The internet is rife with advice of all kinds, and I find it increasingly difficult to locate useful gems. If you’re really critical, you could argue that even the best known and most respected authors such as Robert McKee offer very little in terms of workable advice. I’m talking about techniques that writers can actively apply during the writing process.

Most of what you will find falls in the category of analytical observations – and I have pleaded guilty to the same.

We do need analysis, and critical thinking about how stories play out. But a writer expecting to find practical guides during the actual chore of writing a story will often be sorely disappointed. Not much of this around.

This means that you will need to develop a BS radar when it comes to screenwriting advice. The best way to do this, is always ask “Why?”

I would place the worst kind of screenwriting advice into three separate categories.

The Obvious – and mostly useless

At first sight, these types of screenwriting advice sound perfectly plausible.

• “A high concept story is something that everyone wants to see, no matter who the actors are”. Sound legit, right? Until you question it. How do you know everyone wants to see it? Back to square one. Not a smidgen of useful advice here.
• “Just tell a great story.” I won’t even go there. Just watch my great video.

This type of tips you can easily undress by asking But why? and How does this advice help me today?

The Plain Wrong – and often dangerous

• “Script formatting doesn’t matter, as long as you tell a great story.” This is a variation on the obvious screenwriting advice above, only now with a dangerous sting. Trust me, formatting does matter.
• “The inciting incident must be on page 12.” The alternative goes: “The inciting incident must be at your story’s 10% mark”. These numbers may be correct if you consider the average. However, this means that the majority of films do not have this beat on that particular page or percentage, but higher or lower.
• “Show, don’t tell”. Now, this one must be correct, right? Yes, if you have the budget. Otherwise, you’ll have to put a lot of exposition in dialogue, whether you like it or not.
• “Register all your drafts with the local guild, and always have the registration # on the cover page.” No. Do your research.

Because this type of advice is often factual, just doing some more research may teach you the truth.

The Confusing – and hardly helpful

This is the toughest category of screenwriting advice to debunk, because often, there’s truth in it. Only, it appears not practical when you’re actually writing. I plead guilty to having given this type of tips in the past.

• “The 3-Act Structure is broken. Here’s something better.” A smart writer recently pointed out to me how John Truby attacks the 3-Act Structure, then replaces it with the same using different labels. Challenging existing paradigms is great, but ultimately terminology matters, as we use it to communicate about story. The reality is that you’ll need to speak the language of the person who will decide on the future of your script. Most of them still use the 3-Act Structure, or the Hero’s Journey. Sorry, John.
• “Your story’s halfway point should have a point-of-no-return.” I have never really understood the dramatic value of being closer to your goal than to the departure point. Unless you’re in a road movie, this metaphor can mean a million things. A failed film like Annihilation proves how this approach doesn’t work, which is why I much prefer a Mid Point Reversal. However, be careful: if the executive prefers a point-of-no-return, then call it that (but write it as a reversal anyway).
• “Strong screen drama is a visual expression of our deepest humanity, and it confronts our inner conflicts in a way that makes us question our reason for being.” Some people just love using big words to make it sound as if something matters. And the statement above may be true, but how is this going to help you in writing your flabby first half of Act 2? The advice in this category may sound inspiring, but rarely helps.

Screenwriting Advice – The bottom line

Don’t just accept the words of your favourite guru, even if they sound great. Always ask “why?” and “how does this help me?”

I know what you’re thinking now.

So what about that setting up the goal before the end of Act 1, from the title? Isn’t this sound screenwriting advice? Shouldn’t the goal be set up early, and definitely no later than the first half hour?

Okay, let’s go there.

You’re assuming that the first act should be thirty minutes in length. Why? Because some guru told you? And how does this help you?

Here’s my take – and that of many authors I respect. (If you want a name, I’d say Paul Gulino.)

The first act is over once the goal is established.

Stories are about characters responding to events or change, with a certain action or series of actions. Once the story’s main action or goal is established, in terms of dramatic tension we call this the end of Act 1.

So what this piece of advice above is really saying, is that you have to end Act 1 before the end of Act 1.

Nice one.

-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!

Creatives hate screenwriting ‘rules’. So they should. But it is also helpful to understand what rules really are, and what they do.

Observe And Study

All Blake Snyder did (just like Field, McKee, Seger etc.), is study films and look for patterns, then describe the patterns he found in films that were successful.

Many screenwriters find this approach incredibly attractive, because it creates the illusion that you can reproduce success by replicating those patterns.

Of course it isn’t this simple.

If you ask yourself what vehicles are the fastest, you’ll see that a Ferrari is faster than a bus, and a Boeing 747 is faster than a Ferrari. Now you know that if you want to go fast, you pick the 747. Sadly, this knowledge doesn’t buy you the ticket; let alone build the airplane.

Screenwriting rules show you what is fast, not how to make it fast.

Analysis vs. Creation

Screenwriting rules, theories and books are mostly analytical. Intellectually, it can be incredibly gratifying to acquire these insights. But none of this is creative. It doesn’t get you anywhere near having a screenplay that works. What these theories do, is give you an understanding of what you need to be successful. Not how to create it.

Now you know this, you are one step closer to writing a successful screenplay. The next step is to figure out how to use this type of information practically. Let me tell you this: studying these theories by heart to apply it during the writing is not the solution. In fact, this may even hold you back by causing writer’s block.

Most working writers first come up with a concept (or else it is handed to them). Next, they write an outline, and finally they write the script. At any stage of this process, they look back at the work and reflect on it. Does it work? Where could it be improved?

This is the analytical stage.

You need to have something written before you can apply any theory to it.

Screenwriting Rules That Work

So, does it work?

Your answer to this question will initially be subjective. You’ll probably think “yes, it works”.

In your head.

The bad news: as a beginning screenwriter you may safely ignore your subjective assessment, as 99% of the time you’ll be wrong.

The great news is that you have written something. Now you can apply your analytical knowledge to it, and make a prediction based on what has worked previously.

You examine any similarities – and differences – between successful scripts, and yours.  (After this, you’ll see that you were indeed wrong.)

In assessing your work, you look at the precedents, and you apply common sense. Much like this:

• If successful screenplays are mostly somewhere between 90 and 130 pages, while yours is 276 pages, perhaps you should consider some cutting.
• If those successful works have a balance of dialogue and description, while yours has 85% description, there’s a clue as to where to cut.
• If you have only one cliffhanger on page 87, and most scripts have a climactic scene every 10-15 pages, you may have to look at your story’s structure again.
• Etc.

You may think these are not hard-and-fast screenwriting rules, but many people that judge screenplays actually do.

L’Artiste

Alternatively, you can ignore all the above, and just follow your gut. Because you’re creating art.

I am not being sarcastic here.

If you are independently wealthy, and don’t need to draw an income from writing, why would you pander to any audience? Do your thing. Be bold and crazy. What do you have to lose? Ignore screenwriting rules.

The same goes for those who love the romantic idea of the poor, struggling screenwriter.

But most of you want to get your script read, right?

Trust me, no serious producer will read your 276 pages, your endless blocks of description, your badly formatted genius.

Even if they read, and nothing majorly dramatic hooks them in by page 10, that’s it. They’ll bin it. And your name may go on their blacklist. No hard feelings, they’re just trying to be efficient.

Of course there are exceptions, and if you want to bet on those, go for your life.

It makes perfect sense to try and understand what qualities are present in most successful works.

Whoever blanket-rejects the notion that there exists a set of common sense principles, is an idiot.

Does this mean you need to aim and replicate all of these principles? No. But you may want to be in the ballpark, if you want to be in the industry.

Even in the ballpark, you will need to stand out, and be different somehow. In order to be noticed, you may need to bend some rules.

How To Write

Guess what is the one thing that keeps wannabe writers from breaking through the glass ceiling. Hint: it is not a lack of knowledge of rules or principles.

The only thing that holds you back is the discipline to read scripts and write – every day.

Those who are successful have managed to create a routine that allows them to deliver work, consistently.

No amount of books or courses or gurus is going to help you overcome this challenge.

The tools or programs that will ultimately get you the closest to your goal, are the ones that help you do what you need to do on a regular basis.

The 3-Act Structure

What about the Mother Of All Screenwriting Rules… The 3-Act Structure?

Writers have rejected the 3-act structure based on what I say above: it won’t help you come up with a great story.
What the 3-act structure does help you with, is understanding structure. And structure is one of those criteria where almost every successful film seems to align.

At the end of the 1970’s, Syd Field decided to stay vaguely in the realm of Aristotle, and divide a screen story in three parts.

He gave it a label: the 3-act structure. A paradigm was born.

Can you see that there is no inherent value to this approach?

It is only because professionals need to be able to talk about story, that you need to understand their lingo.

It’s Academic

That said, you can perfectly develop your own system, and write amazing scripts. But once you’re pitching – or working with others on development – they’ll all need to know your custom-built system. Imagine every writer did this. Can you see the problem? We need a common framework.

I would argue that it is better to have a bad understanding of the 3-act structure than none at all. At least you can enter into a conversation, and learn from the people you speak with.

Some producers love showing that they understand story structure (even if they don’t), and you can forge a bond by pretending you are on their wavelength by being prepared to speak their lingo.

In essence, the 3-act structure is no more than a tool to communicate about stories.

To summarise, it really doesn’t matter how you get to write your story, and how you make them work. But sooner or later you will need to talk about them, and you better speak some generally accepted structure language.

Pick Your Label

Sure, not everyone sticks to the 3-act tool box. Some talk about Hero’s Journey, Dramatica, 4 Parts,  22 Steps, 6 Stages, etc.

You know why?

Because each guru needs a point of difference to get their stuff sold.

Only a very few have really added anything of note to the existing screenwriting rules; they simply change the labels.

Lazy, I know.

I’m incredibly tempted to add a new approach to the list, just for fun. My own structure paradigm: The 2-Act Structure. You might even like it.

But when all is said and done, the 3-act structure ends up being the most commonly accepted dramatic language for the screen.

Learn it.

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!

And here is an overview of articles I have marked and shared lately:

https://www.google.com/reader/shared/karel.segers

_______________________________

With thanks to Sol.

Enjoy!

Karel

by Jeffrey Hirschberg

Throughout my years of screenwriting I have read and analyzed thousands of scripts from writers of all levels, including screenplays from my students at Buffalo State College, Cornell University, Syracuse University’s Newhouse School, and R.I.T.’s School of Film and Animation.  Here is what I discovered during this time:

1. Assume everyone has A.D.D.

There has never been a greater truism in Hollywood. While I am guilty of playing dime store psychologist, one does not need a PhD in Clinical Psychology to conclude that audiences (that means us) tend to have short attention spans.

“Attentiveness (or lack thereof) of the audience is directly related to its ability to make a successful emotional connection.”

Now, we can argue there are certain external factors contributing to a population of diminishing attention spans (MTV, video games, text messaging, IM, and the Internet to name a few possible culprits), but it is safe to say that the attentiveness (or lack thereof) of the audience is directly related to its ability to make a successful emotional connection – and that connection must be made quickly, or you will lose your audience even more quickly.

Readers, like moviegoers, need to be entertained very quickly.

2. Spend most of your time on the first ten pages of your script

In Gladiator, we are immediately engaged as we are introduced to our hero – General Maximus – and the respect he commands from the Roman army. Add an action-packed, bloody opening battle to the mix, and we are sold.

In Pulp Fiction, the first ten pages of the script feature a restaurant robbery and the prophetic musings of two unforgettable hit men. The dialogue is fresh, imaginative, and unrelenting in its pace and originality. If you are a reader perusing the screenplay, you undoubtedly want to continue turning the page.

When you are finished with your script, give the first ten pages to a group of friends or family you trust. Then ask each of them one simple question: “Do you want to read more?” If the overwhelming response is in the affirmative, you are on the right road to writing a memorable screenplay.

3. Write roles to attract movie stars

Create a memorable hero or villain and chances are you just might attract a movie star to your script. Why? Because characters like the heroes and villains featured in my book are unique, intelligent, and intriguing people with magnetism to spare. Who wouldn’t want to play Hans Gruber, Norma Rae Webster, Hannibal Lecter, Ellen Ripley, or Gordon Gekko?

You may also want to watch films that feature Academy Award-winning roles.

Movie stars can buy anything from Porsches to Picassos; they have adoring fans throughout the world who will wait for hours to get a glimpse of them; and they are told by sycophantic agents, managers, attorneys, studio executives, PR professionals, writers, producers, and directors that they are nothing less than the great Da Vinci reincarnated.

“Who wouldn’t want to play Hans Gruber, Norma Rae Webster, Hannibal Lecter, Ellen Ripley, or Gordon Gekko?”

But, they cannot buy the respect an Academy Award affords them. So, if you can write a juicy role that will attract the attention of one or more movie stars, you just might find yourself in the midst of a studio bidding war.

4. Write economically

Throughout my years of writing and reading screenplays, one of the most common mistakes I have experienced is “overwriting.” This phenomenon often falls into two categories: 1) verbose stage direction; and

2) “on the nose” dialogue.

Verbose Stage Direction

Keep your stage direction short (I recommend trying to keep each paragraph to less than five lines) and to the point. Never forget you are writing a piece of entertainment, and stage direction should entertain as much as it informs us as to the comings and goings of your characters.

“On the Nose” Dialogue

“The point is to make the audience work a bit for the information – not too much.”

Several years ago, I sent a script to my manager and received notes including quite a few pieces of dialogue circled with the comment, “OTN.” I was perplexed and asked him to explain.

He said these were several instances where my dialogue was too “on the nose.” The point is to make the audience work a bit for the information – not too much (we don’t want to frustrate them) – but enough for them to feel emotionally involved in your story.

5. Make sure every character has a unique voice

Movies work most effectively when they are populated with characters that are unique from one another. So, you should try to –

Avoid stereotypes

One of the problems I see over and over again with new writers is the depiction of characters who feel familiar and stereotypical. The key is to go against stereotypes, thus providing your audience with the refreshing read they crave.

Surprise us with quirks and unusual traits

Every once in a while, I’ll be sitting in a movie theater and suddenly I’ll discover something fresh and unusual about one of the main characters. It is that feeling of surprise we all desire and unfortunately, those moments are few and far between.

Create someone an actor will love to play

One can only imagine Julie Roberts’ reaction when she read the script for Erin Brockovich. It is simply not the typical role afforded to actresses in Hollywood.

The hero of the film is a quintessentially strong character any actress would love to play. She is confident, bold, sympathetic, and has plenty of memorable monologues. It is a classic underdog story resulting in Roberts winning the Oscar in 2000.

“The hero of the film is a quintessentially strong character any actress would love to play.”

Transform him/her over your story

Rick Blaine in Casablanca is a great example of a hero transforming over the course of the story. At the beginning of the film he confidently states his mantra, “I stick my neck out for nobody.” But, at the end of the film, he does just that – sticking his neck out for the woman he loves.

Make everything about his/her journey difficult

We love watching our heroes struggle. What would Raiders of the Lost Ark be if Indiana Jones immediately stumbled upon the Ark of the Covenant and brought it back to America?

What if John McClane burst into the Nakatomi Christmas party and took out Hans Gruber and all of his henchmen in one momentous moment? And, what if Ellen Ripley easily discovered the Alien’s whereabouts as well as a surefire way to destroy the monster? Boring!

6. Understand your audience

When you are writing a screenplay, there are two audiences you should consider: 1) the readers, agents, managers, producers, and studio executives who will be reading your screenplay (aka, the buyers); and 2) the demographic you believe will be most interested in seeing your movie.

If your script is a comedy, it must be funny. If you are writing a horror script, it must be scary. Sounds like common sense? It isn’t. Talk to a professional reader and ask her how many comedy and horror scripts she has read of late that are actually funny and scary. “The comedy scripts are scary and the horror scripts are funny,” is the answer you just might receive.

Re: demographics: Hollywood studios like to categorize the world into four simple compartments, typically referred to as quadrants: 1) Male under 25; 2) Male over 25; 3) Female under 25; and 4) Female over 25.

If you ever wondered why every Pixar film seems to make a billion dollars in worldwide gross and ancillary revenues, it is because the company excels at making Four Quadrant movies – films that appeal equally to males and females under 25 and over 25.

7. Know your three-act structure

Like it or not, Hollywood has a language all its own. Here is what buyers expect from your script:

1. By page ten, they want to be introduced to your hero, what he wants (his goal), and the genre of the story you are telling.

2. By the end of Act One (page twenty-five or so), readers want to know exactly where this story is going, including the stakes (What happens if the hero does not achieve his goal?) and the villain (The person, place, or thing preventing the hero from achieving his goal).

3. By the midpoint (the middle of Act Two, page fifty-five or so), readers like to feel that the stakes for the hero have been raised in some fashion. Maybe a new character has been introduced. Maybe a new obstacle or villain has reared its head. Maybe the hero has experienced a distinct character transformation.

4. By the end of Act Two (page ninety or so), readers presume your hero will be in a heap of trouble. Up until now, the hero may have been steadily moving toward achieving his goal. But at the end of Act Two, things have changed. He has suddenly been put in a corner and the audience is asking itself, “How in the world is he going to get out of this one?”

5. In Act Three, readers want your hero to somehow devise a new plan and escape from the mess that has presented itself at the end of Act Two. This is the big finish.

8. Be aware of theme, and keep it consistent throughout the script

Theme is a tough nut to crack. When I ask my students the theme of Die Hard, they often restate the film’s core concept (or, in Hollywood terms, the “logline”), saying something like, “It’s about a cop thwarting a group of international terrorists while saving his wife and a bunch of innocent people.” While this is true, it doesn’t quite touch on theme.

I then dig deeper, suggesting Die Hard is really about a man trying to reconnect with his wife. True, this reconnection takes place amidst the backdrop of an action-packed heist, but at its core, this is a story about John McClane discovering the importance of family and the love and appreciation he has for his wife, Holly.

9. Watch and re-watch successful movies similar to your story

There is an old adage in Hollywood: They want the same, but different. Because the average studio picture costs over $100 million to produce and market, studios are in the risk aversion business every bit as much as they are in the movie business.

The impact on you is that these buyers of product tend to gravitate toward the familiar – stories they think will have the best chance at attracting a global audience.

10. Know what your hero wants (the goal), what happens if he doesn’t get what he wants (the stakes), and who/what is preventing him from getting what he wants (the villain)

Think about some films you haven’t loved. I bet one of the reasons there was no love connection was because they failed to answer the questions above.

In Toy Story 2, Buzz Lightyear is the primary hero whose goal is to lead a group of toys to save Woody from being sent to a museum in Japan. The primary villain of the story is Al (of “Al’s Toy Barn” fame) and the stakes are simple: If our hero and his team do not achieve their goal, they will never see Woody again.

Jaws is another movie that quickly answers our burning questions. By the end of Act One, we know Police Chief Martin Brody (with the support of Quint and Hooper) is our hero, his goal is to kill the shark, the villain is the shark itself, and the stakes are: If Brody does not achieve his goal, more residents of Amity will die.

11. Leave them wanting more

This Law seems to be as ancient as showbiz itself. Yet it is just as relevant today as it was at the turn of the twentieth century. The Law is really about crafting a memorable, climactic ending that will forever be satisfying to your audience. An outstanding ending can often save a mediocre film while a mediocre ending can often ruin an otherwise outstanding story.

So, does your climax:

1. Feel like a big, fulfilling finish?

2. Reveal a significant character trait of your hero or villain?

3. Resolve the central problem established in Act One?

4. Contain a satisfying surprise?

5. Appear five to twenty minutes or so before the end of the film?

If your story accomplishes all of the above, you are on your way to crafting a memorable tale that will live on in the memories of your audience. Happy writing!

The above article is an abbreviated excerpt from Jeffrey Hirschberg’s recently published book: “Reflections of the Shadow: Creating Memorable Heroes and Villains for Film and TV.”

Jeffrey Hirschberg is an Assistant Professor and Director of the Television and Film Arts Program at Buffalo State College. A member of the Writers Guild of America and judge for the WGA awards, Jeffrey has been a professional screenwriter for eighteen years and has written and/or created shows for Showtime Networks, Lifetime Television, and ABC. He has worked at NBC, Viacom, and Warner Bros.

Cherie Lee

I studied acting for three years and hold a graduate diploma in writing from Sydney’s UTS. My interest in film and writing was solidified through interning at The Story Department and gave me the opportunity to fine tune my skills. I’ve been involved with several film projects, the most recent of which was shortlisted for Tropfest.

With the knowledge gained from university and my experience at The Story Department, I’m now specialising in professional feedback on short films and documentaries.

The Untouchables has always been my favorite. De Palma turned the script into the most cinematic of Mamet’s writing.

SPOILER WARNINGS (ENTIRE ARTICLE)

Based on the 1959 TV series, this crime drama takes place during the Prohibition era. It follows the autobiographical accounts of Eliot Ness, played by Kevin Costner and fellow cop Jim Malone’s (Sean Connery) as they bring down Al Capone, played by the sly Robert DeNiro.

The opening scene features the quote “You can get further with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word.” These were Mamet’s own words, about the tough neighborhood he grew up in.

ACT ONE

SEQUENCE A: The Law of the Land (15mins)

00.00 Titles
02.30 Capone at the barber’s: 1930, Chicago is city at war.
03.00 Guns are necessary but violence is not good business.
05.00 Bomb kills girl at pub that doesn’t buy from Capone. (=Inc.Inc.)

06.30 Ness at home before work. Wife: You’ll make a good 1st impression.
08.00 Ness: Not just a showpiece program. The law of the land.
09.00 Briefing to the flying squad. Stop drinking! Canadian shipment: raid.
10.30 Preparing raid, waiting. Being married. Journo mistaken for gangster.
13.00 Raid fails. Pic with umbrella. (Capone has insider w/ Police =Call to Adventure)

SEQUENCE B: Hiring the Mentor and Allies (20mins)

15.30 Meeting Malone. First rule of law enforcement: go home alive.
19.00 Capone reads the news, satisfied, schadenfreude.
20.30 Dead girl’s mother comes to see him: You will put a stop to them.
22.30 Goes to visit Malone. He refuses the call. Beat cop, how can I help?
24.30 Ness goes home, listen to radio with wife.
25.30 Wallace: no Capone tax return since ’26. Malone comes in
26.30 Malone comes in. Let’s go; these walls have ears.
27.00 Malone: What are you prepared to do? All the way. The Chicago way.
28.30 Malone: Who can you trust. Afaid of rotten apple? Get it off the tree.
29.30 Shooting gallery: best shot? George Stone. Giuseppe Petri.
32.00 Ready to go to work? Four Untouchables leave Treas. Dept., armed.

33.00 Post Office raid. ‘To cross Capone’. Walk through this door. (=PP1/Crossing the Threshold)
34.30 Debrief with cigars. Saint of the Lost Causes. Photo.

ACT TWO

SEQUENCE C: Defying the enemy (10mins)

35.30 Capone: Baseball speech. Teamwork vs. going alone. Kills gangster.
38.00 Ness home.
39.30 Wallace: All Capone business is legitimate. He has no income.
40.00 John O’Shea. You guys are ‘untouchable’. Is that the thing?
42.00 Nitti: Nice to have a family. Take care nothing happens to them.
42.30 Eliot panics, runs inside.
43.00 Evacuation. / International shipment coming in.
44.30 Wallace: get him on tax evasion. How to link him to the money?

SEQUENCE D: Canadian Border (14mins)

45.30 Briefing at the Canadian border. Take the battle to them.

47.00 Malone’s: Wait and watch. -Are you my tutor? -Yes Sir. That I am.
49.00 Action on the bridge. Watching. Malone: Shoot to kill. Stone: Yes.
50.30 On horses. Early shot. Going in.
53.00 Malone captures gangster with paperwork. Wallace shows courage.
54.00 Ness kills gangster in self-defense. Malone: You rather it was you?
56.00 Questioning prisoner. Wallace has books. Prisoner doesn’t talk.

58.00 Malone shoots body. Mountie objects. Ness: Not from Chicago. (=Mid Point)

SEQUENCE E: Reversal – Touchables (8mins)

59.00 Capone: I want him dead.
59.30 At home. -Are you careful? -As mice. “The man who got Al Capone.”
60.30 Subpoena. Gangster in elevator w/ Wallace. D.I.: Nitti operates lift.
62.00 Ness & Malone: Nice to be married. -If you can stand the pain. Shots.
62.30 Elevator covered in blood: “Touchables.”
65.00 Chief Dorsett: Better not to get involved.

66.00 Ness to Capone’s hotel: Confrontation on the stairs.

SEQUENCE F: Sacrifices (15mins)

67.00 Regrouping. DA drops case without witness. Malone: stall the guy.
70.30 Bookkeeper will be going out of town.
71.00 Malone: need bookkeeper. Chief Dorsett: Dead man talking. Fight.
73.30 Ness stalls the DA.
74.00 Malone calls Stone: my place rightaway. Know where Payne is.
74.30 Capone: Somebody messes with me? I’m gonna mess with him.
75.30 D.I.: Nitti at Malone’s. Malone chases other man. Shot by Nitti.
79.00 Malone dying // Capone at Opera.

80.00 Ness at Malone’s. Train tables. -What are you prepared to do? (PP2/Ordeal)

ACT THREE

SEQUENCE G: The Train Station Steps (10mins)

82.30 Ness & Stone. Train leaving at 12.05h. We’ll be there.
83.00 11.55h Waiting. Woman with pram.
87.30 Ness helps woman. Gangsters appear.
88.30 Shot. Pram goes down. Shootout.

90.30 Mexican standoff. Stone takes out Payne’s guard.

SEQUENCE H: Is that Justice? (15mins)

92.00 Court: Payne admits disbursements to Capone. Nitti has gun.
95.00 Taking Nitti outside. Shoots at cop and runs.

97.00 Chase onto roof. Nitti provokes, Ness pushes. Nitti falls.
102.3 Stone gives Ness list of bribed jury members.
103.0 Judge looks at list. No evidence. Ness talks to judge in private. (=Climax/Resurrection)
104.3 Judge swaps juries. Capone objects. Judge overrules.

105.0 Capone’s lawyer: guilty. Never stop fighting till the fight is done.

Aftermath (4mins)

107.3 Newspaper clippings: “So much violence”.
109.3 Stone gives Ness Malone’s key. -He’d have wanted a cop to have it.
110.3 Journo: Going to repeal prohibition? Ness: Then I’ll have a drink.
111.3 The End.

When I find the time, I will elaborate on the Key Turning Points.

Meanwhile, please give me your feedback in the comments as I’m in two minds about the Inciting Incident / Call to Adventure. If the bomb explosion is the Inciting Incident, technically the mother of the child would be the Herald, calling Ness to his journey. On the other hand, it’s really when Ness realises the police is not to be trusted that he reverts to his Mentor for advice, which will lead him to the journey.

I know all of this is academic and the first act works a treat because it’s clear the odds are stacking up against Ness in a big way; his world is not as rosy and controllable as he thought it were.

The device of the photographs to emphasise important moments lures me into thinking these are really the key turning points. In this case, the Inciting Incident and the Call to Adventure are one and the same: the moment Ness realises he’s looking like a fool with that umbrella and he needs to do something about it.

Your feedback, please!

(with thanks to Solmaaz Yazdiha)

See also:

• The Untouchables – The Mid Point(s)
• The Untouchables – Hiring the Mentor
  

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 took me a while to appreciate this gem by Akiva Goldsman and directed by Ron Howard. Not sure why.

The film won four Academy Awards, including Best Picture, so I had a good reason for looking into it.

Screenwriter Goldsman had a personal attachment to the material. He created a method for training mental health workers and his parents had established a home for emotionally disturbed children.

“For me the source was both the biography and John Nash. I wanted to feel what I thought was the truth of those two objects.” -Akiva Goldsman

I watched the film to study its Point of View. I learned a lot more. To me this film is about a journey from hubris to humility. In Akiva Goldsman’s story, the character of John Nash is a man obsessed by the genius of the mind, who learns to appreciate the genius of the heart.

ACT ONE

SEQUENCE A: Hubris and Truly Unique Ideas. (15mins)

00.00    TITLES
01.30    Princeton ’47. Mathematicians! Who’s the next Einstein?
02.30    John Nash, the mysterious West-Virginian mathematician.
05.00    Surprise – a roommate: drunk Charles Herman.
07.00    Drinking with Charles: I want to find truly original idea.
08.30    Extract algorythm from pigeons. Plays ‘Go’ with Martin.
09.30     Angry at loss: Hubris! Cynically: “The great John Nash”
11.00    Onto something: what if nobody loses? Charles: eat!
12.30    Billiards, approaches girl too directly. Gets slap in the face.
14.30    Mid-year review: no placement. Witnesses pen ceremony.

The sequence opens with Nash’s objective to find a truly original idea. His attitude to his fellow students may seem shy, but it’s clearly arrogant (his flaw). He considers himself superior to the others, those ‘hacks’. The sequence ends on the Inciting Incident: He’s been told he desperately needs to show results or he’s out.

SEQ. B: Governing Dynamics – Opportunity calls (11mins)

16.30    Desperate for new idea. Charles throws desk out.
18.30    Blonde in bar – Governing dynamics: Adam Smith was wrong!
21.00    In room, working on new theory.
21.30    Professor acknowledges breakthrough: any placement OK.
23.00    Celebration, with Sol & Bender. Martin toasts, too.
24.00    ’53 Pentagon: summoned to decode Russion transmissions.
26.00    Decodes, poses too many questions, asked to leave.

As a result of his academic breakthrough, Nash is asked to help the Pentagon with their code decyphering. It tickles his interest and he wants to know more.

SEQ. C: Hubris Challenged: the Call of Romance (9mins)

27.00    Sol & Bender. Cover of fortune. Supposed to be just ME!
29.00    Teaching – Alicia stands out: her solution to heat & noise.
31.00    Night. Parcher. “What can I do for the Dept. of Defense?”
32.30    Crossing Threshold, into codebreaker labs in warehouses.
35.00    They implant ‘radium diode’ in his arm. Am I now a spy?

By crossing the threshold, John is now a major player in the Government’s attempts to locate and stop the Russian transport of a nuclear bomb.  His pride and arrogance hasn’t faltered as is clear from his behaviour among Sol & Bender. Now John’s mission is clear, we’re ready to go into Act II.

ACT TWO

SEQ. C: A World of Mystery and Imagination (11mins)

36.00    Alicia in his office to ask him out for dinner.
39.00    Party: sees suspicious men. Goes outside with Alicia.
41.00    ‘A pair of odd ducks’. Shows her an umbrella shape in stars.
42.30    Codes everywhere, compiles data & prepares envelope.
44.00    Delivers envelope with secret data to mail box.
45.00    Picnic w/ Alicia, is being direct. They kiss.

The love subplot is set up, advanced and John is successful in keeping the two worlds separate.

SEQ. D: Two conflicting journeys (17mins)

47.00    Charles introduces Marcee. Marry Alicia… How to know?
49.30    Late for Alicia’s birthday dinner. He proposes to her.
52.00    Wedding – Parcher is there, too.
53.00    Picked up by Parcher – Chase and gun fight.
55.00    Home. Doesn’t talk to Alicia.
56.30    Acts paranoid in class: sees men outside, stalking him.
57.00    Complains to Parcher: “not what I signed up for!”
57.30    Alicia is pregnant. Parcher: Help or Russians after you.
59.00    Night at home: tells Alicia to go to sister’s. Not safe.
60.00    Nat. Math Conf.: Charles there with Marcee for lecture.
61.00    Men come in during lecture, John escapes, chase.
62.00    Rosen, psychiatrist, introduces himself. John escapes.
63.00    Taken away by Rosen and his men, screaming “Russians!”

It becomes harder and harder for John to manage his paranoia and his relationships start to suffer. At the conference he drops the ball completely and the public humiliation is a turning point: it has now become a medical issue.

MID SEQ.: Alicia’s POV – Gaining awareness. (14mins)

64.00    At hospital with Rosen. “Tell me who you see.”
66.30    Rosen explains to Alicia about imaginary Herman.
69.00    Alicia visits John’s office, sees evidence of madness.
70.00    Alicia visits the house with mysterious mail box.
71.00    Alicia visits John in hospital; envelopes unopened.
74.30    John cut wrists: implant is gone.
75.00    Rosen: schizophrenia. 10wks of shock treatment.

Now we know that John’s perception is unreliable, his POV no longer functions as that of the protagonist. Therefore we shift to the next – reliable – character with the greatest emotional objective: Alicia. We’ll stay within her POV until John has a plan again.

SEQ. E: No meds: sliding back into darkness. (13mins)

77.30    One year later. Alicia & Sol. How are you coping?
79.00    Sol: Other things besides work. John: What are they?
81.30    John holding baby, deflated. Alicia takes him away.
82.30    Alicia: talk to people. Take out the garbage.
83.00    Talking to who? -Garbage man. -Not at night. -Here they do.
84.00    Rejecting Alicia in bed. She breaks down.
86.00    Alicia works overtime.
86.30    Not taking his medicine. Hallucinates again: Parcher.
88.30    Shed w/ equipment. To Parcher: Was scared you weren’t real.

SEQ. F: At the lowest point – seeing the truth. (12mins)

90.00    Storm coming: Alicia goes into the shed. Clippings…
91.30    John nearly drowns the baby. “Charles was watching!”
93.00    Alicia calls Rosen. John hurts her. Parcher: Finish her!
94.00    Marcee can’t be real. She never gets old!
95.00    Rosen: Why did you stop meds? Get treatment or gets worse.
97.00    Commitment papers. -Rosen was right: I’m not safe anymore.
99.00    Rosen leaves. Alicia: I need something extraordinary.

ACT THREE

SEQ. H: Working it out (14mins)

101.3    Princeton, 2mnths later: Martin. Work out of the library.
105.0    Going nuts in library w/ Parcher. Martin stands up for him.
106.0    Alicia: Stress triggers it. Try again tomorrow.
107.0    Farewell to Charles & Marcee.
108.0    Audit class. 1st class.
108.3    Working in library. Ignores Charles.
109.0    Students make fun of John, he ignores them.
109.3    John with son.
110.0    Teaching, Parcher still around, Marcee too.
111.0    ’78: Progress. Toby presents his theory. John offers food.
113.0    Alicia & Martin see John in his element, with students.
113.3    I might teach. Terrible! Maybe Spring. Playing Go.

SEQ. I: Return with the Elixir (8 mins)

115.0    After class: considered for Nobel Prize. Let’s have  tea.
117.0    Concerned about image of Nobel Prize. I am crazy. Pens!
120.0    12/94 Ceremony Stockholm. Speech for Alicia. All my reasons.
122.3    Ready to leave. Ignores the delusions.
123.3    THE END

The greatest challenge for writer Goldsman must have been to make the identification with a schizophrenic work. Any mainstream audience will instinctively resist this.

To compensate, Goldsman sets up John as a brilliant mind with a number of objectives that keep us going until the Mid Point. Then, his disease can no longer be ignored and his POV has become unreliable.

At this point, showing his craftsmanship, Goldsman shifts the POV to the sane person closest to John: his wife.  She now has the most powerful objective: to get her husband back.

The sequence continues until John has gained awareness about his condition and is committed to do something about it.   After the next sequence’s opening scene – 1 year later – we move back into his POV.

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 2008 the festival potential of my own short animation Tin Can Heart – wr/dir. by Rod March – vaporised when Wall-E appeared weeks after the completion of our film. The similarities were striking…

Still, I was pleased to see we were thinking along the same lines of the master storytellers of Pixar.

I’ve seen UP twice now and I find it thematically one of the most powerful movies of recent times.

Perhaps it resonates with me because I feel I’m at the Mid Point of my own life.

“A life, Jimmy, you know what that is? It’s the shit that happens while you’re waiting for moments that never come.” – Freamon (From: The Wire)

SPOILER ALERT – FULL STORY ANALYSIS

What follows is a rough but complete analysis, based on notes made in the dark of the cinema. Not all turned out legible afterwards…

At the bottom of this post I touch briefly on the Inciting Incident (I.I.) or Call to Adventure of UP.

Here’s another great movie that seems to fit itself wonderfully into an eigh-sequence Hero’s Journey.

Enjoy!

A. Prologue: Dreaming of Adventure (10mins)

00.00 TITLES
01.30 Little Carl in cinema: ‘Spotlight on adventure!’
02.00 Explorer Muntz found to be cheating.
02.30 Muntz off to capture the monster & clear his name.
03.30 Carl follows a girl’s voice into a house.
04.30 Ellie: You & me are in a club together now! Badge.
05.00 Getting the balloon down – Carl falls…
05.30 Carl in bed – a balloon with a message floats in.
06.00 Ellie’s Adventure Book: I’m going where he’s going…
07.00 Carl & Ellie are getting married.

08.30 Ellie wants lots of children but can’t have any.
09.00 Saving up for the trip. Misfortune keeps striking.
10.00 Carl sees Ellie’s childhood photo, time is passing.
10.30 Carl buys plane tickets; Ellie gets sick & passes away.

ACT ONE

B. Ordinary Life in an Ordinary World (10mins)

11.30 Carl’s life alone: daily routine.
13.30 House is surrounded by a building site.
14.00 Mail: ‘Shady Oaks’ retirement village.
15.00 “You can have my house when I’m dead!”
15.30 Russell knocks: Need assistance today?
17.00 Carl sends him off: Find the snipe. -I’ll find it!
17.30 Mailbox damaged: Carl injures a man with his cane. (I.I.)
18.30 Court summons: ‘Shady Oaks’ guys will pick you up.
19.00 Carl is packing. Crosses his heart.
20.30 Meet you in a minute: a last goodbye.
21.00 Balloons: UP (PP1 – Crossing the Threshold)

Threshold Seq.: Up & away to South America (7mins)

21.30 House takes off: Postcard from Paradise Falls!
22.00 Flying through the city.
24.00 Knocking – Russell: “Please let me in”

25.30 Russell steering – sees cumulo-nimbus… 26.30 Storm, causing damage. Carl knocked out.

ACT TWO

C. Moving House across the plateau (12mins)

28.30 Carl wakes up. Russell: I thought you were dead!
29.30 Descending, landing the house in the fog.
31.00 Fog clears: Paradise Falls on the other side!
33.00 I’ll assist you over there. Only 3 days of helium.

34.30 Dogs POV, after bird. Hearing aid noise stops them.
35.30 Russell’s wilderness toilet: dig hole before or after?
36.30 Russell has found the snipe – does it like chocolate?
37.30 Bird likes Russell. Russell wants to keep it: ‘Kevin’.

D. Dug and other dogs (9mins)

40.00 Voice: Are you OK over there? Dug.
41.00 Dog is trained. Speak! “Hi there.”
42.30 Other dogs and Alpha dog
44.30 Muntz: locate them. The dogs leave.
45.00 Trying to get rid of the bird: escape.
46.30 Setting up the tent in the rain.
47.30 Russell tells of his absent father and foster mum.

E. Entering the Spirit of Adventure (12mins)

49.00 Kevin calling (can’t read my notes ;)
50.30 Kevin back with the dogs
52.30 Carl & Russell surrounded by dogs – Muntz
54.30 Muntz: no longer intruders; guests

55.00 The Spirit of Adventure zeppelin
55.30 The museum
56.30 Dinner served.
57.00 They called me a fraud: bring the creature home.
58.30 Russell talks about his bird.
59.00 Muntz sees the bird.
60.00 Dessert. Kevin calls from the house.

F. Muntz goes after Kevin (12mins)

61.00 Muntz sends dogs after Kevin. Chase.
63.00 Kevin injured, his chicks are calling.
65.30 Russell: boring stuff I remember the most.
66.30 Kevin caught, Muntz sets fire to the house.
67.30 The dogs take Kevin.
68.00 Russell: You gave away Kevin!
69.00 Carl pulls house to Pacific Falls.
70.00 Russell throws his badges in the sand.
70.30 House stuck. Carl goes inside, memories.
71.00 Finds entries in Book of Adventure.
72.00 Ellie’s photos: her life was an adventure.

ACT THREE

G. Climax: Carl vs. Charles (12mins)

73.30 Russell on leafblower to rescue Kevin.
74.00 Carl throws old stuff out to get the house flying.
74.30 Flying again.
75.00 Dug: “hiding under the porch because I love you.”
76.30 The dogs have Russell “small mail man”.
77.00 Russell to be kicked out, Carl saves him.
78.00 On board, past the dogs, find Kevin.
78.30 Distracting the dogs: Carl throws the ball.
79.00 Russell falls.
80.00 Dogs attack in planes.

80.30 Charles attacks Carl with the sword. 81.00 Carl escapes with Kevin.
82.00 Alpha dog caught. Dug is now Alpha Dog.
82.30 Fighter pilot dogs distracted: “Squirrel!”
83.30 Carl, Dug & Russell on top of the zeppelin.
84.00 Muntz attacks with gun.
85.00 Muntz falls to his death.
85.30 ” Just a house.” Descending into the clouds.

H. Return with the Elixir (3mins)

86.00 Kevin reunited with her chicks.
87.00 Our friends flying the zeppelin.

87.30 Explorers’ Graduation.
88.30 Zeppelin parked for icecream.
89.00 The house has landed on Pacific Falls.
THE END.

NOTES ON ACT ONE

UP has a classic 3-Act structure Hero’s Journey. The only journey stage that may not be immediately clear is the Inciting Incident (Call to Adventure).

What is the Inciting Incident (I.I.) in UP?

If the Adventure is the trip to Paradise Falls, then the strongest Call is surely Ellie’s “I’m going where he’s going”.

However, this is not the trigger to the story of UP. It only triggers the Prologue journey – thank you James – leading to Carl’s WOUND: at the end of this (seemingly) failed journey, Carl Fredricksen is a jaded senior, frustrated because his desire for adventure has ultimately left him alone, disappointed and unfulfilled. He is doomed to spend the rest of his life without longing, without passion for anything. Because passion will lead to disappointment.

This frustration over the things he never did is Carl’s flaw, the weakness he needs to overcome.

To understand the true Call to Adventure, let’s see in what way Carl’s Ordinary World is a fragile equilibrium. Then, the Call to Adventure (or I.I.) is the collapse of this untenable situation.

The one shot that shows the fragile equilibrium is the zoom out from Carl’s front porch to show the building site surrounding the house. Once we know that Carl will only give up his house over his dead body, we understand that something major is waiting to happen here.

The first event heralding the call to adventure is the brochure for the ‘Shady Oaks’ retirement village.

It reminds Carl that his time is running out and he needs to act now if he wants to do something with his life. But this is not the type of incident that immediately changes his life irreversibly.

So Carl refuses the call until a stronger Inciting Incident happens: a truck backs into his mailbox and causes a continuous series of consequences, leading to Carl’s decision to finally depart to South America.

It means that Russell comes knocking on Carl’s door at the exact moment in the story when we’re expecting the Mentor to turn up. Is Russell the mentor? It’s an ironic reversal of the archetypes but I think he is a combination of the Reflection character and the Mentor.

What are your thoughts on the story of UP? Please comment below!

Here is some awesome stuff for the fans of the UP artwork.

Did you see UP in 2D or 3D? Which do you prefer? Vote here.

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!

Click for the original.

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!

I am not sure which film this student had in mind as a successful example of non-conventional structure, but I bet you it was PULP FICTION. Ever since 1994, filmmakers have been hoping to get away with it in the same way Tarantino did. In my view PF has done far more damage to the craft of screenwriting than its success will ever justify. The irony is that PULP FICTION is relatively conventional in its structure, just not linear. Check Linda Aronson’s book SCREENWRITING UPDATED.

But all that is completely beside the point. The point is that writers often have this immature attitude. “But my script is different.” Another one that keeps coming back: “Hollywood only makes crap, audiences really don’t want to see that stuff anymore.” This one I only heard today: “It all works in my head, the film experience will be very different from the script!”

Call me conservative but the more I learn about film, the more I am convinced audiences are conditioned by an increasingly structured type of filmmaking. Time and time again I hear people rejecting structure one minute, and raving about highly structured films the next.

Ever since the story of a boy and a princess in space 30 years ago, audiences – whether you like it or not – have been conditioned by a more sophisticated version of the 3-act structure, i.e. the Hero’s Journey. And this process has only been reinforced since that paradigm was written down by Christopher Vogler. (I almost called The Hero’s Journey ‘a structure’ but it was never really intended to be. Yet it can often be elegantly blended with the three act structure.)

LEARN THE RULES, THEN BREAK THE RULES

Despite my endless complaints about Australian writers, I have had the pleasure and honour of meeting and working with dozens of writers who are dedicated to learning the craft. They read, study, analyse, attend seminars etc.

Most of them learn with the intention of later applying what they have learned. Others take the basics on board and explore ways of being original and creative within the boundaries. Yet others fully intend to knowingly break the rules with their first screenplay.

Now that may be unwise.

The statement above reading “Learn the Rules, then Break the Rules” is in my view a dangerous one. I would rather replace it with something like:

“Master the Rules, then Bend Them.”

It often happens that screenwriters only get their first screenplay made after years of learning the craft. When the film finally hits the screen, they realises that although they believed they had learned the skills, they hadn’t. An audience is a funny thing. You want them to feel this way, but they respond that way.

As a writer you won’t know if you actually master the craft until the film goes out and is successful. Believing that you can learn the rules and break them with your first script, is a dangerous illusion.

Of course every year there will be at least one success story of a breakthrough screenplay that didn’t apply the principles. Everybody will write and talk about that one person. Bottomline: if you are in this game for the long term, it pays to look at the statistics and then review your chances.

THE ONE THAT GOT AWAY

I am currently working with a client on a screenplay that reminded me in some peripheral way of the French rural drama Jean de Florette, starring Gerard Depardieu and the late Yves Montand*. I watched the film again with my wife and paid attention to its structure.

Although I had seen the film at least twice before, what I found out this time, literally blew me away.

The screenplay was adapted by director Claude Berri and veteran scribe Gerard Brach, from a hugely successful original French classic by Marcel Pagnol. The film had been a breakout arthouse hit across the world, with major prizes in its home country but also in England and the U.S. where it was nominated for a Golden Globe.

My wife and I had seen this film last about ten years ago, yet neither of us remembered much of the plot. We did remember the characters and even individual scenes. Not the plot.

Why??

Because the structure is quite extraordinary.

The whole film is structured following a text-book three-act structure. Inciting incident, first act turning point, second act are all ‘tres formulaic’. But what seemed unusual to me, and the primary reason why I think this film still looked so fresh to us: the story is structured around the antagonist’s journey.

My advise: don’t try this at home. As a beginning screenwriter, make sure you try your hand at convential material before you venture into this type of territory. The screenwriters of Jean de Florette were both highly experienced, with many successes to their names. Unfortunately, although the follow-up to Jean de Florette (Manon des Sources) may have brought a more upbeat closing to the rural saga, the writing was less inspiring.

When you have the chance, do watch both films, analyse these structural exceptions and asks yourself what is different, why this one works and the other doesn’t (so well).

It is always fascinating.

*Nice coincidence: when I was out the following night my wife randomly picked the Marilyn Monroe classic “Let’s make Love” from our DVD shelf and watched it, only to find it had – again – Yves Montand in a major role.

THE WORKSHOPS WORK

More than one week to go until 10 February and the Sydney story workshop is sold out. This weekend I’ll be teaching for the first time in Queensland, at the International Film College. My next Sydney Workshop will be on Sunday 13 April and bookings are open now.

The emphasis of the workshops has shifted slightly. The first sessions were heavily theoretical, focusing on aspects of the 3-act structure. Lately I have shifted towards more practical examples from a wider diversity of films, both old and recent, across completely different genres: from action movie to comedy, from Touch of Evil (1958) and Die Hard (1988) to The Incredibles (2004) and The Lives of Others (2006).

Some people find that the material taught in these classes is advanced. Let me tell you this: it is not. It represents the bare essentials. It is the absolute minimum you need to know if you want to even consider breaking into the scene. That doesn’t mean that it will sink in the first time around. You will still need to watch films, analyse them and apply what you have learned to your own work.

Next, you will need to call in the assistance from a professional. But you will be so much better prepared to enter into a dialogue about your work if you have laid the foundations by learning the terminology. Not only will it speed up your development, it will potentially save you hundreds or thousands of dollars as your script editor will talk to you about your script on your level.

THE PREMIUM EDITION

The Premium Edition has had visitors from New York to the country of Jean de Florette (Provence, South of France), from Australia’s East and West Coasts to the City Library of Amsterdam. Meanwhile, the first paying subscribers have signed up, from Australia and overseas!

Eight users are online while I am writing this, of which no less than seven guests and a few search engine spiders. Check it out for yourself by subscribing for a year at only the cost of one cappuccino a fortnight.

Among the newly added content, Premium Members now have also access to a list of mistakes I have come across in screenplays lately, as well as a few suggestions on how to avoid them.

In the coming days and weeks new articles will be added and I will be conducting an interview with Michael Hauge (who is coming to Australia this May) and will talk about the dangers of mystery.

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 is not enough to know and understand Syd Field’s set of phrases, as some hot shots may only be familiar with McKee. Unfortunately different people have different definitions for the exact same term.

This is my attempt to broadly define the most essential notions, informed by the best known theories, but influenced by the need to make them useful to the screenwriter rather than the analyst. Some theories are great to analyse finished films, but useless when you are stuck in your second draft. I hope that my definitions will help in identifying problems.

I will occasionally add to the list and modify definitions. If you disagree with anything or the explanation is not clear, feel free to flag this to me.

Normal Life

Also: opening, ordinary World, normal life, prologue, Journey Stage One.

Inciting Incident

Also: disturbance, catalyst, beginning

First Act Turning Point

Also: act one turning point, first threshold, first turning point, plot point one.

Mid-Point

Also: mid point reversal, point of no return, mid turning-point

Crisis

Also: ordeal, low point

Second Act Turning Point

Also: plot point two, crossing the 2nd threshold

Climax and Resolution

Sequence

Also: journey stage, block

Plot Point

See: Plot Point

Point of View

See: Point of View

From the above follows:

Act One

Some people will say this is the

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!

]]> https://www.thestorydepartment.com/glossary/feed/ 0 112