Pacing is critical. Rush through the story, and viewers struggle to understand what is going on. Slow down too much, and they get bored. How do you manage the pacing and rhythm of a story? Can you fix it in post?

Let’s go back a few decades.

If you know me today, you’ll hardly believe that for a short time, I was the face of MTV’s pan-European movie show The Big Picture. It was the nineties. MTV was still a teen and hyper hip. I was neither, which may explain why I didn’t last.

The brand had marked its territory worldwide with a fast-paced editing style, a trademark that would affect all audio-visual media, from TV interstitials and commercials to music and corporate videos.

TV series and feature films fell for the new fashion, too, but the editing style didn’t fix malfunctioning or slow-paced stories. Many movies in the MTV spirit bombed terribly. Some that spring to mind are Tank Girl, and later Scott Pilgrim.

ONE FLEW TOO FAST

In one of the earliest articles on this blog, I shared what I learned about story pacing from Milos Forman. In his director’s commentary on One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, he recounts how he struggled to maintain its duration.

“I cut it down television style, under two hours. And you know what was funny? It felt much longer.”

The reason fast cutting doesn’t necessarily speed up a longish film? Because what really matters is not the number of cuts per minute, but the amount of story beats per unit of time.

But even if the smaller segments work individually, it doesn’t guarantee that the overall story will.

What really matters is not the number of cuts per minute, but the amount of story beats per unit of time.

SPEED HUMPS

Early in the new millennium, Richard E. Grant wrote and directed a film based on his childhood, called Wah-Wah. It’s an epic, 3-hour journey full of nostalgia, domestic drama and breathtaking vistas. Except that it’s not really three hours long. The 85-minutes I watched only felt like that.

Wah-Wah is made up of a chain of vignettes, told in episodic fashion. And there you have the reason for its slow pacing. If a film has more than one story, you need to restart the telling after each ‘episode’, much like TV.

In TV, great episodes have cliffhangers, but Wah-Wah has none. And re-booting the story or starting a new one after each vignette requires significant intellectual effort. If this isn’t coupled with high emotional tension, audiences lose interest.

Episodic storytelling works fine on a higher level. TV series form episodic chains, and movie franchises may release an episode every year or so. But within one sitting, we usually prefer a strong sense of unity. A single, focused dramatic story. And I felt this was missing in Wah-Wah.

PACING BROKEN? CONSIDER THIS

A faster edit wouldn’t fix Richard E. Grant’s problem. A narrative technique that sometimes adds to pacing and tension is the ticking clock. “But Wah-Wah was a drama,” I hear you say, “and deadlines are for thrillers and action flicks”. You know what? Deadlines are everywhere.

1. Deadlines

One of my favourite indies is Courtney Hunt’s Sundance winner and Academy Award nominee Frozen River. The film stars Melissa Leo as a mother who needs to pay for a new trailer home before Christmas, or the family will be homeless. This ticking clock kicks in right in the first scene. Similarly, in Jennifer Lawrence’s feature debut Winter’s Bone, written and directed by Debra Granik, the character of Ree must find her father by a deadline, or else…

These are low-budget indies, and both rely on more than one ticking clock to assist the pacing.

Deadlines are everywhere.

More sophisticated methods require an insight in your story’s architecture. If you understand fractal structure, you will know that acts work on every level. Just like the big picture of your story, scenes and sequences often behave like acts, too.

But how to use this to your benefit?

2. One-Two, One-Two

Don’t give your audience a 3rd-act resolution for each scene or sequence.

Once the problem is resolved, they will relax, and it will create that episodic Wah-Wah feel. As a result, you’ll have to work extra hard to pump the momentum up again.

Instead, abort that mini-story. I call it the One-Two, One-Two approach. Give us a first and second act; then abort by cutting in with your inciting incident for the next scene or sequence.

In the video that goes with this article, I illustrate this method with the Toy Story 2 sequence where Woody rescues Wheezy. It’s an unfinished mini-story, as it is aborted before Woody succeeds.

MORE PACING FIXES

While we’re on the topic of fractal structure: your higher-level units (Sequences, Acts) won’t work if the constituent parts don’t work. So for your act to flow, your scenes and sequences need to have a good pace, too. You can diagnose and fix this by looking at the structure of those smaller units first.

3. Scene/Sequence Structure

Many consider Aaron Sorkin for a master dialogue writer. Really? It often takes an A-lister to pull it off believably. I think Sorkin is first and foremost a master of structure. His greatest scenes play for 3-5 mins while keeping their tension. Not because of his clever words, but rather his smart structure.

Proper dramatic structure is probably more a foundational skill than a quick fix for pacing. Fortunately, a few simpler methods exist that you can apply immediately. Most of them are based on common sense, like ‘in late, out early’.

Sorkin is first and foremost a master of structure.

4. In late, out early

While a fast edit won’t fix your fundamental story issues, a lean trim will still pay dividends. You’ll aim to retain only what is essential, i.e. whatever generates an emotional response.

One simple surgical procedure would be to remove all ‘meet and greets’. People stick to social protocols in the real world, but your story will die by them. Cut it out, unless you use them to dramatic purpose.

Cutting scene openers is part of the broader rule of ‘in late, out early’: keep scenes as short as you can. Apart from a few tentpole moments that may run two, three to five minutes, you will typically keep the average duration of your scenes under two minutes, and under a minute for television. This will assist with the overall pacing.

When you research your preferred genres, you’ll find that the averages differ for each.

After looking at the scenes as a whole, you will need to scrutinise the dialogue. In an early draft, characters may take as much time as real-world people to get their point across. But screen drama doesn’t work like that. You’ll need to compress and stylise.

5. Shortened segments

When teaching face-to-face classes, I used a trick to make the day go faster. The first session would run for a full 2 hours, and each subsequent session would shorten by 15 minutes, until a final 60-minute session.

The course was hugely successful, and I’m sure the trick contributed to the students’ experience.

Years later, I found that the pilot for the TV show Braindead did a similar same trick. Check this out!

The pilot teaser (normally around 1- 3 minutes) runs for a whopping 22 pages. Act 1 starts on page 23, and runs for 20 pages. Subsequent acts are 11, 7 and 6 pages respectively.

The pilot sold, and a first season was ordered (but sadly not renewed).

Do you know of any other techniques and tricks to manage the rhythm and pacing of a screen story? Let us know in the comments. Which movies and shows don’t work for you because of their pacing, and which ones rock?

-Karel Segers

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

It makes sense to read 10 pages of a script, if the reader is out to find a writer. If your dream is to sell your script, there is no escaping the synopsis.

10 Pages Of Hell

Of course you hate that you have to leave out all the gripping details, but remember, every other screenwriter is in the same boat with you – except perhaps the A-listers.

The title of this piece may be misleading. Like most things in our industry, there is no clear consensus on the rules of the synopsis. So, let’s look at the different types of text you may need to deliver.

Development Synopsis v. Marketing Synopsis

Just like there are different types of logline, your synopsis may serve different purposes, each of which require their own approach.

During development, the synopsis helps to see the story clearly, and it communicates the direction of the script to your producer, manager or co-writer. Sometimes screenplay contests or funding programs also ask you to provide several types of synopsis along with the script.

Most of the time, your concern is just with the development synopsis. This version includes all important story elements, including the ending.

Once the film is complete and ready to go out, the development synopsis won’t cut it any longer. To reel in distribution gatekeepers, the producers and marketeers will need documents that resemble the synopsis, but that go by different names.

Siblings Of The Synopsis

Because different people label the types of summary differently, some confusion exists around what we call a logline, a synopsis, outline or treatment. It doesn’t matter what you call it, as long as you understand what to write.

Serial Summaries – The Show Bible

For serial material, the most common type of synopsis would be the series bible, summarising the episodes as part of the pitch document – sometimes also called the pitch bible or show bible.

One episode would typically fit in one or two paragraphs. In more extensive bibles, each episode synopsis could take up to a page.

Treatment Territory

Some people will call a 10-page summary still a synopsis, while others will call it a treatment or outline. I call anything over 4 pages a treatment.

A treatment may run from 10 to 50 pages, or even longer. James Cameron is known to write scriptments, running over 100 pages.

Sentence – Paragraph – Page

When you summarise a story in one sentence, people usually call it a logline, even if you don’t stick to the industry guidelines for loglines.

A logline typically holds only 20 to 30 words, although complex stories may require longer loglines. But when your logline blows out, it may end up being a paragraph synopsis, which can hold around 50 to 200 words.

For this article, I’m going to focus on what I believe is the most common type: the one-pager film synopsis that tells the entire story. You can write this type of document for a feature film, but it would work just as well for a TV episode.

The One-Pager Synopsis

When big international film markets were a thing, I often attended as a buyer. For each film, sales companies would hand out a single A4 on hard paper, with artwork on one side and a synopsis on the other.

A Single page

The synopsis would run for half a page or a full page. I’m sure they still do it this way, even if most business happens outside those big independent film markets.

500 Words – 12 point

Whether you write your synopsis in US Letter format or A4, I recommend sticking to 500 words or less, to keep it easily legible. You don’t want to be one of those writers squeezing 2,000 words on a single sheet.

To fit 500 words on a page, you need to keep your font around 10-12 point. The smaller the font, the more white space you can insert, but the harder it is to read.

It doesn’t matter which font you use, but don’t go for courier, and instead pick a proportional font like Arial, Times New Roman or Helvetica. Readability is key.

What To Include?

The rule is simple: include the most important story elements that can fit on a single page, while making sure that everything makes sense from a logical and emotional perspective.

The point of a synopsis is to give as much information as possible, while keeping it a joy to read. Don’t deliberately leave out information, and certainly don’t omit the ending.

The ending

Until your screen story is ready to be viewed, you don’t really need to tease it. So even if you have only half a page available, you still need to include the final act. Not including it may suggest that it is not all that great…

The only instance I can think of where you leave out the ending, is where your document also contains a longer synopsis that includes the ending.

Main Characters

Depending on how many characters feed into your plot, you may or may not mention them all. What matters most is that your main character’s story makes sense.

If you struggle to include all the story beats, start by leaving out subplots and supporting characters. If you have a dual protagonist story, and you can’t keep a logical flow for both without going over the 500 word mark … well, you’ll have to figure it out.

The Theme

I don’t remember ever reading a good synopsis that explicitly states the movie’s theme. Typically, in great movies, the theme is clear from the story itself.

How To Write The Synopsis

Just like any other work you produce, your synopsis must follow the ‘3 C’s: it should be clear, concise and colourful, in that order. By colourful I mean it should be fun to read.

Format & Style of the Synopsis

Beginners’ synopses often include generic phrases such as “Jack encounters some major obstacles before he succeeds in his task.” These are a waste of space as they apply to every story. You must be specific and only share information that is unique to yours.

Leave out any act or sequence headings; you don’t have the space for those, and readers don’t care. Just tell the story. You can use paragraphs to show the act or sequence structure without explicitly referencing it.

Adjectives make prose more colourful, but in screen stories we focus on action instead. Adjectives also bulk up the word count, without adding any vital story info.

It is often said that the synopsis should evoke a tone that is not too distant from the genre of your film or series. Keep it lighthearted if this is the intended tone of your script; make it read deeply dramatic if this is the vibe you go for.

Rules and Techniques

It is tempting to get distracted by rules and guidelines around synopses. If you believe that a rule holds the reader back from enjoying greater satisfaction and becoming more invested, it is your duty to break it.

Don’t forget that there is only one goal: to get the reader excited about your story and convince them of your writing skills. A poorly written synopsis doesn’t bode well. Having said this —

The synopsis is written in the present tense, just like the logline or the action/description in your script.

To land on the perfect word count, I start from a longer version, and keep trimming down to the required word count. In this way, I can control what I cut, and keep only the most important story elements.

Synopsis Structure

Allocate roughly the same proportionate space to each structural element. In other words, your first act will take up a quarter to a third of the word count, the second act will take up half, and the final act, whatever is remaining.

Similarly, if you wrote your script in sequences, you might start a new sentence for each sequence in the synopsis. Readers love it when they can follow the dramatic flow of your piece on the page.

Whatever cliffhangers you (intend to) have in the script, they need to come out here on the page as well.

Keep it in sync

Writing the one-page synopsis is essentially a crash-test for your story. You will realise what works, and what needs more work. As you do this, you may decide on fundamental changes that affect not only the script, but even your logline. Make sure you keep all those documents in sync.

Once you have the perfect synopsis, update your logline. Conversely, if the logline captures your story more lively, update the synopsis. In short, keep your development documents in sync, and once you hit final draft, update them all.

Homework

Once you have a few synopses under your belt, the pain will ease. Heck, you may even enjoy writing them! I believe that the best practice is to write synopses for screenplays that are not yours.

In the Immersion Screenwriting course, you’re encouraged to write a synopsis for each of 7 curated scripts. Students who took the course have reported that their synopsis writing skills skyrocketed by the end.

What is your favourite movie? Why not write a synopsis for it today?

Enjoy!

-Karel Segers

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

In FRANCES HA, Noah Baumbach paid homage to director Leos Carax, from his film MAUVAIS SANG.

I recently returned from a trip to Sweden, and finally watched the 3 original “Girl” films. You know, the feature films in the Millennium Trilogy, based on the books by Stieg Larsson. 

We look at the introduction of main character Lisbeth Salander. Interestingly, Steven Zaillian removed some of the tension in his English-speaking adaptation. Adaptations are not always effective homages to the original work, and here he certainly reduces the emotional impact.

Finally, I show one of my favourite homages: a clip from RED DEAD REDEMPTION 2. To compare, we watch the original sequence in Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid that was quoted in the game.

Enjoy!

This is a Facebook preview of a video that will soon be posted to my YouTube channel. 

Have you subscribed yet?

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

Zombies have long formed their own, important sub-genre in movies. The genre started with White Zombie back in 1932, and it keeps going strong.

Today, it seems that the undead have a higher survival rate at the box office than many other genres. One of my recent favourites was the Korean master piece Train To Busan (2016).

Remove The Head, Destroy The Brain

Zombie pictures rarely cross over into mainstream territory, and this is what made Shaun Of The Dead special. It was produced in the year my son was born, and 12 years later we watched it together. We had a ball. The ultimate father/son bonding movie.

Shaun is a classic that defies pigeonholing, and it transcends style. It satisfies the staunchest fan of the genre, as well as those who have never seen any of Shaun’s zombie predecessors.

Among others, it pays homage to the movies of George A. Romero, easily the most revered zombie writer/director in cinema history.

Apparently Romero was so impressed with Shaun that he asked filmmakers Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright to appear for zombie cameos in Land of the Dead (2005), the fourth part in Romero’s Dead series.

How To Make Zombies Go Viral

For reasons other than a recent zombie outbreak, super slacker Shaun is pushed out of his comfort zone. He has to get his girlfriend back, kill his mum’s boyfriend, and make it to the pub alive. Or, as the IMDB logline states in a rare example of clarity:

A man decides to turn his moribund life around by winning back his ex-girlfriend, reconciling his relationship with his mother, and dealing with an entire community that has returned from the dead to eat the living.

It gives us the goals, the circumstances/stakes, and the theme.

When a logline works, it often promises a well-structured, easily-remembered story, and this is exactly what Shaun Of The Dead delivers.

Filmmakers tend to underestimate the value of a simple logline, reflecting a clear structure. They think it makes the film feel predictable, or it dumbs things down. You know why a short, crystal-clear logline is so important?

It makes word of mouth a piece of cake.

After seeing the movie, my 12-year old could summarise the essence of the story in once sentence. That’s how successful movie marketing works.

Don’t get me wrong: you still need to deliver a brilliant movie. But the masses will do the viral campaigning for you.

Avoiding Death By Slackers

Shaun impersonates the perfect transformational character, forced to go on a mission that would be impossible for his normal self.

Early in the story, his girlfriend Liz paints the picture of where he is going with his life: “Look, if I don’t do something, I’m gonna end up in that pub every night for the rest of my life like those other sad old fuckers, drinking myself to death wondering what the hell happened.”

Shaun needs to grow up, let go of the friend who enables his immaturity, and settle with Liz… if he doesn’t want to lose her.

In a mythological sense, he will also need to kill his father, so he can enter the realm of masculine adulthood. And all the while, he is metaphorically surrounded by the threat of death by slackers.

The first act runs for about 35 minutes, yet it doesn’t drag. The zombie outbreak gives it tension, and the Wright/Pegg dialogue and editing gives it pace. As a result, the shortish second act feels nice and tight, too.

Shaun Of The Dead – Break Into 2

In the scene/sequence that concludes Act One, Shaun gives us an exact rundown of what he needs to achieve in the movie. It could be a rehearsal for the movie’s pitch, edited in the signature snappy Edgar Wright style.

But before we get to this sequence, Ed calls into the phone: “We’re coming to get you, Barbara!”

The irony is that George A. Romero, who was given a private viewing of the film, was oblivious to the fact that this line was copied literally from his own film Night of the Living Dead (1968). He only found out later after a phone conversation with Wright.

What follows is fabulous storytelling. We first see the events as they should happen, but with each next version, Shaun shows an increasingly flawed response to the various calls to adventure.

On the last shot of the sequence, we know where the story really should not, but might well end: the Winchester.

-Karel Segers

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

Chariots of Fire was hugely successful, though. It ended up making nearly $60 million at the US box office alone. It also won four Academy Awards, one for its original score.

I remember enjoying the movie, and as a fan of the early music of Vangelis (who also scored Blade Runner), I was curious to see if and how 25 years later the film would hold up.

Minimal Appeal

I put Chariots Of Fire on my watch list, but didn’t get around to buying the BluRay until its 30^th anniversary. It took another five years before I actually watched it.

Do you have that, too? Some films you really want to see, yet you never end up being in the right mood. Perhaps because of all the reasons Michael Hauge gave when he labeled the movie a fluke.

This so-called logline in IMDb doesn’t help, either: “Two British track athletes, one a determined Jew and the other a devout Christian, compete in the 1924 Olympics.”

Whoever wrote it, must have missed an act or two. The first half of the story takes place in Cambridge from 1919, and shows Jewish student Harold Abrahams’ determination to counter the prevailing anti-Semitism, by proving he is the university’s best runner:

“I’m gonna take them on, all of them, one by one, and run them off their feet.”

Director Without A Clue?

The movie still works, mostly because of the sheer obsession of its main players. And running is in a way very cinematic. (Tom Cruise has known this all along) But what is it about?

Tom Stemple wrote an amusing piece about two video interviews, one with writer Colin Welland, and the other with director Hugh Hudson. After he listened to Welland, he concluded: “Religion is the main theme of the film. Then I turned over the tape and listened to Hudson. He talked at great length about the mechanics of shooting the film. It became clear from how he talked that he did not have a clue what the movie was about.”

Really? It’s not that hard to see what this is about. As the act one curtain falls, in a textbook declaration of the hero’s objective – the ‘Outer Journey’ if you wish – Abrahams vows to “run them off their feet.” It is a fairly open goal, but in good tradition, the mid point will specify it further as ‘winning at the Olympics’.

The theme is clarified in the movie moment that I will show you below. While adversary Liddell runs because he finds his inspiration within, in his faith (“when I run, I feel His pleasure”), for Abrahams the motivation lies external.  It is all about how others perceive him. His faith defines him negatively. He wants to fight prejudice by proving himself worthy, through running – to an Oscar®-score.

Oscar To The Greek

Synthetic soundtracks usually don’t age very well, and their composers rarely achieve more than cult status, e.g. Carpenter, Moroder, Wendy Carlos (for Kubrick), Tangerine Dream (for Michael Mann) and Vangelis. But did you know that Hans Zimmer’s early scores were largely synthesizer-based?

Nothing is more subjective than music, and I was expecting for Chariots Of Fire’s Oscar-winning score to be quite dated.

At the opening credit, my fear was confirmed.

As we see the Cambridge men running on the beach in slow motion, over Vangelis’ main theme, I cringe. The tune has been played to death, to a point that it distracts.

Director Hugh Hudson made a beginner’s mistake: images and music never carry any intrinsic cinematic emotion. Unless an emotion is set up through a character’s experience, the moment is shallow. To the mainstream audience at the time, this music cue appealed as a catchy tune, rather than an effective movie score. A lubricant into the actual movie. Thirty-five years on, it no longer works (to me).

Ars Electronica

That opening image with the famous tune may be what most punters remember about the movie, but it’s also devoid of emotion. We don’t know these guys yet. Pretty pictures, but we don’t really care.

To my surprise however, the rest of the score holds up fairly well, and one scene in particular jumps out.

There is a moment twenty minutes into act two that really works in terms of emotional – and musical – payoff. 

Chariots Of Fire – Movie Moment

Abrahams and Liddell meet for the first time in London in June 1923, when they race against each other in a British open. Liddell beats Abrahams, who takes it extremely badly.

Over the rhythmic clapping of the grandstand seats, sharp electronic shards from the legendary Yamaha CS80 synthesizer emphasise our Hero’s pain, alternating with more subtle filtered ‘pads’.

In that moment, Sybil appears, to comfort her lover. Now we see what our Hero’s real problem is: “I don’t run to take beatings. If I can’t win, I won’t run.” She realises it is all about his ego, and this is exactly what he needs to resolve before the movie is over.

“Ring me when you’ve sorted that one out. Try growing up.”

-Karel Segers

https://ozzywood.wistia.com/medias/z8ch7weusb?embedType=iframe&seo=false&videoFoam=true&videoWidth=1080

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

Unless you’ve read the original novel, you won’t know until late in the film that Under The Skin is the story of an alien in human form. Still, the filmmakers reveal in interviews: “part road movie, part science fiction, part real, it’s a film about seeing our world through alien eyes.”

Spoilers Would Have Helped

In fairness, I would have enjoyed the film a whole lot better if I knew this before watching. Perhaps this confusion about what to reveal and what not lies at the basis of director Jonathan Glazer’s mixed success at the box office.

Glazer is what you would call a cult director. He has a smallish, dedicated following. His debut Sexy Beast grossed only about $10m worldwide, but it established him as a force in the indie world. For Birth, his next, he had $20m to play with (most of which I suspect went to Nicole Kidman’s fee).

That movie barely made its money back, and it took Glazer nine years before getting another picture into the theatres. With a production budget of $13m and a reported worldwide gross of just over $5m for Under The Skin, one wonders if he’ll be helming again any time soon.

Under Your Skin

Still, I’ll always be interested in Glazer’s movies. They are eerie, unnerving. They linger in your memory, and get under your skin. To me, this is a sign of relevant cinema.

In this picture, Scarlett Johansson plays a woman who roams Scotland seducing men, then killing them. This ritual repeats itself over and over, until she too meets a harrowing end. The scenes of seduction and sex are disorienting and alienating, to an extent that we can’t really tell what is going on, how and why.

Scarlett Johansson’s Skin

It is one of those stories I kept watching out of intrigue (contrary, of course, to those who confessed to keep watching for the substantial amount of Scarlett in the flesh). Where could this all possibly lead?

When any answer is ultimately lacking, you are left with the choice to accept this as art – or dismiss it as nonsense. I’m divided. In my view, great cinema doesn’t leave the viewers in the dark, with an attitude of “Didn’t you get it?”

Or was this film intended for readers of the original novel only? Not a convincing business model, if you ask me.

Glazer’s Idea Of Beach Fun

That said, Under The Skin has one scene that represents Glazer’s style of filmmaking.

If you haven’t seen the movie, I’m not sure whether it will draw you in, or turn you off completely (I guess this may also depend on your appetite for Scarlett Johansson). But it may haunt you forever… if you’re a human.

The scene sits about twenty-five minutes in, and is set at the beach during wild weather. Our heroine watches the drowning of a couple in the waves while their infant child is left alone, crying. As a parent, I found this the most heart-wrenching scene ever.

But it’s not over yet.

This is only the setup – being a long one – for what is to come. Unmoved, the woman observes how a swimmer in wetsuit fails to rescue the couple, and washes up on the beach, exhausted.

What happens next, is profoundly disturbing, and if you’re in need of something to cheer you up, perhaps leave this one for later.

Or pour yourself something strong.

-Karel Segers

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

What I wanted to demonstrate, is that you can’t apply advice for emerging screenwriters to films written by seasoned – and successful – filmmakers. “Well, obviously!” I hear you say. Yet, beginners often look at these films to justify seemingly brave choices.

Let’s first look at the Spotlight win in the context of two decades. The past 10 years’ winners, and those from ’76-’85.

[twocol_one]

Best Picture 2006-2015

The Departed
No Country for Old Men
Slumdog Millionaire [O]
The Hurt Locker
The King’s Speech
The Artist
Argo
12 Years a Slave
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Spotlight

[/twocol_one] [twocol_one_last]

Best Picture 1976-1985

Rocky
Annie Hall
The Deer Hunter
Kramer vs. Kramer
Ordinary People
Chariots of Fire
Gandhi
Amadeus
Out of Africa
Platoon
[/twocol_one_last]

I don’t think Spotlight measures up to the standard of the 70’s and 80’s winners. Against recent winners, it compares much better.

So what did I like about the film?

Seven Reasons Why Spotlight Is A Best Picture

1. It’s a drama that scored $40m+ at the B.O.Oscar®-winners are historically often dramas, and they don’t always perform very well at the box office.
2. It features an ensemble cast – and doesn’t fall apart.Writing multi-protagonist stories for the large screen is hellishly difficult. You’ll find that those who do it successfully, have experience in television, like Spotlight co-writer Josh Singer.
3. The issue is not painted in black & white.In politics, you won’t get heard unless you speak in slogans. Sadly the same is becoming true for movies with an opinion. Spotlight cannot be blamed of oversimplifying, as I will demonstrate below.
4. Past story; cautionary tale for the future.The story may deal with events that happened 15 years ago, they are still acutely fresh in the minds of many. Perhaps as entertainers we have the duty to ensure we – and our audiences – stay cautious.
5. It’s about journalists.Anyone with an interest in the media will have witnessed the rapid decline of the standards of practice of – previously respected – newspapers. More now than at the time of All The President’s Men, journalists are the guardians of our democracy. Or should be.
6. Characters are relentless.From a purely technical perspective, Spotlight hooks us into a difficult subject through the POV of characters that are determined, unrelenting, even obsessive.
7. It’s not L.A. or N.Y. for a change.

Okay, perhaps not enough reason for you to call it Best Picture. But don’t forget that the Oscars® are also a little bit about taste … and a whole lot about politics.

Now here is a scene that made me look at the picture differently.

Fifty Shades Of Grey

Spotlight slowly builds. Initially I wondered “how are they going to make this work”, but once their task was clear, I loved how each character took to it in their own way.

The new editor Baron (Schreiber) sees an opportunity and a duty to take on the challenge, while old-timer Robby (Keaton) is reluctant. Staffers Sacha (McAdams) and Mike (Ruffalo) are the pit-bulls, attacking the case, without ever relenting. They’ll provide the momentum to get us deeper into the case.

Just past the mid-point sits a scene of merely ninety seconds, that makes this film truly special. It goes into brave territory, and reminds us of the complexity of child abuse. Rather than demonising the perpetrators and appealing to the audience’s primal lust for revenge, it shows us how difficult the issue really is.

Sacha visits a former priest named Ronald Paquin. The elderly gentleman who opens the door, radiates a child-like innocence. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. Then, the conversation gets a totally unexpected twist, leaving both Sacha and the viewer speechless.

-Karel Segers

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

“If what you’re doing does not have the possibility of failing, then by definition, you’re not doing anything new.” – Charlie Kaufman

Taking center stage at Göteborg International Film Festival (Sweden), Charlie Kaufman seems about as comfortable with the attention as would his namesake character in Adaptation. When the host expresses hope of learning something from him, Mr. Kaufman even lets out an anxious laugh before claiming “Then, you’ve come to the wrong place”, humbly oblivious to his own ingenuity.

Charlie Kaufman on how to write

“It doesn’t appeal to me to have a kind of a formula, for writing anything.”…“I’m not interested in going in with a frame work. I think it inhibits the possibilities for me.“ Even though seeming opposed to structure within his own work, he admits that “It’s helpful for some people and I wouldn’t tell people not to do it if they want to do it”.

Many writers have opposed feelings towards the idea of structure within their stories. It “inhibits the possibilities” whilst simultaneously being “helpful”.

Structure can, if allowed, inhibit a writer, but can also un-inhibit an already inhibited one. Consider a map. If used to keep you on the exact path you planned out from the start, it’ll hinder you from stumbling upon the unimaginable. If, however, you ignore the map completely and find yourself lost, you’ll end up wandering in circles.

So, my advice would be to dare stray from structure, that’s where you’ll find the parts of your story that only you can tell, but keep it in mind in case you get lost in your story and need to return to its core.

Charlie Kaufman is no traditional man, or writer, and does not wish to be so. His approach is highly original, both in process and product. Not only does he stray from structures and guidelines, his actual films aren’t exactly your typical blockbusters either.

Kaufman’s works aren’t, seemingly, intended as commercial, and can therefore afford to explore angles unexpected.

Charlie Kaufman about ‘Adaptation’ (2002)

“The main character in this movie is the screenplay itself. The evolution of the screenplay from its initial intents to its ultimate corruption. To me that’s the tragedy of this creature that is this screenplay, that never was able to reach the fruition that Charlie had hoped. He was never able to write a movie about flowers”.

Kaufman describes his works as “self-conscious”, a very on-point description. Although giving the impression of being a highly introverted individual, Kaufman’s films are all but so.

I would even go so far as to say that the feelings and thoughts he doesn’t display in his personal life are extroverted through his work. To showcase one’s inner life like that is not only brave, but also heartwarmingly earnest.

“I think that you have the responsibility to be truthful. You’re going to put something into this world that so many people are going to get stuck in their brain”.

On Romance

Opposed to the idea of Hollywood Romances, he implies that dishonest works can even be right-out damaging to real life relationships, something he’s experienced personally.

“It sets up unreal expectations, which I think you then project onto your partner and it destroys the possibility of an actual conversation between people.”…“If you do something that is truthful, truthful in the subjective personal sense, not in any kind of larger sense, maybe someone else in the world can hold on to it and not feel like they’re a complete freak for not living in this “Romantic Comedy world.””

Romance is one of the most sought after genres. So why, if these films set up un-relatable characters and worlds, are they so attractive?

“The Republicans of the United States have a theory that the reason that they can get support from people who they’re not helping at all is because these people aspire to the American Dream.“…”It’s like this hopeful thing, that you’re going to be living your life to a soundtrack.”…”It’s appealing in a short-run sort of way, but then you know you have to go back to the actual business of living your life and you suddenly feel like you’re really Less Than. And I don’t think that’s ultimately helpful for people.”

Movies and fiction have the ability of taking people away from reality, of offering a less mundane alternative to the everyday 9 to 5. An “escape” like this may have an almost drug-ish effect in that its extravagance makes the actual world seem bleak in comparison.

This doesn’t mean that fantastical movies or great escapes are necessarily bad, as aspiring and dreaming of better things aren’t necessarily so, but they have the potential.

As a writer, you need to consider the ideals you’re setting. If soldiers are presented as heroes, children may dream of the day they get to hold a gun.

A lot of us creative types are hopeless introverts and can, as Kaufman himself, fully master the art of being awkward.

Collaboration

“Situation comedy writing… you sit in a room with a bunch of other comedy writers and you pitch jokes. The first job I got, I didn’t say a word for six weeks and every day I, I would go home and think I was going to get fired that day. I was so scared, and so shy, and so inhibited.”

Charlie Kaufman may have been mortified when put in a situation where he was expected to showcase his skills, but by showing up every day although he’d rather go hide in a closet, he came out on the other side. My guess is, stronger.

Kaufman explains that even though working in big groups isn’t ideal for him, he did learn a lot.

“You don’t know what the other person is going to say, so you’re bouncing stuff against the unknown. I think that’s the good thing about collaboration.”

If he works alone, the product feels like a more sincere reflection of himself. Even so, he did have trouble going back after having worked with Paul Proch.

“I became very paralyzed”…”I couldn’t surprise myself, in any way. So the thing I did, and I did it with Being John Malkovich, is I decided that I was going to collaborate with myself, and the way to do that, I thought, was to get myself off of that track that was very familiar.”

Trusting your instincts

When you’re working on your own, nobody else is going to push you to try what you haven’t tried before, and it’s not always easy to dare trust yourself.

How do you know what works and what doesn’t when nobody’s telling you? About writing Being John Malkovich, Kaufman says:

“I trusted that it was funny because I thought it was funny.”

It’s remarkably simple, yet quite refreshingly optimistic. If you think your work is really good, then chances are that at least some of those who see/read it, will do so too.

The people who’ll appreciate your work are probably those who, on some level, would understand your inner workings. Write for them.

A lot of your ideas, especially the great ones, are probably going to be a little crazy. Crazy’s not bad, so don’t worry. But how do you keep them from coming off as silly?

Charlie Kaufman about relatable characters

“There’s gotta be a real emotional basis for what’s going on with the characters. If there isn’t anything, then it’s just silly, and it’s weird, and it feels frivolous to me. It has to be about something.”

An essential part of almost any story is making your audience feel alongside your characters. Nobody will care on the behalf of a character that’s not relatable. By relatable, however, I don’t mean that he/she needs to look or even act as you or me, but the inner feelings, or the “emotional basis”, needs to feel real.

Take The Lion King as an example. The characters are lions, nobody’s pretending otherwise, so they’re obviously not relatable in any physical sense. Even so, the world cried when Simba lost his father. Because he gave us a real emotional response.

Something that keeps coming back throughout this interview, whether because of Kaufman in particular or because it’s a common issue is hard to say, is the concept of taking risks.

“I think it’s kind of the job description, for me. I think that’s what I have to do. I don’t think I’m doing my job if I don’t do that- But still, it’s scary.”

“If what you’re doing does not have the possibility of failing, then by definition, you’re not doing anything new” […] “So the only way that you can do anything new or interesting is to open yourself up to that risk of failing.”

On Failing

The concept of failing, or being a failure, is terrifying. It is, however, how you learn. If you never break down, you can never understand what’ll get you up. There may be things you want to tell that haven’t been told before in ways that haven’t been shown.

These are the scariest stories to tell because of the prospect that people won’t understand them. These are also the stories the world needs to hear, and the ones you need to tell.

Charlie Kaufman rounds off this particular topic with this rather quizzical, yet, if you manage to overlook the odd wording, astoundingly on-point statement:

”This is the only way that it’ll be worth anything at all. Maybe it won’t be, but it won’t – definitely won’t be – if I don’t do that.”

I consider this statement the key to Charlie Kaufman’s success. Giving the world something it’s already ready for eliminates the possibility of presenting it with what it needs to go forward.

When asked about the possibility/impossibility of telling a story, Kaufman’s answer will once again make the structure aficionados out there want to jump off a cliff.

“I’m not really interested in stories. Because I think stories are things that are kind of polished and seen from a distance, and I want to try to do stuff where it’s like it’s immersed. Where I’m immersed in it when I’m working on it. And the audience will experience that immersion, that chaos and confusion of actual existence, as opposed to a story with a beginning, a middle and an end.”

Charlie Kaufman expresses the importance of being truthful. His approach seems to be that films shall reflect the real world instead of an impossibly perfect alternative to it.

A lot of the films being made today can often seem frighteningly foolproof, being just a little bit too shiny. Sure, these can be stunning to look at, but my interpretation of what Charlie Kaufman is telling us is that he doesn’t want to create something that is beautiful from afar, but rather something you could imagine existing inside of.

If you’re a creative person, chance is you’ll have a lot of ideas. That’s fantastic, keep ’em coming. It can, however, come a time when you find yourself hindered by the sheer number of them. Asked how he’d solve the problem of facing too many ideas at once, Kaufman answers:

“My kind of way of solving it, is I just add more ideas… I like the idea of density and opening things up. When I’m writing, I don’t have an outline, generally, where I’m saying I have to go from this point to that point. I find that kind of constricting… If I have a new idea, that excites me, I’ll include it, if I can.”

I think I just heard every screenwriting professor out there to cringe as Charlie Kaufman said this, but it just proves once again that we all work differently in our creative process.

Whether you add up all your ideas and turn them into a story or construct a story first, and then figure out which ideas fit into it, is up to you. Most ideas do work, in some context. They may not, however, necessarily work within the project you’re currently working on.

The most terrible idea could be magnificent, if put into the right concept.

Charlie Kaufman on Rewriting and Feedback

On the topic of rewriting and receiving feedback, Kaufman spoke of being faced with questions about his work from director Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich) during their reading-sessions.

“It put me in a position of having to explain it, and either I explain it or I can’t, and then we can change it if I can’t. And then I feel fine with changing it, because we’ve talked it through.”

Receiving and accepting feedback is one of the most vital parts of becoming great. It’s also one of the most difficult.

Taking feedback on a paper for school is one thing, but when it comes to something that’s so close to your heart that it’s almost a part of you, it becomes personal. The feelings you portray best are probably those you’ve experienced yourself, and if someone doesn’t understand them, it may be hard to hear.

The advice I would give is to connect your heart strings to your keyboard whilst you’re writing, but once it’s time to sort out what makes sense and what doesn’t, you may want to disconnect. If you find that you can’t explain to your reader why something needs to be the way it is, consider the possibility that it doesn’t.

So what about your inner critic?

“I really need to train myself to let myself write the stuff that isn’t gonna work out. Because if I’m editing and being a critic while I’m writing, I just sit there. Which I do a lot of.“

Ending up not writing at all for fear of writing something that isn’t good enough is highly common. It’s also astonishingly ludicrous. We’ve all done it, don’t fret, but it’s a pattern that will most likely hinder you.

If you have something finished, even if it’s shit, you have a starting point. You’ll end up having to rewrite the first draft anyways, so there’s no need to get it perfect the first time. Just get it done. Then make it perfect.

Conclusion

Throughout this masterclass, it ‘s been fairly evident that Charlie Kaufman values artistic integrity far higher than commercial appeal. It is vital that you don’t try so hard to write what people want that you forget why you’re writing. But as an un-known artist without much credentials, how to face skepticism because your work isn’t “sellable”?

“I think tenacity is really the only thing. What happens with tenacity is that the more people that see your stuff, the more times you get to talk to people, the greater the chances you’ll hook up with somebody who gets it and wants to do it.”

If you’ve found something about yourself that is special, show it or you eliminate the possibility of someone else finding it too. There is lots of ignorance out there, my friend, and if you are extraordinary, that’s something you’ll have to learn to either face or ignore.

A lot of people won’t understand you, but are they really who you’re writing for? Consider why you write, and then do so shamelessly.

When asked why he writes movies, Kaufman awkwardly stumbles on the words before offering the most honestly beautiful response yet.

“I don’t know why I do it. I don’t know what else I’d do.”

If you liked this, check out more videos about screenwriting or filmmaking. And if you know of a great video on Screenwriting, let us know in the comments. Thanks!

Camilla Beskow

Camilla Beskow is a screenwriter, and former student at the Gotland based film school Storyutbildningen. Among her favourite films are Pan’s Labyrinth and Good Will Hunting.

Charlie Kaufman, the flesh-and-blood half of the Kaufman brothers, gives an endearingly awkward, viscerally honest screenwriting masterclass at the Göteborg International Film Festival on the art of surviving as a writer, the impossibility of Hollywood romance in everyday life, and the value of personal honesty in your art.

If you liked this, check out more videos about screenwriting or filmmaking. And if you know of a great video on Screenwriting, let us know in the comments. Thanks!

Producers are both revered and maligned in the industry – described as both facilitators and gatekeepers, enablers and note-givers. But they’re some of the hardest working people on the team, navigating the money and the politics that makes everything else possible.

The Hollywood Reporter sits down with six top awards season filmmakers — Peter Chernin, Eric Fellner, John Lesher (Birdman), Marc Platt, Cathleen Sutherland (Boyhood) and Emma Thomas (Interstellar).

If you liked this, check out more videos about screenwriting or filmmaking. And if you know of a great video on Screenwriting, let us know in the comments. Thanks!

Oh, and if you have some more time, and would like to learn more about Pete Docter, check out this one hour video!