The objective is to all (that includes us judges) learn from the exercise.

Please comment on our comments!

photo credit: swanksalot

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below.

Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible.

CUT SNAKE

“A tense, sexy thriller based on the notorious
1973 Whiskey Au Go Go nightclub fire that killed 15 people.“

The judges’ votes:

Do you want to see this film?

Yes: 11% – No: 33% – Not sure: 56%

Would Australians want to see it?

Yes: 33% – No: 11% – Not sure: 56%

Would it work in rest of the world?

Yes: 11 % – No: 22% – Not sure: 67%

The judges’ verdict:

Jack: The Whiskey Au Go Go fire would make a great film, but this synopsis tells us nothing about the story.

The Whiskey Au Go Go fire would make a great film.

Dan: Is it an Australian story? I’m not familiar with it if it is. This logline needs more info – what about the fire necessitates it being a sexy thriller – central characters, more context?

This logline needs more info.

Steven: Sounds like a straight cash-in of Australian TV’s “Underbelly” franchise.  On that basis, it might be better marketed as a local telemovie, rather than as a feature film.
If this is to be a genuine feature film of at least some merit, then a minimum of two more things are needed:-
1) Describe the protagonist.  Who is he?  What makes him different from all the archetypes we have already seen in the “Underbelly” series?
2) What makes this story internationally relevant?  Specify what relevance this film will have to a viewer from Paris, London, New York, Hong Kong, etc.  Even if that relevance is as simple as the intersection of sex, money, and corruption.

DARK PASSAGE

“An American couple set out to adopt a little girl after the loss of their own child, but waiting in the small Australian town, the couple have a run-in with an intimidating local, who kidnaps their new daughter as part of a deadly extortion plot.“

The judges’ votes:

Do you want to see this film?

Yes:  50% – No:  50% – Not sure:  0%

Would Australians want to see it?

Yes: 67% – No:  11% – Not sure:  22%

Would it work in rest of the world?

Yes:  56% – No:  11% – Not sure:  33%

The judges’ verdict:

Kim: This is a great premise and improving the logline is simply a matter of improving some word choice – the meat of the story has been described quite well.  The phrase “waiting in the small Australian town” is a bit awkward. Perhaps beginning a new sentence with this new idea will let you clarify, such as “While waiting in the small Australian town where they plan to adopt,” or something to that affect. The local isn’t just intimidating, he’s a downright scoundrel. I’d select an adjective for him that makes him sound crueler in action than intimidating. Otherwise, great!

This is a great premise and improving the logline
is simply a matter of improving some word choice.

Nina: The synopsis should mention the flaws of the dual protagonists – if there are indeed two protagonist’s – so we can imagine the difficulties and transformation the couple must undergo. This would improve an already intriguing synopsis.

The synopsis should mention the flaws of the dual protagonists.

Robin: Make it more simple and clear. ‘Death’ for ‘loss’ perhaps.  What does the couple do? If they just hand over money and get girl back, not really interesting. Why ‘deadly’?

The Judges (click for details)

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

Please give us your opinion in the comments below!

The objective is to all (that includes us judges) learn from the exercise.

Please comment on our comments!

photo credit: swanksalot

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below.

Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible.

CHARLIE

“A workaholic father who has lost sight of the most important things in life – his wife and daughter – is tragically killed,
but is given a second chance to engage with his family
when he comes back to life – as a bug!“

The judges’ votes:

Do you want to see this film?

Yes: 22% – No: 67% – Not sure: 11%

Would Australians want to see it?

Yes: 22% – No: 39% – Not sure: 39%

Would it work in rest of the world?

Yes: 22% – No: 56% – Not sure: 22%

The judges’ verdict:

Steven: Extremely unoriginal story!

The workaholic father bit is so familiar that “has lost sight of the most important things in life” is completely redundant.  Therefore, it creates DISinterest, rather than interest!

The coming back as a bug bit may have gag value for perhaps 15 minutes, no more.

It is also hard to see how he will be able to effectively atone to his wife and daughter as a ‘bug’. No matter how clever or resourceful at engineering the bug incarnation may be, how will a small and unsightly insect truly manage to provide emotional reconciliation towards the two women in the end?  Even in a comedy, there has to be some convincing prospect of emotional closure in the end.  The synopsis does not provide any answer or reply to this doubt.

The coming back as a bug bit may have
gag value for perhaps 15 minutes, no more.

Margaret: Yes, it’s been done.  But perhaps there are new jokes you can get out of a bug that you couldn’t get out of a dog, or a snowman, or Jim Carey, or . . . I’m sure there are others.

Is this animated?  Live action and CGI?  Puppets?  Who is the target audience for this film, kids or their parents?  If it’s kids then perhaps the synopsis should appeal to what they will be getting out of it.  I wouldn’t recommend targeting the workaholic parents though.  They rarely take their kids to the movies.

Who is the target audience for this film,
kids or their parents?

Kim: Wow, what a wild premise! It has me very curious as to how this plays out in the screenplay, which is great for a logline since the goal is to build interest in the script. I’d wonder about the genre of this script – is it a comedy, family film, animated, dark comedy – because that would greatly affect the tone. And a teeny word choice recommendation, consider making “engage” stronger, such as “connect” so a deeper journey toward healing with his family is implied.

THE CROOKED HEAD

“An evangelical missionary and linguist moves his family to the Brazilian jungle hoping to convert a remote Amazonian tribe to Christianity but ends up rejecting his faith,
picking a fight with his hero and losing his family.“

The judges’ votes:

Do you want to see this film?

Yes:  22% – No:  22% – Not sure:  56%

Would Australians want to see it?

Yes: 11% – No:  33% – Not sure:  56%

Would it work in rest of the world?

Yes:  11% – No:  22% – Not sure:  67%

The judges’ verdict:

Dan: When I say “not sure” I mean it’s execution dependent – I’m interested but need to know more about the potential production. This has possibility.

it’s execution dependent

Karel: I’m afraid that “hoping to convert a remote Amazonian tribe” is not a goal mainstream moviegoers get excited about these days. I am hopeful, though, that this part of the story is only the ‘ordinary world’ (first 15-30mins of the movie) and therefore should not have such prevalence in the logline. Then, “ends up rejecting his faith, picking a fight with his hero and losing his family” is made to sound like the story’s end, while it’s probably only what happens in Act Two. The “picking a fight with his hero” bit is most likely where the real drama happens. The story’s real concept may well work but it lies buried in a vague, dull and negative sounding logline.

The story’s real concept may well work but
it lies buried in a vague, dull and negative sounding logline.

Nina: I would like to know the protagonist’s flaw that is behind his virtuous nature; the event that made him give up his faith and the new goal which tries to see him win back his family – if this is his story. You could tighten the synopsis by either making it about the family drama or else making it about the protagonist and his hero, but not both.

Interesting but missing key details.

Robin: Interesting but missing key details. I don’t need to know plot but what challenges his faith and what dilemma he faces.

The Judges (click for details)

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

Please give us your opinion in the comments below!

The objective is to all (that includes us judges) learn from the exercise.

Please comment on our comments!

photo credit: swanksalot

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below.

Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible.

BURY ME TRACY

“When their friend and mentor dies
and leaves a final request in the will,
three heterosexual cross- dressing men must decide whether
to come clean about their secret lives and fulfill his last wish.“

The judges’ votes:

Do you want to see this film?

Yes: 22% – No: 45% – Not sure: 33 %

Would Australians want to see it?

Yes: 11% – No: 0% – Not sure: 89%

Would it work in rest of the world?

Yes: 0% – No: 33% – Not sure: 67%

The judges’ verdict:

Kim: I can envision the struggles that can arise from revealing their secret cross-dressing and it has piqued my interest. This logline could use a further glimpse into who these men are (thereby illuminating the stakes) and into what the request is or the journey they’ll have to take (internal or external) to fulfill it. The goal is not to give away the entire story but to differentiate your story from other life-at-a-crossroads tales and to give a sense of the tone of the film.

This logline could use a further glimpse into who these men are.

Nina: The genre of this screenplay is not clear to me; it could be funny but then again not!  Do they have to come clean to the antagonist? Why is this dramatic and/or funny? I would also include the theme (moral) of the story and perhaps hint at the nature of the mentor’s final request so we have some idea what is at stake and what these men must overcome in order to achieve their goal.

Why is this dramatic and/or funny?

Karel: Without knowing what ‘his last wish’ might be, I’m not interested. With the ‘last wish’ left out of the logline, I’m suspecting it wasn’t strong enough in the first place.

I’m not interested. Too vague.

Steven: This is a typical, local, ‘quirky’ effort.  Apart from the titillation factor of the three men being cross-dressers, this story has nothing special or original going for it.  And the cross-dressing bit will have gag value for no more than 20 minutes.
Even for a comedy, more dramatic meat is needed.  In particular, the reader needs to know about what compelling obstacles will the three men face.

More dramatic meat is needed.

My suggestion is to put more emphasis on the difficulty of fulfilling the mentor’s last wish, and simply add the cross-dressing bit as a bonus later.  Example:  “A dear friend and mentor of three flamboyant men dies with a last wish unfulfilled.  The eccentric mentor wants his ashes delivered to his long lost daughter, a woman who has shunned him for twenty years.  The three travellers set out to find her and along the way they must decide if they should at last come clean to the world about their cross-dressing and other secrets.”

CARTAGENA

A teenage assassin living in the slums of Columbia finds himself ordered to do a hit on his best friend. Choosing between loyalty to his friend, and the loyalty required of him by a merciless drug lord, Juan Pablo is a normal boy caught up in a ruthless world. Based on the best selling novel by Nam Le.

The judges’ votes:

Do you want to see this film?

Yes:  33% – No:  0% – Not sure:  67%

Would Australians want to see it?

Yes: 55% – No:  11% – Not sure:  34%

Would it work in rest of the world?

Yes:  50% – No:  0% – Not sure:  50%

The judges’ verdict:

Dan: I’m going to presume he chooses not to kill his mate or there isn’t a story so what happens when he makes that choice? Isn’t that when the film starts?

What happens when he makes that choice?.

Jack: Juan Pablo is described as a normal boy but he is a teenage assassin.  Isn’t that a bit unusual.  It is probably a very good story but it needs a much better logline.

It needs a much better logline.

Karel: Clumsy wording. It would have been better with just the first sentence. I guess he’ll end up killing the merciless drug lord but this question should not be the focus of the logline. What is the boy trying to achieve before it becomes a life-or-death game between him and the drug lord? What is in it for him if he kills his best friend?

Margaret: For this one I have to do a breakdown of the logline itself.
Teenage assassin + slums + hit on best friend = great set-up and high stakes.

The clarity of this concept dies the longer the logline gets.

But . . . the following sentence about choosing loyalties, duh!  That was already implied by the first sentence.  Don’t waste words.
Juan Pablo is a “normal” boy?  You just said he was a teenage assassin.  How is that normal?  The clarity of this concept dies the longer the logline gets.  If the previews meander and backtrack as much as the logline does, you’ll lose you’re audience before you release.

The Judges (click for details)

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

Please give us your opinion in the comments below!

With thanks to Louise Lee Mei and Niels Abercrombie.

_____________________________________

Check out this video link…

_____________________________________

For more videos about screenwriting or filmmaking, look in the sidebar or click on the category link under the title of this post.

If you know of a great video on Screenwriting, let me know!

Just complete the form below and send me the link.

Thank you!

Karel

Final Part, continued from Part 2
Interview: Karel Segers, David Trendall and Niels Abercrombie
With thanks to Screen Australia

Karel: When Avatar broke out so massively and the whole planet went to see it, still people were in denial about the craft of that screenplay. What didn’t they see?

Syd Field: They wanted some type of screenplay that was totally new and just so foreign to their normal state of consciousness like Inception. What people don’t see about James Cameron is that he does not create screenplays, he creates a cinematic experience, going to the movies is a cinematic experience.

If you don’t have them in the first 10 pages,
I’m outta there, there’s no reason I need to read more.

I talk about that in my book Going To The Movies: what is the nature of going to the movies? I mean what do we do when we sit down in a darkened theatre, and the curtains part and the screen becomes alive and we are all united in this community of emotion? At that moment we are all united and the film grabs us in the first 10 minutes. So I teach people that if you don’t have them in the first 10 pages, I’m outta there, there’s no reason I need to read more.

Karel: You pitted Inception against Avatar, how do you see it so different?

Syd Field: In Avatar I was emotionally engrossed, because of the choices the character had to make. In Inception I found this wonderful, inventive, intellectual state that I could really relate to but it was so hard-working to find out where I was.

Once I began to see that there was 3 levels of dream and he kept stating in dialogue “Well we’re in the second level and now we can get out of the dream” and so on, then it became very very interesting. I have to tell you I watched that film on the plane coming over and I was not touched, I was not moved. But Avatar I watched in 2D at home and I was moved and I was touched.

Avatar I watched in 2D at home and I was moved.

I think that is where the future is going to go, into that hidden state of consciousness which no one has explored yet. What Chris Nolan does is explore that and that becomes really exciting and new and so on. But as a film it’s pretty dull for me, a lot of great special effects, yeah a lot of interesting things once I think about them, but it was not a dynamic experience that Jim Cameron can create.

Karel: Apart from Jim Cameron, are there any other screenwriters today that are delving into–

Syd Field: I like a little film called 500 Days of Summer , that Scott Neustadter did, I like that very much. Benjamin Button was just brilliantly done. There’s a sequence I show in my workshops of the Brad Pitt character when he goes to the hospital and he sees his mother. She got her coat and she went back to get it when she opened the door and the phone rang and then she went to pick up her package, it wasn’t wrapped because the shop girl had a fight with her boyfriend. If she had gone back 5 minutes earlier that present wouldn’t have been ready and she would not have been hit by the car and her dancing career lost forever.

Karel: Like the butterfly effect.

Syd Field: Exactly. I mean that’s brilliant.

Karel: Why did Forrest Gump work and Benjamin Button didn’t?

Syd Field: Many people think Benjamin Button was too long. I would say it needed the extra length to set up the notion that as he ages he gets younger. You can’t just accept that notion with any degree of reality, you have to set that up. I don’t think it had enough moments of dynamic action or interaction between the two of them. It was more intellectual headgame whereas Forrest Gump was just there. Very emotional, very real, very authentic.

Karel: Benjamin Button needed a long setup, which becomes an issue for the screenplay’s proportions. Would you therefore say that some concepts aren’t right for film?

Syd Field: Never. I think if you want to do any kind of concept for film, you can do it. You just need to find out how. As a writer all you have to do is have the responsibility to go into your idea, because it’s probably a great one, and begin to find out various ways that you can best illustrate that dramatic premise.

I think if you want to do any kind of concept for film,
you can do it.

If you’re lazy and you don’t want to take the time and you want instant gratification like many of us do, then that’s too bad, go onto another story. Write a simple three guys hold up the Chase Manhattan bank and just do that kind of a story.

Karel: Karel: What do you think about Eric Roth’s process? Apparently he only ever writes one draft?

Syd Field: Eric lived right up the street and every night during the seventies when I was teaching he was just beginning his career, we’d get loaded, we’d talk and hang out maybe 3 or 4 times a week and he was experimenting.

Now, I can see that one draft and you change it a hundred thousand times because normally when you’re working on a draft like that I find there’s nothing I can change. It feels right so I’m not going to go in and change something that’s foreign to my sensibility so I will keep it there but will change the dialogue, change the voice, add a preceding scene, write a scene after or something like that so I will re-do that over and over.

I just kept rewriting those scenes because it worked for me…

It happened when I wrote for an Indian producer, which is now in pre-production in Mumbai. We talked about the storyline, we both agreed on the story form and unfolding of the structural dynamic and then I wrote a draft based on that structure and added 30% new scenes but after that point I just kept rewriting those scenes because it worked for me… and it worked for him as well. He did some doodling and then he sent it back to me and that was it.

Karel: How do you approach a culture like that to allow them to grow but at the same time stay true to their own.

Syd Field: It’s very difficult, cultural heritage in India, that is not easy to break through and I feel the only way I could relate to them is through their spiritual side. I’ve been a meditator for many years now, and I’ve been to India several times, and I go to an Ashram. I know some of the culture, a little bit of the culture. Even last night an indian girl said “I hate to bother you but in India we have this tradition in India where we honour the teacher where we honour them by giving a gift”, and I said “a dhakshana”, and she just was floored.

You have to blend into the dynamics of that culture, like going into a burocratic or governmental system, and find out how that system works, how you can get into that system as a flow rather than an obstacle. I had to do that when I was a single parent when I in LA many years ago. I was living with a woman, she had a nervous breakdown, she was institutionalised, the state was going to take her son away from me.

You have to blend into the dynamics of that culture,
like going into a burocratic or governmental system,
and find out how that system works.

The system went haywire but finally I worked through a number of social workers, found I had to get support and have to be able to defend your position and that’s what I did and I finally got the license to become a foster parent.

Karel: What was harder, be a single parent or surviving Hollywood?

Syd Field: I don’t think you ever survive Hollywood. I don’t know if you ever survive being a single parent! But, you know, there are great rewards and great drawbacks, but I knew it was a great teaching experience for me.

Karel: I would like to ask one final question about the craft side. Some people say ‘the more you know, the less you will achieve’ or ‘I don’t need all that formula stuff because I won’t be able to be think creatively’.

Syd Field: That’s an interesting question, I’ve learned over the years that life consists in options. We have choices to make so if you want to receive something you need to be open to receive it. Whether it’s right or wrong makes no difference. It’s just that you have to be open to receive and that was a hard thing for me to learn, how to receive.

Whether it’s right or wrong makes no difference.
It’s just that you have to be open to receive.

Through that choice of receiving everything is when my life started changing. I talk about it in my courses about the neuroplasticity of the brain: the brain is such a unique organ that it can adapt to any situation with practice and training. We have these Vets coming back from Iraq, the same in Australia and so on, they have to learn how to live again. But the brain is able, with the right practice to find a way to handle that situation.

Karel: It was a great pleasure talking to you. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us in the Story department.

Syd Field: Thank you for meeting me, Thank you for your invitation. I have to thank Screen Australia for getting me here. I ‘ve wanted for years to come to Australia, I was never invited, so it’s a great pleasure to be here.

You may argue that Blomkamp hasn’t changed the world with his film but I disagree. By watching the story through the POV of Wikus, we go through the liberating experience of seeing our hero transform. At the beginning of the movie, Wikus is racist or at best an ignorant fool. From the mid point he will gradually transform and show empathy for the aliens as he slowly becomes one.

Another reason to be awe-inspired by this movie is the fact that it was adapted from a short film.Writer-director Neill Blomkamp remade his short film Alive in Joburg and started a trend of filmmakers launching a concept via a short film, hoping to do a deal in Hollywood. So far, not many have pulled it off. As a matter of fact, I don’t know of any film in the two years since District 9.

When you adapt a short film into a feature, you pretty much have to make up the entire story from scratch. The only other instance of a successful feature based on a short film I know of is Twelve Monkeys. Do you know of others, please let us know in the comments.

Fun Trivia:
IMDb lists Sharlto Copley (Wikus) as playing an alien in the upcoming Men In Black III.
David James (Koobus) had a part in the South-African series Binnelanders.

So how did District 9 writers Blomkamp and Teri Tatchell structure their story? Let’s have a look.

spoilers galore

PROLOGUE – Wikus: archive footage & Interviews with entourage (10mins)

00:00 Tristar and QED International Leaders
01:00 Introduction by Wikus van de Merwe, at the MNU Alien Affairs head office.
01:30 Report on the arrival of the aliens and setting up of District 9.
06:00 Controversial plans by MNU to relocate the aliens to a new settlement.
07:00 Wikus appointed Field Officer to take command of the operation.
07:30 Tania, Wikus’ wife, tells of investigation launched against him.
08:00 Interviewees speak about Wikus in past tense. What happened? Is he dead?
09:00 Wikus challenges ‘the cowboys’ over too much ammunition.

This prologue immediately gives the film a fresh, quirky tone. Blomkamp uses hyper-realistic news footage and shows the space ship and aliens in a completely matter-of-fact way, much like the original short film. This works very effectively in suspending disbelief and setting up the world of the story.
It also creates tremendous mystery around the figure of Wikus. Is he dead or alive? He’s clearly racist, yet naive and well-meaning. Is he going to be our hero? Towards the end of the sequence, our empathy grows when Wikus finds himself in conflict with the war-mongering Koobus.
Why would we call this a prologue? Because we haven’t fully settled for any particular hero yet and all exposition refers to events in the past or events that are to be shown later. There is no story ‘happening in the now’.

ACT ONE

Sequence A: Violent relocation of aliens for weapons. (10mins)

10:00 Start of operation. Eviction notices to be served, backed up by military.
13:00 Wikus and military convoy enter District 9.
15:00 Wikus displays knowledge about the aliens and negotiating skills. Tries to avoid use of arms.
16:30 Nigerian gangs in District 9
18:00 Alien eggs found and destroyed. Wikus has little concern for the alien life.
19:30 (pov) MNU is into weapons research and aliens have superior weapons.
20:00 Alien executed from the air, “had a spade”.

Confusion about our hero continues: his ethics are debatable and he doesn’t look very smart. More antagonism arises with the introduction of the Nigerian gangs. Key strengths why we are interested in Wikus: he is excited, energetic and totally committed to his task, even though it may be dangerous (and stupid). Film audiences will always prefer a not-so-smart but gung-ho character (see how many comedic characters you can come up with) over a genius who doesn’t act.
Note that this entire first sequence is told from Wikus’ point of view (POV), except the brief interview segment about MNU’s motivations. The story doesn’t go into any other POV during the dramatic scenes.

Sequence B: The Fluid. (10mins)

20:30 (pov aliens) Aliens looking for fluid.
21:30 (pov aliens) 20 Years of work collecting the fluid, finally plan is ready.
22:00 (pov aliens) Cylinder must be protected, kept from MNU.
22:30 Wikus searches their shack.
23:30 Chemical lab found. Wikus finds cylinder.
24:00 Fluid in cylinder sprays on Wikus’ face. He takes cylinder in for inspection.
25:00 Weapons found, Wikus calls for reinforcement.
26:00 Wikus gloats at alien. The alien attacks Wikus, is being shot from chopper.
27:30 Wikus refuses medical treatment.
28:00 Christopher. Sharper. Refuses to sign paper.
30:00 Wikus threatens to take son away.
30:30 Wikus sick. Bleeds black liquid.

For the first time we move into the POV of the aliens Christopher and his son. See how this happens right at the beginning of a new sequence, after a climax. This way it interferes minimally with the building of tension. Look at other successful movies and you’ll often find that a first shift of POV happens at the beginning of a sequence, where the tension is relatively low. This shift of POV is essential to show us the aliens’ secret, setting up a strong conflict between their aliens’ goal (to hide the fluid in the cylinder) and that of Wikus’ (to turn everything upside down to find weapons).
Note how during the remainder of this sequence we stay in the POV of Wikus, yet meanwhile we do feel empathy for the aliens. The sequence climaxes with Christopher refusing to sign and Wikus being infected by the black fluid.
Structurally, this end of Act One is interesting: some people may empathize more with the aliens than with Wikus, because their goal is clearer, harder to achieve and at the same time simpler, more primal. The aliens want to return home and they have invested a lot in it. Wikus still only wants to finish his job, although the elements have been set up to make this harder and harder.

ACT TWO

Sequence C: Wikus’ deterioration, capture and escape. (12mins)

33:00 (pov aliens) Christopher can’t find the cylinder.
34:00 (pov) Nigerians kill and eat aliens to cure diseases.
35:00 Surprise party for Wikus at home.
35:30 Piet not happy: too many aliens died today. Wikus throws up again.
36:30 Wikus to hospital. He has grown an alien arm.
38:00 Wikus taken to MNU bio-labs: alien DNA, now subject of experiments.
39:00 “What are they doing to these prawns?” Confused and shocked.
39:30 Wikus used in weapons testing, able to shoot the alien weapons.
41:30 Wikus forced to shoot a captured alien.
42:00 (pov MNU) Body is to be harvested, worth billions.
43:00 (pov Tania) Piet lies to wife Tania and tries to convince her to forget about him.
44:00 They try to cut open his chest but Wikus escapes from the building.

Wikus, previously the hero of the relocation operation, now becomes a fugitive. He will increasingly empathize with the aliens as he has started his transformation to become one. In terms of character goals, the aliens’ objective is still clearer than Wikus’. They must find the fluid in order to return to their planet. Wikus doesn’t quite understand what’s going on with him. Only at the end of this sequence does he have a clear, strong goal: to survive.
This sequence, too, opens with a shift in POV: very briefly we go back to Christopher. Immediately after that, we shift POV again, to the Nigerians. The climax of this sequence feels like an early mid point as it acts as a massive reversal, with the world suddenly turned against our Hero. After this, the movie’s tone will be a lot darker.

Sequence D: A Fugitive, going back to the alien slums. (10 mins)

44:30 (pov) Piet informed of escape, Koobus leading the manhunt for Wikus.
46:00 Calling friends; they let him down. Hassled at takeaway, shot at.
46:30 (pov) “He became the most valuable business artifact on earth.”
48:00 (pov) The entire world’s attention and focus is on Wikus.
49:00 Wikus seeks refuge in District 9, the only place he can go to.
49:30 Queuing with other aliens for food from the Nigerians. Eating cat food.
51:00 Call from Tania: “I don’t want you to hold me again.”
52:00 Wikus attempts to cut his alien arm off.
53:00 Koobus and fleet of helicopters arrive in District 9.

This sequence offers little more than an extended chase, starting with Wikus’ escape from MNU and ending with his arrival at Christopher’s shack. The story doesn’t really progress much but the tension is kept high in a way that is utterly cinematic. It is significant that Wikus’ wife has given up on him when she says “I don’t want you to hold me again,” which is the start of her ‘shape-shifting’. The sequence ends on great tension, with Koobus and his men close on Wikus’ heels. This marks the story’s real Mid Point as from this point onwards Wikus will be working with the aliens rather than against them. Remember another blockbuster movie with aliens that had a similar reversal around the mid point?

Sequence E: Becoming an alien and teaming up with Christopher. (10mins)

54:00 Wikus hides out in Christopher’s shack. Begs him to help him.
54:30 Christopher sees Wikus’ alien arm and decides to hide him.
56:00 Secret bunker under the shack with ship to get back to the mothership.
56:30 Christopher can fix Wikus’ condition if they can get to the mothership.
57:00 They have to break into MNU headquarters and get the fluid.
58:00 Wikus’ transformation is accelerating.
58:30 Tania wants Wikus back. He is determined now to carry out the plan.
59.30 (pov Koobus & Piet) They’re locating Wikus to get him.
60:00 (pov aliens) Aliens compare their planet to Earth, looking forward to going home.

Wikus is at first selfish when he works with Christopher to get the fluid back: he only wants to get himself fixed. This first sequence after the Mid Point also sets up something that is typical for many successful stories: the Approach To The Inmost Cave. Wikus will have to return to the place that is most dangerous to him: the headquarters of MNU. This place will also become the Inmost Cave for Christopher when he sees the dead body of his friend.

Sequence F: Going into MNU. (10mins)

61:00 Wikus goes to the Nigerians to get weapons. They want his arm.
63:30 Wikus fights his way out, using alien weapons.
64:30 Wikus and Christopher storm into MNU headquarters.
67:00 Wikus finds the fluid. Christopher distracted by alien bodies.
68:00 Military come in. Shootout.
69:00 “think of your boy for fuck’s sake” Christopher wakes up and they escape together.

In the Approach sequence, the hero has to show how far he is willing to go in order to achieve his goal. Wikus has to shoot and kill humans in order to get the fluid, which underscores his further transformation to alien. In this Inmost Cave, where Wikus had faced death before, they find the fluid (a first Reward in Wikus Hero’s Journey).
In the climax of the sequence we see Wikus no longer just thinking about fixing himself when he encourages Christopher “Think of your boy…”.

Sequence G: Betrayed by Christopher. Tortured by Obesanjo. (10mins)

71:00 Christopher wans to save aliens first. Will be back in 3 years.
72:00 Wikus feels betrayed. Attempts to go to mothership on his own.
73:00 Koobus enters the shack.
73:30 Wikus fires up the ship and takes off.
75:30 Ship is shot down by missile.
76:00 Ship crashes down. Alien and Wikus captured by Koobus.
78:00 Convoy ambushed by Nigerians, Wikus taken.
79:30 (pov) Christopher’s son, still in the ship, is able to activate it.
80:00 Obesanjo tortures Wikus, wants to eat his arm to get his powers.
82:00 (pov) Son activates mothership, alien devices re-activate everywhere.

District 9 has three sequences between the Mid Point and the end of Act Two. I wonder if this is typical for darker films. In any case it seems like the Ordeal (or Crisis) is extended to an entire sequence of 12 minutes. When Christopher tells Wikus that he wants to help his alien people first, it feels to Wikus as if all is lost. Later – in a typical ‘Cave‘ moment – he is being tortured and nearly killed by Obesanjo. Christopher’s son manages to re-activate the mother ship, which opens the doors to Act Three (in the Hero’s Journey this moment is a second Reward, aka the Seizing of the Sword).

ACT THREE

Sequence G: Protecting Christopher – Wikus vs. Koobus. (10mins)

83:00 Wikus escapes with the aid of a robot.
84:00 (pov) Koobus interrogates Christopher.
85:00 Wikus steps into exoskeleton. Hears that Koobus wants to kill Christopher.
86:00 Wikus decides to rescue him and help him to the dropship.
89:30 Wikus covers for Christopher but snipers injure him. Christopher runs.
90:00 Wikus fights against the military.
92:00 Alien makes it to dropship and gets lifted up to mothership.
93:00 Wikus vs. Koobus
94:00 Wikus falls out of exoskeleton. Koobus approaches.
95:00 Wikus left at the mercy of Koobus.
96:00 Koobus about to execute Wikus when other aliens move in and kill Koobus.
97:00 Mothership begins journey back home. Leaves earth.

The climax brings all the forces of good and evil together in one explosive climactic battle – and a setup for the sequel. One could argue that Obesanjo should have survived Act Two as he could have further complicated the climactic battle. Then again, Koobus is strong enough as the ultimate villain as he was set up from the Prologue and it keeps things simple to have only one major Shadow character.

Sequence H: Wikus gone. Waiting for three years. (3mins)

98:00 Wikus left to await his fate.
99:00 (pov) Theories about Wikus’ whereabouts. Setup of District 10.
100:0 Tania receives a flower. Evidence that Wikus is still alive?
101:0 Wikus completely transformed into an alien.

Do you have any thoughts about District 9 and how it is structurally different or similar to other movies? Let us know in the comments!

Structural Analysis: Adrian Kok
Notes: Karel Segers

Groundhog Day is a couple of decades old, Seinfeld ran for nine years.

What does Steve think is the most innovating – and timeless – comedy on television today?

(Continued from Part 2)

Steve: In terms of political satire no-one has done it better than John Stewart on The Daily Show.

He’s taken satire and relieved it of its curse of being right. So that the comic angle is rarely ‘look at these bad people doing these bad things,’ the comic angle is always ‘the idiots reporting the news’.

And usually they befuddle John Stewart and that’s where the comedy comes from. They’re saying idiotic things and he’s completely confused by it. Even though they’re talking about affairs of state and big issues like racism, terrorism and freedom and democracy it’s being put on a really human level and we’re allowed to laugh at the people involved in the broadcasting as opposed to having to pick sides and either  like or dislike the politics involved.

Satire is what closes on Saturday night.

So I think that’s smart and satire is very hard to do. George. S. Kaufman once famously said ‘satire is what closes on Saturday night’, meaning that a satire isn’t going to be very popular and it’s bound to close after only a few performances.

Karel:  Who else has your admiration?

Steve: There are actually two, one is James Brooks and in a strange way one is Judd Apatow. Judd Apatow… you wouldn’t think of him as being the same as James Brooks, who did Broadcast News and As Good As It Gets but what they both do is look at the human condition as honestly and as sharply and as unforgivingly as they can and they do it with great heart and sentiment and that is a very difficult task to carry off well.

There was a long time when sentiment was seemingly passé, but I think the ability to show either, in Judd Appatow’s case raunch really frat boy sex with a big heart and an understanding of how people act.

Drama tells us what we can be but
comedy helps us live with who we are.

James brooks has always struck me because the people in his comedies, they could be in tragedies but they’re not because they’re just being too truthful and honest about how hard and silly it is to be human.

One of the things that we like to say, in talking about the difference between drama and comedy: drama is a great lie. Drama helps us dream about what we can be… but it’s a lie. We’re never going to be James Bond, never going to be as good looking as the people in soaps or as soulful as the people in dramatic pictures so drama tells us what we can be but comedy helps us live with who we are.

Karel:   Is there such a thing as a typical Australian type of comedy?

Steve: I’ve been to Australia several times, and when I talk to people in the film industry they all relate to me the feeling that what gets funded is dark dramas about inarticulate sheep farmers who are living in a lighthouse in Tasmania who don’t speak. I got the sense that they don’t feel like there are a lot of Australian comedies that are being supported in the system.

What gets funded is dark dramas
about inarticulate sheep farmers.

I don’t know how you feel about that, you’re based there in Sydney. But I like the few Australian comedies I’ve seen, The Castle, The Dish; they’re tracking the Apollo capsule. I very much like those because they had a careful loving and yet not overly sentimental look at those real people.

Karel:   So are there any major cultural differences in comedy?

Steve: I think the basic difference is in translating comedy, for instance there’s a wide difference between the literacy in the States and the literacy in other English speaking countries.  I love British comedy because it is like it is written, directed, produced by people who have read something. Always a joy.

There are always differences in accents, various forms of speech.   Among my favourite comedies is The Gods Must Be Crazy. Fantastic premise and the main character doesn’t speak English but in series of clicks. You still understood what the guy was going through and you still appreciated his journey.

I think the same thing for the family in The Castle, you don’t have to be born in Australia to understand the striving positive nature of that deluded and how a part of him is a part of you, so the best comedy is saying something true about people. Whether you’re living in Australia or South Africa or the USA or Singapore or Malaysia, people are people.

The best comedy is saying something true about people.

I was in New Zealand this past summer and I saw this wonderful Maori comedy about 4 blokes who were so obnoxious that they were banned from weddings forever… unless they could come to the next wedding with a date. Brilliantly simple premise, wonderfully evocative and funny, it had familiar characters. These are modern Maori but there was the nerd, there was the ladies man, there was the stoner, there was the guy who wasn’t married but it was almost like he was married. How is that not familiar to anything that I’ve grown up with?

Karel: How is it possible for emerging comedy writers to break into the US industry?

Steve: You have to be lucky, and luck is: the right person reads the right thing at the right moment and that’s always tough. If you’re talking about people from outside the US breaking into the US market I think there’re a few ways.

One is to gain a reputation in your own locale. Do something great and people in Hollywood will pay attention. We are looking to see what is successful in the UK and bringing that over and adapting it like The Office. But Hollywood is this voracious monster that wants to swallow talent.

Do something great and people in Hollywood
will pay attention.

So I know that we brought over a lot of reality formats from Sweden and other European nations but I think that if there is something undeniably brilliant, it will get the attention of Hollywood. It’s a little harder to simply say, ‘I’m in Sydney and I want to break into Hollywood’. Then you’re just another person trying to break into a very competitive market.

Another way is that anybody who has got a flip cam, some editing software can do something 3-5 minutes can get it up on the web. Stranger things have happened. There’s a television show that’s just got renewed in the states called Bleep My Father Says and it’s based on a twitter feed.

You start from there and then it’s about who have you met and who do you know. That’s one good reason to enter into contests, to come to L.A. and go to a Screenwriters Expo because you never know who you’re going to meet and you never know when that person is ever going to intersect with you again and how that person could be helpful. You never know that.

But it is true that if you send something in cold it gets read in one way but if someone meets you and talks to you and you get talking to them for 5 minutes, then you contact them and say, ‘could I send you something?’ it gets read in a completely different way. The quality of the writing is the same but it is the perception of the person reading the writing that is totally different.

Karel: Does it help to learn and network online?

Steve: Well, talking about how you can make your way in the wild and wonderful world of Hollywood commercial writing, one way is via Twitter for instance. There are these great groups that are allowing people who live from the UK to Australia to communicate and form relationships and form friendships.

On twitter there’s this hash tag feed called #scriptchat.

On twitter there’s this hash tag feed called #scriptchat, and you can also go to www.scriptchat.com. Scriptchat is a varying group of writers who get together on twitter on Sunday. There’s a UK twitter feed at 8pm Greenwich Time and then there’s a US feed at 8pm Eastern Time. I sometimes go on there at 5pm Pacific Time.

Karel: That’s right and no matter what your level is you’ll always find people that are going through the same journey and that are at your stage and can share experiences with you. So there’s no reason to be intimidated by it, you just take away from it what you want there’s just enough to pick from,

Steve: Don’t you find that the people who are at an advanced level, they’re the opposite of what you would think of in terms of, this person doesn’t answer my calls, doesn’t answer my emails, on twitter I’ve just seen generosity and compassion towards everybody who is in the industry.

Karel: Exactly. It’s a great group and that’s actually where you and I met first, so you see… But obviously the ultimate way to break in is to attend one of Steve Kaplan’s comedy intensives.

Steve: That I would say is the sine qua non of success.

Karel: Speaking of which, 75% of the Story Department readers are from the US–

Steve: Oh! I thought most of them were in Belgium!

Karel:   So for those in the US, where can they go in the next few months to see you?

Steve: We’re booked to go to New York on March 26th and 27th and I think I’m going to be in Washington DC on April 2nd which is just a day after April fools day, which is my kind of national holiday. And where to find out about all these events is to go to our website which is www.kaplancomedy.com or you can email me at skcomedy@aol.com or follow me on Twitter @skcomedy.

Karel: Steve, before we close, for those who are thinking about taking your comedy intensive, what’s the most important thing that the participants of the comedy intensive will walk away with?

Steve: A new way of looking at comedy and the sense that you no longer have to come up with gags.

It’s not about can I write 12 jokes on this page. It’s really about coming up with a great idea, a great premise and then allowing the characters to tell their own story.

One of the people who took our seminar has just won the expo screenwriting contest for half hour comedy and she sent me a note and she said ‘the most useful part for me was how learning interesting character dynamics can set up comedy naturally from those relationships. It feels more organic and less forced than struggling to write joke after joke out of thin air,’ and then she goes on to say – and I didn’t pay her to say this – ‘there are a lot of seminars out there that aren’t worth your time. This one is.’ So thank you Tracey Riley.

Karel: And there you go … that’s coming from someone it worked for. She won the screenwriting expo for half hour.

Steve: Comedy for best half hour, she won for writing Curb Your Enthusiasm and that’s a show that doesn’t even have writers!

Karel: Thank you so much for this Steve, thank you so much for sharing your insights and your time, and I really look forward to learning more when you’re back in Australia.

Steve: Thanks Karel, thanks for having me on and I hope you can edit this to make me sound more intelligent than I really am.

Karel: We’ll keep following you on twitter via @skcomedy! Thanks again.

For almost 20 years, Steve Kaplan has been the industry’s most respected and sought-after expert on comedy. In addition to being a regular consultant and script doctor to such companies as Disney, Dreamworks, HBO, Paramount, and others, Steve has taught at UCLA, NYU, Yale, and other top universities, and created the HBO Workspace and the HBO New Writers Program teaching and mentoring some of the biggest writers, producers and directors in comedy today.

Today: a socio-political drama and a children’s movie.

Please comment on our comments!

photo credit: swanksalot

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below.

Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible.

BRIDGES

““San Francisco 1934: The city is like a powder keg, just waiting for a spark to set the place on fire.
That spark arrives in the shape of Harry Bridges, a fast-talking, hard drinking, self-educated gambling man
from Australia with the dangerous belief that
free speech and grass roots democracy can change the world.
As the economy crashes around him this loquacious union man inspires the Californian longshoreman – black and white – to transform their lives from ‘Wharf Rats’ to ‘Lord of the Docks’.”“

The judges’ votes:

Do you want to see this film?

Yes: 66% – No: 0% – Not sure: 33%

Would Australians want to see it?

Yes: 56% – No: 0% – Not sure: 44%

Would it work in rest of the world?

Yes: 56% – No: 0 % – Not sure: 44%

The judges’ verdict:

Karel: The filmmakers have an agenda: pushing the case of free speech and that’s ok. But rather than showing a character who’s campaigning for this case, I’d prefer to see a strongly personal angle or perhaps a metaphor showing what happens in the absence free speech. Right now this is pitched as a political movie and this genre may not work, unless it has a different, very personal story carrying it.

There is too much information.

Robin: I’m interested in the protagonist but there is no antagonist mentioned. Is there opposition? Does he do this easily?

This genre may not work.

Jack: There is too much information.  A simpler alternative would be:  “In 1934 a hard drinking fast talking Australian struggles to improve the working conditions of a disparate group of longshoremen, with explosive results”.

THE BUNYIP OF BERKELEY’S CREEK

“Animated adaptation of the classic Australian children’s book The Bunyip of Berkeley’s Creek.
Bunyip emerges from a waterhole not knowing
who he is or how he came to be. He begins a journey
through the Australian countryside to find someone to tell him
who he is, only to discover that the answer lies at home.“

The judges’ votes:

Do you want to see this film?

Yes:  33% – No: 44 % – Not sure:  23%

Would Australians want to see it?

Yes: 34% – No:  11% – Not sure:  55%

Would it work in rest of the world?

Yes:  22% – No:  0% – Not sure:  78%

The judges’ verdict:

Margaret: First of all, I’m not Australian so I had to look up what a Bunyip was.  So that already indicates that without some really good advertising, you might lose the international audience simply due to lack of familiarity.  The story seems pretty classic to children’s literature, but also rather simple.  What makes this feature length worthy?  I gather that it’s an adventure story but what is the high point or low point?  Is there a fear he has to overcome?  Does he makes friends along the way?  Enemies?  Is this a grand adventure, or a small sweet story?  Since I didn’t grow up reading it, there is no way for me to tell.

Is this a grand adventure, or a small sweet story?

Nina: I suggest the synopsis also include: a few words about the antagonist; what  else, besides the antagonist, stands in his way; plus the bunyip’s flaws. This additional material would expand the storyline and give us more to engage with.

It’s only the log line that’s got me interested.

Dan: I love this sort of thing – in fact I really hope it’s done properly. I’m not familiar with the book so it’s only the log line that’s got me interested.

The Judges (click for details)

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

Please give us your opinion in the comments below!

“There’s a lot of ideas that I think needed to be paired back, as maybe belong in the sequel,” Fergus says and also:”It had the vibe of an indie film. The collaborative spirit and the fun and the tension that you would expect on some giant movie wasn’t there. It felt like an intimate family kinda trying to figure out problems and work through stuff.”

Makes me want to watch the film again.

With thanks to Louise Lee Mei and Niels Abercrombie.

_____________________________________

Check out this video link…

_____________________________________

For more videos about screenwriting or filmmaking, look in the sidebar or click on the category link under the title of this post.

If you know of a great video on Screenwriting, let me know!

Just complete the form below and send me the link.

Thank you!

Karel

Continued from Part 1
Interview: Karel Segers, David Trendall and Niels Abercrombie
With thanks to Screen Australia

Karel: There are a great number of films with critical acclaim that don’t seem to find an audience. How do you explain this?

Syd Field: I teach all over the world now and people come to me and say “I want to write a Hollywood screenplay” and I say: “Have you ever been to Hollywood?” No. Have you ever lived in the States? No. Why do you want to write a Hollywood screenplay?

There are people there who spend their entire lives wanting to write a Hollywood screenplay and what makes you think that your material, who’ve never been there, does not know the culture, does not know the language or the slang, why do you feel that you can write a Hollywood screenplay?

Why don’t you go into your own culture and find symptoms and problems and find ways to illustrate something that you know and have lived through… something can resonate here with the human condition.

Why do you feel that you can write a Hollywood screenplay?

Karel: So our cultural distinctions will make the subject matter more interesting.

Syd Field: My feeling is that there are no distinctions between human beings even though we’re different colors, different races, different languages. When you get right down to it, we’re the same in terms of needs, wants and emotions. We all want to be loved, we all want to be successful, we all want to feel good, all want good health and we go through every culture, every race.

Everything on this planet is the same. James Cameron does that with Avatar. All living things are united, so why don’t we have the same culture, consciousness, that everybody else has. So that’s really my message, we rise one step above our distinctions, which have been with us since the dawn of time of course, and it’s not something we will give up very easily, but the idea is that we all exist on a different plane beyond the person, beyond the personality, beyond the culture, beyond the language, beyond the intellect, beyond all of that we are all the same, we are all the same consciousness.

We are all the same consciousness.

Karel: So good writing creates almost a religious experience?

Syd Field: I always say if God is a sheet of paper and if you cut that sheet of paper into a thousand pieces are each one of those pieces God? For me the answer is yes, so we have to honor that and that’s in our stories. That’s what makes stories universal, that’s why Avatar deals with ideas and a cinematic experience that is extraordinary.

Avatar deals with ideas and
a cinematic experience that is extraordinary.

Karel: Cameron touched the world, not just with special effects but with great storytelling skill and he connected with the mythology of our times. Now why is it that so many writers are not even trying to connect with an audience?

Syd Field: I think people get tied into the end result before they begin the process. The great eastern text, the Bhagavad Gita, says “Do not be attached to the fruits of your actions,” meaning: don’t write a screenplay because you want to impress somebody, write the screenplay because it’s something you want to do, have to do, need to do. Nobody can take the experience of writing away from us because… I call that a one on one. It’s where the mind and the computer screen or the piece of paper really are one, they are connected. There is simply a connection of energy between the pen and the paper.

Nobody can take the experience of writing away from us.

Karel: Pen and paper?

Syd Field:  Well I come from typewriting, so when I started writing, and after my first stint as writer of 7 years, I had experienced so much pain in writing my joke was I would always hit my head against the typewriter until something came. And when I came back to writing after that 2 year hiatus I said I don’t want to experience that pain again that I had before.

So I realised that I cannot use the same methods as I had used in my first incarnation as a writer, I had to change and create a new form. So what I did was I started writing long-hand, and what happened was I created a new groove of consciousness, I started writing long hand and then when I got my computers I started typing it into computers.

Gradually over time, and giving myself permission to do some really shitty writing I gradually came to the idea that I did not need the in-between steps of writing long-hand.

I created a new groove of consciousness.

Karel: Syd, you’ll like this anecdote. I was teaching mythical story structure in Canberra and one of the students was an ambassador. In referring to his story’s turning points, he didn’t use the Hero’s Journey terms but talked about “Pee Pee One and Pee Pee 2”!

Syd Field: (Laughs)

Karel: He admitted he had studied your book. Now, how did you come up with those specific terms?

Syd Field:  At cinemobile I was working with writers everyday, taking meetings, listening to ideas, pitches and so on. Once we established the language, we could understand each other, so I said “I’ve got to create definitions!” So I created a definition of screenplay, definition of structure… “a linear arrangement of related incidents, episodes and events, leading to a dramatic resolution”.

So, I was kind of talking about writing and preparing and developing character and putting things down in a structural order… and one of my students asked me, “What is a screenplay?” The question really took me by surprise because I had no idea, I had never thought about that.

So as I was talking about an hour later, suddenly this image of a screen or a painting came into my awareness and I said “Do you want to know what a screenplay is?” And I drew a straight line and all stories have a beginning, a middle and an end and there’s some point in which the beginning turns into the middle and the middle turns into the end… that’s what a screenplay is.

“What is a screenplay?”
The question really took me by surprise
because I had no idea.

And I said what do you do with Act 1? You set up your story. And what do you do with act 2? That’s confrontation, that’s where people run into obstacles and what do you do in Act 3? That’s the resolution of the story, because when I was reading I did not find those things. I felt I had to find a language common to everybody so we could understand the commonality, so a writer and reader could sit on opposite sides of the desk.

Karel: But why is it that all authors and gurus come up with new terms rather than use what’s already there?

Syd Field: Now, that’s an interesting question. I think everybody wants to be unique and creative and inventive. And the way to do that, is instead of calling it a plot point they call it a turning point.

I was interviewed yesterday for an on-line publication and she was asking me questions about the protagonist, I said “What? What is the protagonist?” I still get confused with protagonist, antagonist, themes, plot… You mean the main character and the major characters. In the article she wrote protagonist. That’s a hangover from an old tradition of English literature that to me doesn’t really exist any more.

She was asking me questions about the protagonist,
I said “What? What is the protagonist?”

Karel: Which of the foundations of screenwriting do you find aspiring screenwriters struggle with the most? Is there one thing you can lift out?

Syd Field:  To me, if you go into a definition of a screenplay it’s really a story that is told with pictures and what I find with many new screenwriters  or people who have no training is what they do is tell their story through dialogue. Through explanation. And that’s not a screenplay.

I’m a big fan of Billy Wilder and The Apartment
but it’s wall to wall dialogue, I got antsy just listening to it.

I show clips in a master class and I show films from the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s and it was wall to wall dialogue. Look how much information is there! It took us eight minutes to get this information out about this character! Then I showed them one little train sequence – one minute fifty-seven seconds – from The Bourne Ultimatum and in terms of flashback and memory and story points and so on you have all the information you need to know. “Who is Jason Bourne” and “Why is that guy out to kill me?” That’s what we need to know.

I’m a big fan of Billy Wilder and The Apartment but it’s wall to wall dialogue I got antsy just listening to it.

Karel: It’s almost television

Syd Field: It’s almost television. Exactly.

Karel: People say there’s a decline in the craft of screenwriting. Do you agree?

Syd Field: I don’t think there’s a decline in the craft as much as there’s a decline in the nature and dynamics of story. I don’t think people know how to tell a story, or they are so one single lined, linear lined… that they don’t give themselves an opportunity to explore the dimensions of their character or the story. See, Jim Cameron’s a master at that. He created his own world, in Pandora… but he also created a character who was trapped between two worlds.

Everything on this planet is the same.
James Cameron does that with Avatar.
All living things are united.

He has the limits of one world but also the accessibility of the other world on Pandora, so he made a choice. How many people would go into the consciousness state and would say for example that the only way we could defeat the encroaching violent human beings from earth is that if the entire living planet of Pandora rebels and fights off the invaders? I mean, how many people would go there?? Nobody. I mean this man brought in another dimension that made a single story stand out amazingly!

I walked out the first viewing of Avatar and I thought immediately of dances with wolves and I thought immediately of last Samurai. The same themes are there but Jim Cameron did, was just amazing in terms of digging into another spiritual dimension and allowing that natural consciousness of humanity shine through.

When the character, Jake Sully, is in his Navi’ form, and he doesn’t know what to do when he goes to the Hometree. He goes there and he lets it go and surrenders and asks for help. How many people would do that?? How many people would think that is a dramatic enough situation to make a movie?

Well, there’s not enough explosions, there’s not enough action here, there’s no tension… but in that simple singular moment you get everything from that character and that’s what great screenwriting is about. Finding those moments.

Continued next week: Field about Cameron, Nolan and Roth.