posted by: Babs | May 19, 2006 at 07:22 AM
I recently saw the play Noises Off at a local theatre and that had some fantastic door slamming.
But my favorite set piece sadly comes from a movie whose title I can't remember. Maybe you can help me. It opens with a studio exec asking "where are all the set pieces" after which he is ritually murdered by the writers. Know the one I'm talking about?
Posted by: JJ | May 19, 2006 at 12:28 PM
Craig, well done! Here I was thinking this might be a stumper, since the still is from the infamous slapstick set-piece that was CUT from "Strangelove," but clearly you're up on your cinematic history. E-mail me your mailing address and a Mernit "Greatest Hits" will soon be yours, you poor -- sorry, lucky! -- fellow.
Christina, that sounds about right.
Babs, oh, yes, "...then take the two slices and stick them -- " etc. has always been that film's (and young Jack's) finest moment.
JJ: Saw the original B'way "Noises" twice, because I laughed till I literally cried (the movie doesn't do it justice).
I think I know the film you mean -- same one where an Exec uses the Lightbulb Theory in a meeting and later, the writer sticks the exec's head in a light socket and spins him round till he expires? LOL...
Posted by: mernitman | May 19, 2006 at 01:09 PM
The kitchen scene in "Moonstruck."
Posted by: Butch | May 19, 2006 at 05:09 PM
Billy,
The term "set piece" seams synonamous with, "master scene." Over the cource of a 90 - 120 page screenplay, their will be lots of master scenes, so... a "set piece" would be the capstone, or best, most memorable master scene, right?
Typically on DVDs today certian sequences are marked with titles. Are those what you would consider "set pieces?"
Great post by the way. Good peep talk. Thanks for the added resume boster too. Wasn't aware I could site "Google U."
- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA
Posted by: E.C. Henry | May 19, 2006 at 06:41 PM
Butch: Ah yes -- "A bride without a head!" "A wolf without a foot!!"
E.C.: I'm not familiar with this "master scene" idea. A "master shot" is the traditional, Old School shot that takes in the whole of a scene, securing coverage for the entire run of that scene, and enabling one to later cut into it for close-ups, etc.
Re: DVD chapter headings, to my knowledge they're generally arbitrary (i.e. created by the producers of the DVD for scene access, period) and aren't intended to signify any particular kinds of scenes or sequences.
Posted by: mernitman | May 20, 2006 at 01:21 PM
beaten to the punch w/Strangelove, bravo, Craig.
It's a sticky analogy (NO pun intended), but I always liken the set pieces to the "love" scenes in porn...
...they're what we come to see the movie for, and sometimes it's just a writer's job to get from "Pizza Delivery Man" to "Mmm, it's so hot in here, why don't you take off your shirt?" w/out being EGREGIOUS, as it always is in porn (or so I'M TOLD...).
Set Pieces:
Any Car Chase (or other action sequence) in an action movie...
Any Song and Dance number in a traditional musical...
In Sit Com writing they call the comic set piece the "block comedy scene" -- so when Peter Brady has two dates, the dance where he goes w/both of them and tries to convince each she's the one and only...that's the "set piece/block comedy scene" -- likewise in Mrs. Doubtfire, when Mrs. D has to shuttle between two tables in the same restaurant, switching identities each time...set piece, as it will almost always be in any "dual identity" masquerade...
...and like that there.
PS. Anyone notice the paucity of comic set pieces in the Pink Panther remake? ALMOST one w/the ming vases, that's about it...that wouldn't've flown w/Peter Sellers...those movies were but a string to hang those comedy pearls.
chris
Posted by: Chris Soth | May 20, 2006 at 02:25 PM
This is great advice for us screenwriters to remember. From my own movie-going experience, you usually go to a movie wanting to like it. So, if a crappy movie has 2-3 good set pieces, I usually walk out saying "it was pretty good," even if the dialogue, plot, and acting were atrocious.
Posted by: Neil | May 20, 2006 at 04:54 PM
the graduate
1) sitting at the bottem of the pool
2) the cross in the door
3) the party where the partents friend
says "plastics"
4) mrs robinson opening up to young ben in the bar at her house
...
modern times
chaplin getting sucked into, then through and spit out of the machine
defending your life
im not sure- i wanna say the past lives pavillion
scene where the hero is being chased and ends up as dinner, but perhaps i am confusing a scene that i personally liked, with the larger concept.
Posted by: uhjim | May 20, 2006 at 05:43 PM
Billy,
Thanks for the responce. Yes, I meant "master shot" not "master scene." And thanks for the clarification of DVD scene titles.
- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA
Posted by: E.C. Henry | May 20, 2006 at 07:53 PM
I love the dinner scene in "Wedding Crashers." It's a great set piece because it builds with the Visine in the boyfriend's glass, the rude grandmother, the gay brother, and then it climaxes, if you will, with the sister fiddling with Vince Vaughn under the table.
The Marx Brothers always have great set pieces.
-the overcrowded stateroom
-the lemonade cart
-Harpo’s mirror scene
I’m not sure if it qualifies as a set-piece, but I love the hospital scenes from one of my favorite romantic comedies, “Shallow Hal.” They are funny and light hearted in the beginning, but the reveal when you goes back at the end is what really raises the movie in my eyes.
Come to think of it, maybe “Shallow Hal” wasn’t as well received as “Something About Mary” because it doesn’t really have any obvious set pieces. I guess the first nightclub scene after he meets Tony Robbins might qualify, but it’s not a strong as the scenes in “Mary.”
Wow – thanks for the insight. I’ve always wondered why “Shallow Hal” didn’t really hit, and I think this may have something to do with it. But if you haven’t seen it, I think it’s definitely worth a viewing.
Posted by: Craig | May 21, 2006 at 03:12 AM
Can a movie have more than one? I tried to think of the set piece for my favorite movie - The Princess Bride. There are so many that it's hard to pick. The fencing scenes? Miracle Max? The ROUS's? The dungeon torture scene? Perhaps it's the Battle of Wits with Vizzini. Inconcievable!
Posted by: Brooke | May 21, 2006 at 07:53 AM
Chris: Thanks for the "block scene" info, that's interesting. I guess Panther proves the maxim, "Funny accent doth not a set-piece make."
Neil, that's totally true -- many a lackluster comedy has been redeemed (partially) by including a memorable S.P. -- witness about half of the "Naked Gun" franchise.
Uh-jim: "Graduate" also has the classic hotel tryst sequence of back-to-back S.P.s: lobby -- w/ paranoid Hoffman confronting snarky desk clerk Buck Henry ("Are you here for an affair, sir?"), followed by hotel room -- "Mrs. Robinson, I think you're the most attractive of all my parents' friends."
Craig: the brothers Marx never met a S.P. they didn't like. What I remember from Hal is the rowboat scene, and you're right, the S.P.s had a quick, under-developed feel.
Welcome back, Brooke! It's good to see you up and about in Bloglandia again. Oh Lord, "Bride" -- it's a S.P. bonanza, thanks for reminding me (whenever someone starts talking about this movie I always want to see it again), and yes, it supports the theory that if you're On, and genuinely inspired, it's not Inconceivable that any number of S.P.s can be launched in a given movie.
Come to think of it, "Inconceivable!" is a textbook example of the Running Gag, a device that could be subject for a subsequent post...
Posted by: mernitman | May 21, 2006 at 08:49 AM
I'm still thinking about this subject two days later, reviewing all of the comments and having a few a-ha moments. Like Craig's observation that the Shallow Hal may not have had many set pieces - Yes! I agree that may have made it less of a blockbuster comedy. When I finally saw it, I was befuddled - I thought it deserved much more acclaim than it received.
So, I think this is a set piece - will you confirm? In My Best Friend's Wedding, in the 3rd act, when the Julia Roberts character kisses her best friend and the to-be bride sees, and then a chase ensues through the grounds of the wedding and into the streets of Chicago.... That whole sequence - set piece? Or, what part is the "set piece" part? I really enjoyed that movie, though I maintain the protagonist had no arc. Could it be the set pieces made the movie?
Posted by: christina | May 21, 2006 at 08:49 AM
After reading only the beginning of your post I paused and tapped out my own admittedly cynical definition of a set-piece:
“The various major scenes in a movie where most of the production money will be spent. These scenes may or may not have plot or character significance.”
I’m glad yours was sans cynicism and practical. I also was thinking of Moonstruck but I think you could pluralize and say the kitchen scenes – near the beginning (“you’re a wolf”) but even more so the final kitchen scene where all the characters come together.
In drama, I think Ben-Hur’s chariot scene is a set-piece (ending in the death of Messala).
I think my cynical definition came about because I’ve seen too many movies (especially of the action kind) where the set pieces make little or no sense, and seem to be an excuse to blow up as much as possible and see how many edits can be squeezed into a nano-second.
This was a great post - great explanation and great examples.
Posted by: Bill | May 21, 2006 at 09:42 AM
One note on SOME LIKE IT HOT: Tony Curtis wasn't pretending to be impotent. You'll recall he says he's unable to feel anything emotionally for a woman, and his family's very ashamed of the problem... he was pretending to be gay. Which if you ask me is funnier on half a dozen levels.
Posted by: Noah Brand | May 21, 2006 at 10:21 AM
Christina, yeah, I'd say that Friend's "chase" is sort of an extended set-piece, though not wildly memorable; the family sing-along in the restaurant is more of a traditional self-contained S.P. According to Ron Bass (I got to interview him live about this at a screening) Julia's arc is from selfish-to-selfless, finally. Though I agree with you, in that the "arc part" feels squeezed quickly into the back end of the movie.
Bill, glad you enjoyed it, and yup, that ensemble comedy scene in the kitchen at the end is one of the greats, with a classic topper ("Do you love him, Loretta?" "Yeah, Mom, I love him awful." "Oh, God, that's too bad.")
Welcome, Noah: Interesting. I'll say 'sure,' and it does make it funnier. But I think the scene was written (deliberately) open-ended enough so that one could interpret it either way.
Posted by: mernitman | May 21, 2006 at 11:30 AM
Noah - I have to disagree. Tony Curtis can't feel anything for women since his girlfriend fell into the grand canyon. And I don't believe he ever say his family is ashamed. I've never gotten the impression that Curtis is playing it gay. I've seen SLIH at least a dozen times and I've always read it as impotence.
Posted by: Craig | May 21, 2006 at 11:40 AM
Yes, when I said the kitchen scene from "Moonstruck," I actually meant the scene at the end. So much to love, including the grandfather with his hand over his face.
"Whatsamatta, Pop?"
"I'm confused."
Posted by: Butch | May 21, 2006 at 06:44 PM
So in comedy, would you say one key element of "set piece" is someone acting irrationally, but in a funny way?
I think the physical humor is easy to envision but the various reasons why a character would suddenly "go large" or "over-the-top" would be good to explore in another post.
Posted by: kristen | June 15, 2006 at 07:10 AM
Oh, my vote is "Vacation", which is 1 set piece after another, but of course the amusement park is the culmination.
And everyone always remembers the aunt croaking in the car and them putting her on the roof.
Posted by: kristen | June 15, 2006 at 07:38 AM
Kristen: Definitely. Irrational is HUGE in the comedy universe anyway... the obverse being a character acting funny in a rational way (e.g. Cary Grant's almost non-stop mugging as he tries to get a word in edgewise with Kate Hepburn for the entirety of Bringing Up Baby).
Aunt on the Roof = priceless.
Posted by: mernitman | June 15, 2006 at 10:16 PM
RAISING ARIZONA, one of the great comedies of all time is chalk full of them. The Arizona home, the trailer, the prison, the chase sequence in the grocery store. The film weaves compelling characters and situations together masterfully into 10-15 minute humor blocks. The title card doesn't even appear until the 11th minute of the film as the Coen's follow Vonnegut's 8th rule to a "t".
Posted by: PolarBearGreen | April 07, 2010 at 06:47 PM