by K.M. Weiland

The antagonist is usually a physical entity, something standing in the way of our protagonists’ ability to achieve their physical goals and perhaps even threatening our protagonists’ lives or their physical well-being.

Consequently, it can be easy to forget that antagonists are just as important in driving your character’s personal arc as they are the plot’s conflict.

The Two Halves of Story: Outer and Inner

Every story is made up of two integral halves:
1. The protagonist’s pursuit of his outer goal, which is the physical aspect of the story (i.e., the stuff we see happening).
2. The protagonist’s pursuit (willing or not) of his inner goal, which is the emotional and spiritual aspect of the story (i.e., the stuff happening on an intangible plane).

Some stories will emphasize one of these halves over the other, but the best stories balance them.

How the Antagonist Drives the Plot

On the external or physical plane, your antagonist is an obviously essential player. He’s the obstacle that creates conflict. Your character makes a move; your antagonist makes a countermove. Bing bang boom.

That one’s a no-brainer. Even if your antagonist is non-human, it will be a force opposing your protagonist and forcing him to keep coming up with new ways to overcome the problems that lie between him and the ultimate conquest of his story goal.

It can be easy to forget that antagonists are just as important in driving your character’s personal arc as they are the plot’s conflict.

How the Antagonist Drives the Character Arc

Equally important is the antagonist’s affect on your protagonist’s inner journey. This, however, is often something we overlook. When we construct our character’s arcs (if we consciously construct them), we’re too often inclined to create traumas and troubles that have no direct connection to the antagonist.

Maybe George is trying to get a job in the circus and is opposed by the circus owner’s son, who happens to be courting the girl George is in love with. Sounds like a decent plot with a plausibly motivated antagonist. But if we’ve decided that George’s character arc is about proving his worth to his apathetic father (and thereby to himself), then we’ve created a character arc that has no direct relationship to the antagonist. Sure, the circus owner’s son will probably prod George along in his discovery of his self-worth, but that’s only tangentially affecting the character arc.

Two Ways the Antagonist Ties Together Plot and Character Arc

The best way to create an antagonist who is just as organic to the character’s inner arc as he is to the outer conflict is to do it on purpose, right from the start. Before you ever begin writing, take a moment to consider your story’s outer conflict and your character’s inner conflict. Does one grow from the other? If not, how can you craft the one to better reflect the other?

In George’s case, we might want to consider either switching out the antagonist to better inform his character arc, or changing the character arc to better reflect the antagonist’s mode of attack.

Equally important is the antagonist’s affect on your protagonist’s inner journey.

Choosing an Antagonist Integral to the Character Arc

If we’re sold on keeping the character arc as is, we might find a better catalyst for inspiring George to find his own self-worth by forcing him to do direct battle with the father he’s trying to impress. Maybe his father is the owner of the circus and is the one bent on keeping George out of the family business, because he doesn’t believe good ol’ George is up to the challenge.

Choosing a Character Arc Born of the Antagonist’s Attack

If, however, we decide we like the outer conflict with the circus-owner’s-son-slash-rival-lover better than we do George’s current character arc, we might get rid of the judgmental father altogether and focus instead on a weakness that is directly challenged by the circus owner’s son. Perhaps George’s new arc is still about self-worth, but now that self-worth centers on his belief that he’s not worthy of the girl he loves.

Sometimes we can employ more than one antagonist to create different forces of opposition (e.g., the dad drives the inner arc, while the circus owner’s son drives the outer conflict). But consolidating the power of your main antagonist into a catalyst for both halves of your story is a powerful way to bring cohesion to both plot and theme.

-K.M. Weiland

K.M. Weiland is the author of the historical western A Man Called Outlaw and the medieval epic Behold the Dawn.

She enjoys mentoring other authors through her writing tips, her book Outlining Your Novel: Map Your Way to Success, and her instructional CD Conquering Writer’s Block and Summoning Inspiration.

Jamie Campbell

Jamie Campbell is an author, screenwriter, and television addict.

Jamie is proud to be an Editor for The Story Department.

Her latest series Project Integrate is out now.

jamiecampbell.com.au

:: Interview with A Nightmare on Elm Street’s Eric Heisserer.

:: Put lumps in those throats! Getting your viewers emotionally involved.

:: Protocol: how to dump your agent.

:: Missing: villain. Writing a story without an antagonist.

:: Fight Club’s Jim Uhls on writer’s block.

:: A sensitive formula: blending physical and emotional journey.

:: Money matters. Selling a treatment.

:: Expository scenes, when too much is too much.

:: Writing fight scenes, some things to know.

_______________________________

With thanks to Sol.

Enjoy!

Karel

Here is an attempt to analyse the structural dynamics of this wonderful screenplay and film.

ACT ONE

SEQUENCE A (8.5mins): Preparations.

00.00 Opening Titles: Landscapes that express freedom.
02.00 At diner, Louise is serving & advises against smoking, then smokes.
03.00 Thelma at home, hasn’t asked husband yet for permission to leave.
03.30 Darryl patronises Thelma, humiliates her, she still doesn’t ask.
04.30 Darryl leaves in sportscar, shouts at workmen.
05.00 T. calls L.. After the manager’s innuendo, they arrange their departure.
06.00 Louise leaves, montage shows both getting ready.
07.00 Louise picks up Thelma, who carries half household with her. Polaroid.

SEQUENCE B (13mins): Departure and disaster.

08.30 Driving. T.: I didn’t ask. L.: You get what you settle for (i.e. Darryl).
09.30 Thelma is smoking, looking in the mirror: “I’m Louise.”
10.30 Dusk, Silver Bullet, going to have fun. Different responses to Harlan.
13.30 Louise is reserved, it makes Thelma nervous. Harlan shouts drinks.
15.00 Dancing, line dancing. Thelma dances with Harlan.
16.30 Louise back to table, Thelma keeps dancing. Louise wants to leave.
17.30 Thelma is unwell, they go outside. Louise is looking for Thelma.
18.30 Harlan: Not gonna hurt you. T. resists. He hits her and attempts rape.

19.30 Louise appears with gun. “Suck my dick”. She shoots. (I.I.)

SEQUENCE C (11mins): Figuring out what to do.

21.30 They escape. L. blames T. for her behaviour. Police won’t believe them.
22.30 Louise vomits. Trucks & noise everywhere. Let’s have a coffee & plan.
24.00 They try and figure out what to do. Thelma calls Hal. Nobody home.
25.30 Detective Hal with waitress: Harlan deserved it! She defends T&L.

27.30 No money. Need to figure out what to do.
28.30 They argue. Go to police? Not ready to go to jail.
29.30 T. at the pool, L. calls Jimmy for money. Do you love me?
31.30 L. & T. leave in a hurry. They have decided to run. (PP1)

END OF ACT ONE: The decision has been made to go on the run.

ACT TWO

SEQUENCE D ( 8.5mins): Organising money.

32.30 Hal’s boss: Possibly interstate. Let the FBI in on this.
33.00 Louise: Let’s go to Mexico. Are you up to this? I’m going.
34.30 L. calls Jimmy. He will send the money. I miss you, Peaches.
36.00 T. calls Darryl, he’s watching a game, judging but not concentrating.
39.00 Young handsome JD asks for a lift. Thelma is keen, Louise says no.

SEQUENCE E (10.5mins): To Oklahoma for the money pick-up.

41.00 Hal is on the case, looks up Louise’s car: ’66 Ford Thunderbird.
41.30 Louise doesn’t want to Mexico go through Texas.
43.00 Hal is investigating at Louise’s place.
43.30 Thelma and Louise are enjoying the ride.
44.00 Detective Hal is investigating at Louise’s Diner.
44.30 They see JD again; Thelma begs to pick him up. Louise gives in.

45.00 Detective Hal interviews Darryl, who is more concerned about himself.
46.00 JD to T.: Your husband sounds like a real asshole. T: he is. They bond.
47.00 JD warns them, they avoid an approaching police car.
47.30 Hal has info on Thelma’s gun etc.
48.30 They go to pick up the money. Jimmy is there, he books rooms.
50.00 JD leaves them and each go to their rooms. L. to T.: Guard the money.

SEQUENCE F (16mins): Mid Sequence, cross-cut.

51.30 Jimmy is jealous & violent. He calms down and proposes to her.
54.00 JD knocks on door. T invites him in. They have fun and make love.
1.00.0 Over breakfast Louise and Jimmy kiss goodbye.
1.04.3 T. arrives: Finally got laid properly. Left money in the room. Run!

1.06.0 Money gone. Louise breaks down. End of Thelma’s innocence.
1.07.0 T. cheers L. up, takes control and drives. Move! (MPR)

SEQUENCE G (10.5mins): Thelma has found her calling.

1.07.3 Hal & Co with Darryl. When she calls, be gentle. Women love that shit.
1.10.0 Thelma robs Store. Drive us to Mexico.
1.11.0 FB: This is a robbery // Hal & Darryl watching. Everybody is shocked.

1.12.3 Thelma brags about her robbery. Found your calling. You’re Disturbed.
1.14.0 Sexist truck driver. They think we like it.
1.15.0 Police now with Jimmy.
1.16.0 Louise with old man, gives him her jewellery.
1.17.0 L.: murder one, little defense. T.: How do you know all these things?

SEQUENCE H (8mins): Fugitives.

1.18.0 Hal blames T.’s robbery on JD. They wouldn’t have otherwise.
1.22.0 Thelma calls Darryl. He knows. L. calls, asks for police.
1.23.3 Hal knows about Mexico. T. talked. L. angry: We’re Fugitives now.

SEQUENCE I (11.5mins): Speeding towards Mexico.

1.26.0 Darryl with cops changes channel, annoys cops, changes back.
1.26.3 Driving through National Park by night.
1.28.3 Dawn. Passing sexist trucker.
1.31.0 T.: Texas. You was raped. L.: I’m not talking about that.
1.32.0 Stopped by cop: clocked at 110km/h. In trouble.

1.34.3 Thelma with gun, shoots radio. They put cop in trunk.
1.37.0 Thelma: I’ve got a knack for this shit.

SEQUENCE I (5.5mins): Dead or alive.

1.37.3 Hal: Brains only get you so far & luck always runs out.
1.38.0 Louise has doubts & regrets. Thelma justifies. Having fun, not sorry.
1.39.0 L. calls Hal: charge w/ murder;knows about Texas. Dead or alive?
1.41.3 Not giving up. Not making any deals. Dead or alive. (PP2)

END OF ACT TWO: Their fate has been sealed. T.’s arc complete.

ACT THREE

SEQUENCE J (6.5mins): Revenge.

1.43.0 Thelma feels awake.
1.44.0 They see macho trucker again. Ready to get serious? Yes.
1.46.0 They ask for an apology. Fuck that! They shoot, truck explodes.

1.48.3 Drive on.

SEQUENCE K (8.5mins): Freedom at last

1.49.3 (POV) Stoned bicycle rider, smoke into air hole.

1.50.3 Police helicopter: closing in.
1.51.3 Police cars chasing them, they go off the road. Cars follow.
1.54.0 Temporarily shake them off under bridge. Eerily quiet.

1.54.3 Thelma: crazy, first chance to express yourself.
1.56.0 They reach the edge of a cliff: Grand Canyon. Hal appears in heli.

1.57.3 Surrounded. Hal lands. Orders to surrender.
1.58.3 Louise: not giving up. Thelma: let’s keep going. (C&R)
2.00.0 They drive, hal runs.

I.I.: Inciting Incident (or Call to Adventure)
PP1: Plot Point 1 (Act 1 Turning Point / Crossing the 1st Threshold)
MPR: Mid Point Reversal
PP2: Plot Point 2 (Act 2 Turning Point / Ordeal & Reward)
C&R: Climax & Resolution (Resurrection)

PROTAGONIST

In my view, Thelma is the protagonist, for the following reasons:

1. She is prominent in the setup and we empathise/sympathise with her.
2. We may hope that she will become less submissive and find freedom.
3. Her story has a clear Inciting Incident (a major event happening to her).
4. She has a clear Mid Point Reversal.
5. She has a clear character arc.

Interestingly, if you look at Thelma’s story in isolation, the first half (before the Mid Point Reversal) she is a passive protagonist, mostly just following Louise. Only after that, she becomes an active protagonist. This passivity is counteracted by Louise’s initiative until the Mid Point.

ACT STRUCTURE

The Inciting Incident is clear: two major events happen to Thelma: Harlan’s rape attempt and Louise’s shooting Harlan. Although Louise later argues that Thelma started it because of her behaviour, Thelma’s actions are two degrees away from the Inciting Incident (Harlan’s death) that kicks off the story. Therefore, this is clearly an event happening to Thelma, not an action by her.

This leaves Thelma with the necessity to act.

The 1st Act Turning point is more problematic: Louise takes the initiative, Thelma agrees by following her. After a period of considering their options, they have decided to go on the run. Although the destination won’t be known until later, Act Two is now set in motion. In my view, this act break is reinforced by the next scene in which we learn the FBI will be on the case. This increasing of the stakes by showing the antagonist’s power is a frequently used technique to open Act Two.

The Mid Point Reversal is at the same time a reversal of fortune (loss of the money) and proof of Thelma’s change of heart. She is now committed to her inner journey towards finding her true identity (or essence) and freedom. Two events trigger this: her first fulfilling sexual experience and the realisation that she has failed to take responsibility by constantly relying on Louise. The evidence in her commitment lies in two immediate actions: she drives the car and robs the store.

The crisis occurs when they learn about the major setback that Hal knows where they are heading and he will charge them with murder. It is a crisis moment for both women: Louise has doubts and regrets, so Thelma has to make a choice. Her newly found strength is the Reward, as well as the fact that Louise hasn’t made a deal with the police. It is a strong Ordeal moment as 1) the image of death occurs when they realise it is now a matter of life or death and 2) it signifies the death of Thelma’s old identity.

At the climax, two important actions take place: 1) Thelma demonstrates her new strength when she stands up for herself in the confrontation with the sexist truck driver and 2) by saying “Let’s keep going” she commits to her new principles with her life and seals it with the ultimate act of defiance.

POINT OF VIEW

After the characters have been set up, every scene has the hero (Thelma) or the antagonist (Harlan/the police), except perhaps one or two.

Any scenes that are not told from Thelma’s POV either add to the jeopardy (as the police makes progress) or they provide comic relief (the black cyclist blowing smoke into the trunk with the cop in 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!

National Screenwriters’ Conference 2009: Kenny – Plumbing the depths
by: David Tiley
Screen Hub
Thursday 26 February, 2009

Before opening a completely charming discussion with Andrew Knight about the writing of ‘Kenny’, Clayton Jacobson produced some very sobering numbers.

Kenny cost $500,000. By the time the film returned $5m, he was still $250,000 in debt. When it made $8m, his investors started to get a return. He has still not seen a dollar. As he said later, if he had cleaned toilets for all those hours he put into the film, he would have doubled his income.

However, he was determined to follow a film through the entire process, from idea to audience, and experience all the details in the middle. He is glad he did this, and learnt a lot, but he wants a fee for service in the future.

Andrew is an experienced comic writer and producer himself, and he brought a knowledgeable eye to the clips, the Jacobson touch, and the craft of comedy. Again and again he reiterated the same point – that the comedy works because it carries an exquisite sense of detail.

Indeed, Clayton acknowledged that the film is a mass of details driven by an underlying theme.

Here are the stages in the development of the project:

1. The Jacobson family assembles a gallery of fabulous characters with a fine sense of the vernacular. (His grandfather, for instance, ran a carnival, and the family lived for years in the big tent after it became unfinancial.) In a film mad family, the children are named after characters and actors. Raised on Jerry Lewis, Clayton sees Midnight Cowboy when he is fifteen and the skies open up.

2. Clayton goes to Swinburne, cleans toilets to pay for the course, graduates in 1984, ends up in high end commercials, develops many friends, writes extravagant features that have nothing to do with life.

3. Younger brother Shane runs a business doing lights for big shows. One day he imitates Ray, an old toilet plumber, and Clayton is fascinated. It sticks in his mind, and liberates in him the ability to write (O cliché! O wisdom!) what he knows about.

4. For months he collects lists of assets – dozens of connections, insights, lines, quirks and resources. Mates who can act, gear that is available, stuff that can go in the film, places that inspire him. Stories he is told. All to take him further than the limited world of his imagination.

5. Inspired by Paul Harris at the St Kilda Film Festival, they use a bunch of experimental rushes as a the basis of a 47 minute mockumentary.

6. They show this to the poo people, who supplied trucks, equipment and support, along with material from Shane. They are enchanted and want a feature film. They even want to put the money up. Clayton can’t see an extended version. Then they tell him about the toilet cleaning convention in the US, and it opens up for him.

At this point, Clayton made many decisions about the script. The first fifteen minutes is all about cramming scatology into the film, so the audience gets tired of it and happy to move on. We, the audience, see Kenny in his disregarded role, plodding on optimistically and decently doing a job we all need, and look down on. We are the antagonists in the film, it is our journey too.

He is driven by the desire “make the audience secretly love every character in the film” which means he gives space and emotional journeys to small sidebar stories and people. This is about an overwhelming ethic. He takes something crucial from Jerry Lewis – his ability to undercut humour with sudden tragedy, and then move on quickly.

He deals with the underlying melancholy of the characters and their crappy social tragedy by giving them an almost unshakeable sense of optimism. Bad things happen but they stay positive.

The film is built around a dual journey – we learn to respect and love Kenny, while he doubts himself. Moves into a crisis, goes to America, resolves the crisis – but it comes back. We want him to respect himself, but that is becoming less and less possible. The crisis is resolved because his father gives him some acknowledgement, and because he decides to reject the desk job which takes him away from his fundamental identity.

He plotted the film around the various events which the real company had, up to and including the trip to America. He invited ideas and talked incessantly about the projecte and its story, refining it as he saw how others responded, sometimes having them tell the story back to him. He recruited actors, mostly in his family – even his pestiferous brother in law who wanted to be in the movies, and developed a simple philosophy of performance: get people to exagerrate themselves, and use their own memories.

He plotted the emotional development in detail, and how the audience responded. He is an editor, and was keenly aware of set ups, and the way the audience can be placed on its feeling journey. This is very important – he managed the viewer’s knowledge of the characters very carefully.

He knew the script thoroughly, and would tell the actors what they were doing on the same day. He mined their knowledge of dialogue, and capacity to improvise. But he always knew the crucial lines and moments that had to be delivered exactly. Again and again, the right details.

Over six months, they shot the basic story, and over the next year they went back to the same events, for additional shots, to put in particular characters, to create atmosphere or simply reshoot.

Then Clayton went into the editing room until he just about went insane. With money, risk and family chaos layered on top.

He is now working on a web series called Mordy Koots: Blazing Angels, Clouds of Fear. Google as the project develops.

David Tiley
David Tiley is the editor of Screenhub, and can be contacted at editor@screenhub.com.au. or 03 9690 6893.

editor@screenhub.com.au
https://www.screenhub.com.au

https://www.screenhub.com.au/ | For Australian screen professionals

Republished with permission

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!

A Room with a View (Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, 1985).

Without any doubt, this is one of the finest literary adaptations and a timeless romantic movie.

The film launched the careers of actors Daniel Day Lewis and Helena Bonham Carter, while it was a first major hit in a string of successful adaptations written by James Ivory’s scribe of choice Ruth Prawer Jhabvala.

The film formed the inspiration for my university thesis about film translation and subtitling back in 1988. For that purpose I had to view it dozens of times (on VHS). But it couldn’t stop me from watching it many times again over the twenty years that have since past.

ACT ONE

SEQ. A: The English – Boredom and bickering about a view

00.00 Titles: Cast of Characters. Lucy Honeychurch, Charlotte et al.
02.30 Florence. Lucy & Charlotte unhappy: room without a view.
03.30 Charlotte complains over dinner. The Emersons stir the pot.
04.00 George is after Lucy. His dad offers room w/ view: vision within!
06.30 Charlotte affronted: how to deal with these people?!
07.00 Sisters Allan: Tactless, Kindness / Delicate, Beautiful.
09.00 Rooms changed. George leaves question mark for Lucy.
10.00 Father & son Emerson put cornflowers on sisters’ beds.
12.00 Lucy at piano. Beebe: if she would live as she plays: exciting…
13.00 Charlotte and Eleanor go out together.

SEQ. B: The Italians – A call to adventure in Florence

14.00 Santa Croce Boredom. Emerson tells Lucy about George’s mind.
17.00 Ch. & Eleanor: physical sensation, smells, alleys. Adventure!
21.30 Lucy sees fight, blood. She faints; George catches her.
22.30 Her photos are blooded. The man is dead. George offers help.
25.00 By Arno, George: “Something happened to me. And you.”
27.00 (Out to see a view) Priest makes girl descend. Romance!
30.30 George in tree. He is declaring the ‘eternal yes’, father says.
31.30 Charlotte & Eleanor send Lucy away so they can gossip.
33.00 Lucy looking for George. He kisses her, while Charlotte watches.

ACT 2a: Lucy resisting George

SEQ. C: Leaving George and leaving Italy.

35.30 Leaving back for Florence in a storm. George is walking.
37.30 Charlotte: How to silence George? Promises: “Silent as the grave.”
39.30 Charlotte negotiates refund at the hotel.
40.30 George arrives back at the hotel.

SEQ. D: Officially engaged – Living a lie

41.30 (Home) Lucy has accepted Cecil Vyse’s marriage proposal.
44.00 Beebe about Lucy: “One day music and life will mingle.”
44.30 (Officially Engaged) News shocks Beebe in front of Cecil.
46.00 Lucy & Cecil walking, he is snobbish, elitist about Beebe.

MID POINT:
47.00 By lake: Cecil’s first kiss, clumsy, Lucy thinks of George.

ACT 2b: Lucy resisting Cecil

SEQ. E: Looking for new tenants – The Emersons

50.00 Lucy writes to the Allans for tenants.
51.00 Lucy plays to audience, Cecil takes credit for her culture.
52.30 Cecil and mum talk about Lucy & preparing her for London.
53.00 Cecil patronises her, then kisses her.
54.00 Tennis, Beebe reads letter; Freddy about new tenants ‘Emersons’.
56.00 Cecil tells about new tenants, he met them at gallery, Italian art.
58.00 Lucy mad at Cecil, calls him “disloyal”, he patronises her again.

SEQ. F: The Emersons are in town – The pot is boiling

58.30 Freddy & Beebe go to the Emersons: come and bathe!
60.30 George about coincidence & fate, Italy. The men bathe.
62.30 Cecil, Lucy and mum pass by, seeing the bathing scene.
65.00 Freddy at piano, Charlotte’s letter: she is coming over.
66.30 Mum complains about Cecil’s attitude.
68.00 Freddy raves about George.
69.00 Mum & Lucy: Charlotte will be arriving.
70.00 Charlotte meets George at station.
71.30 Charlotte arrives, chaos about cab fare.
73.30 Lucy & Charlotte: ‘no other source’, have you spoken to HIM?

SEQ. G: Cecil reads Lavish – Pandora’s Box opens

74.30 Cecil reads out loud from ‘Under a loggia’ by Eleanor Lavish.
76.00 Lucy and George recognise passage about kiss in Florence.
79.00 Lucy runs off, mad. George follows her and kisses her again.
80.00 Lucy challenges Charlotte. Coincidence! Eleanor no friend.
81.00 (Lying to George) Lucy orders her out, George declares his love.
84.30 (Lying to C.) breakup with Cecil “because he didn’t play tennis.”
87.30 Cecil seems to take it well.

ACT THREE

SEQ. H: Planning Escape to Greece

88.30 The Sisters Allan: letter to Lucy, raving about about Athens.
90.00 Freddy tells Mr. Beebe. Cecil: Greece is not for our little lot.
91.00 Charlotte, mum, Lucy; Beebe takes Minnie to the Beehive.
91.30 (Lying to Beebe, mum, Freddy, servants) Lucy plays piano.
92.30 Lucy: I must go away, Constantinopel, Athens…
93.00 Lucy to Charlotte: Help me, I must go to Greece.
94.00 Lucy & Freddy, he plays piano.
94.30 Charlotte talks to mum, Lucy has a plan. Go to Greece with her.
95.30 Emersons preparing to leave. George: ugly house anyway.
96.30 George leaves, his dad is sad.

SEQ. I: No more lies – Speaking up

97.00 Lucy and Allans about Cecil and travel.
97.30 Lucy and Mum: Glad! why not announce it?
98.00 Allans: Didn’t look like a future bride; she lacked radiance.
99.30 Emerson tells Charlotte George loves her, reason for move.
100.0 Charlotte: Lucy not marrying. Emerson: Time for speaking out!
101.0 Mum: why Greece? Mum hurt.
102.0 They see the moving. Mum: pity for the Emersons.
103.0 (Lying to Mr. Emerson) He pushes her to confession.
106.0 Lucy runs out: “Wait! Lucy has got something to tell us.”

SEQ. J: Aftermath

107.0 Charlotte reads Lucy’s letter from Florence
107.3 V.O. Dinner at pensione: “We have a view”.
108.0 Lucy reads letter from Freddy, with George in room with view.

108.3 The End

NOTES ON THE STORY STRUCTURE

The film stays relatively close to the original novel and I believe this may be the reason why the turning points are not all where you would expect them. But perhaps I’m just not seeing it right. Please compare notes and comment.

Act One

Much like Rose in Titanic, Lucy longs for adventure in her ordinary life. The inciting incident occurs quite late in the film (25mins) when she is alone with George for the first time, under emotional circumstances. The meaning of the moment is emphasised when George says “Something happened to me. And you.”

George kisses Lucy in the Tuscan flower fields, a moment that feels very much like a second Inciting Incident. But it marks Lucy’s decision to resist him, and the end of Act One.

Act Two

The conservative English upper-class mores, an abstract antagonist in Act One, is incarnated in the character of Cecil Vyse from Act Two.

Cecil’s kiss (at 47mins) marks the Mid Point and the moment Lucy realises she will never be happy with this man and the values he represents. The flashback to George’s kiss underscores her change of heart: from this point onwards she is no longer committed to Cecil. She will be moving apart from Cecil until the final breakup, which marks the end of Act Two.

Act Three

It is tempting to see the talk about “going to Greece” as a Road Back Home sequence, or break into Act Three, in which Lucy finally confronts her true feelings and admits her love for George.

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!

The start of Act Two is a good place to move to the antagonist’s POV.

We have just seen that our protagonist is ready to take on the main mission of the film. He knows what he is up against, he may even have a plan on how to approach it.

At the beginning of Act Two, you can immediately increase the stakes by creating dramatic irony. You show the protagonist only knows half of the truth and the antagonist is really a lot more powerful and the protagonist may be missing a crucial piece of information.

The shift can happen to any other character, exceptionally even to an omniscient POV. But the most powerful and most frequently used POV outside the protagonist will be that of the antagonist.

Almost always does this increase the stakes as you show how well the villain is prepared, how much stronger this character is than we (and the protagonist) believed and what he/she is capable of.

One of my favourite Act Two opening scenes is in NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Roger Thornhill has to clear his name of the UN murder and he must find out why he is being mistaken for the mysterious Mr. Roger Kaplan.

At the opening of Act Two we are in a boardroom full of unknown faces. The audience’s instinctive reaction will be to find a character to empathise with, to latch on to. None such in this scene.

This is the Secret Service, discussing a fictitious agent, created by them as a decoy for the spies. Now Roger Thornhill has been identified by the spies as this imaginary agent, the secret’s service’s plan works better than hoped for.

Not only do we now know Thornhill’s predicament, we also realise he cannot expect any support from the government as confirmed in the last line of the scene, spoken by one of the agents:

SECRET AGENT
Goodbye, Mr. Thornhill, wherever you are.

This scene shows how powerful a shift of POV can be to reveal an important piece of information the protagonist doesn’t have.

Another favorite example of dramatic irony created by a shifting point of view is taken from ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST and it constitutes the Mid Point Reversal.

McMurphy has just been on a fishing trip with his mates, sampling freedom outside the asylum.

The next scene shows the staff of the asylum discussing his fate, whether they should send him back to the work farm or keep him. McMurphy’s antagonist nurse Ratched drives the scene and the outcome is disastrous: he will stay in the asylum indefinitely.

See also:

Omniscient POV
Shifting POV
When to Shift?
POV in Ratatouille’s Deleted Scene
POV as Controller of Tone

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 a long, uninterrupted travel from a wide establishing shot of the Paris skyline down to street level, through the Auguste Gusteau restaurant and ending on a medium shot of Remi.

The shot could have been spectacular, reminding of the opening shot of TOUCH OF EVIL and its pastiche in THE PLAYER.

Brad Bird’s commentary talks about the reason why it was cut and it is simply: Point of View.

The natural question that would occur is “Why would you cut this spectacular shot?”, because it is obviously great. “I want to see that film!” Well, I feel that way, too.

The problem, once you get passed the initial sort of rush of seeing this very elaborate shot that shows you a lot of different things in one shot and very impressively, is that it is no character’s point of view.

It is just a sort of God-like shot where you’re presented this whole world and it is spectacular and there have been many fine shots like that – Touch of Evil being one – that were great but I felt that this is Remi’s movie and it needed to be Remi’s perspective.

And I want to know the emotions that lead up to Remi looking into the kitchen. I don’t just want it laid on a platter, you know, just cut to Darth going “You’re my son, Luke.”

We should be with Remi when he has that moment. We should know how he is experiencing it and what is he feeling when he is experiencing it. And you kind of aren’t, this way.

It did lay everything out, but I don’t think that it took the audience with it.

-Brad Bird

Brad Bird’s reasoning confirms what I have written about ‘omniscient POV’: it is weak, or worse, it doesn’t work.

Movies are inherently about empathising, even identifying with characters.

When you step out of the protagonist’s POV, it should be to shift to another POV, most often the antagonist’s, never to take an omniscient POV, because it is devoid of emotion.

One exception: you may use an omniscient POV to create dramatic irony, i.e. to reveal information the protagonist doesn’t know but which has an impact on his journey.

See also:

Introduction to POV
Omniscient POV
Shifting POV
When to Shift?
POV in Ratatouille’s Deleted Scene
POV as Controller of Tone

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!

Not all of these films are recent and audience’s expectation may have changed since these films were released. I believe that film goers have become more demanding in terms of structure. Some of the stories that worked then, would today be considered as structurally flawed.

Still, if you look at the protagonist’s journey, you will find that most – if not all – have a clear Inciting Incident, Act One Turning Point (Plot Point 1), Act Two Turning Point (PP2), Climax and Resolution.

In ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, the Inciting Incident is foreshadowed by presenting the antagonists before we meet our hero Bishop. The sheer violence of the gang puts their storyline on a collision course with Bishop. Right from the start, even before he realises (Dramatic Irony) it puts him in extreme jeopardy, which is an effective way to make an audience connect with the protagonist.

This movie written and directed by John Carpenter is not only very entertaining, it is structured around a powerful reversal. The first (outer) objective of Wilson is to keep the convicts inside the police station, thus protecting the outside world from them. At the mid point, this reverses completely: now he needs to protect the convicts from the gang assaulting the police station.

The structural breakdown was done in a single viewing, without going back to check and most likely I will be wrong here and there. Particularly the Inciting Incident doesn’t seem to be strong enough, nor is there any reluctance or clear plot point leading to the ‘crossing of the threshold’. See for yourself and try to improve my breakdown of this film’s structure.

ACT ONE

SEQ. A: BISHOP’S FIRST DAY: A DANGEROUS AREA
02.40 DI: Anderson, CAL, 3.10am: 6 gang members killed by police
04.30 Press conference: weapons missing, serious threat
05.00 DI: Three war lords become blood brothers, arsenal of weapons
06.00 (04.50): Bishop driving, gets supervising duty Prec.9,div.13

SEQ. B: BISHOP GOES TO ANDERSON
08.30 DI: (05.11): Napoleon Wilson, on death row
10.00 DI: Wilson & Co are being transported
12.30 (05.32): Bishop driving
13.00 DI: (05.37) Father & Daughter lost in Anderson
15.00 DI: Gang members driving in car with weapons
16.00 (05.49): Bishop arrives, deputy informs captain, coffee with Kathy
20.30 Captain briefs bishop: first day on the job.

ACT TWO

SEQ. C: GETTING READY FOR THE NIGHT, NEW TASK
22.30 DI: (06.18) Punk trains gun on people while driving; ice cream van.
24.30 DI: (06.41) Transport goes to Anderson, convict is sick
28.00 DI: Punk kills girl and ice cream man
32.30 Bishop puts up sign as bus arrives, convicts go in holding tanks

SEQ. D: THE CONVICTS BECOME ALLIES; STATION UNDER SIEGE
34.30 Wilson checks out Bishop, men check out Kathy.
36.00 DI: (07.00) Father kills murderer, escapes into Police station
38.30 Nobody in car park. Phone dead. Chaney leaves, power down.
40.30 Bishop goes out, is being shot at. Chaney is dead. Silencers.
41.30 Transport minders shot. Police station under siege.

SEQ. E: REVERSAL – KEEPING THE GANGSTERS OUT
45.00 Making plans: flares; waiting for help; gang army approaches
50.30 Marked for a siege. Do they want father of killed girl?
52.00 Gangsters start assault; move in; Wilson fights back, shoots.
54.30 Everybody helps holding the gangsters at bay; armed. Silence.

SEQ. F: STAYING ALIVE
57.00 Julie dead; barricading doors. Squad car here in 5mins (he hopes).
60.30 Explosives in basement; cars back, bodies gone. All in 30mins.
63.00 Not afraid to die: convict knows about ‘ciolo’ revenge; save ass (Wells)
65.00 Counting spare ammo. Wilson gets a cigaret from Kathy.

SEQ. G: GETTING OUT
66.00 Patrol car Unit 7 checking the area
67.30 (08.15): Basement solution – hotwire car.
70.00 Wells goes out: “I’m doomed.”
71.00 Someone will come. “A man with faith”. Wells’ mission fails.

ACT THREE

SEQ. H: SETTING UP A TRAP
74.30 Renewed attack: “out of luck”; basement
78.00 The explosives; patrol: nothing unusual, phone worker dead.
80.00 Molotov attack, invasion & explosion

SEQ. I: HELP ARRIVES
83.00 Police support: “Anybody’s got a smoke?”
84.00 Bishop defends Wilson

(DI: Dramatic Irony)

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!

The Lives of Others
(Das leben der anderen)
(Germany, 2006)
Written and Directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

-by Stuart Voytilla

The Lives of Others is a story about transformation and learning how to do the right thing. This film also reveals the interdependence of physical and emotional journeys that characters often take. In some stories, the protagonist may initially enter the journey anticipating an emotional change or elixir; romance and romantic comedy are two genres that regularly celebrate a character’s willing pursuit of emotional growth. For other journeys, the Hero may not initially realize that he or she needs to change; their view of life may be clouded by a flaw or misperception, or even restricted from seeing life’s potential benefits. This protagonist begins a trek determined to accomplish a physical goal, unprepared that this pursuit will transform him or her in an emotional and significant way. Such is Wiesler’s Journey in The Lives of Others.

Captain Wiesler initiates his journey to reveal playwright Georg Dreyman as an enemy of Socialism. This is Wiesler’s physical goal, and one that he willingly pursues as part of his Ordinary World as a loyal agent of East Germany’s secret police, Stasi. Initially a dispassionate observer, Wiesler becomes an active participant in the lives of Dreyman and Christa-Maria, and his loyalty to his career and government crumbles. His transformation becomes a poignant metaphor for the collapse of the German Democratic Government. In Act III, the fall of the Berlin Wall signals a resurrection for Germany and for Wiesler; the former agent is honored by Dreyman for his service as a ‘good man. ‘

Since movies allow us to show character, revealed by action, we can appreciate von Donnersmarck’s choice to mark Wiesler’s transformation by his profession. Initially, Wiesler’s job is secluded in an attic, with earphones attached to his head, listening and monitoring the secrets of others. He sacrifices his career for the lives of Georg and Christa-Maria. Still under the Stasi, Wiesler steams envelopes. But with Glasnost, Wiesler leaves the basement steaming room, and soon serves his country and his countrymen as a mail carrier. No longer the isolated revealer of secrets, he now walks the streets as a deliverer of people’s privacy.

But Wiesler isn’t the only character that grows in this story. He becomes a catalyst that triggers transformation in the others that he observes. Notably:

• Georg Dreyman goes from celebrated and loyal playwright of the GDR to activist against the system.

• Christa-Maria transforms from loving girlfriend to tragic informant.

As you explore this movie, also consider how art, or lack of it, defines a character’s life:

• Art provides contrast between protagonist and antagonist, for example, Wiesler’s austere apartment versus Dreyman’s richly decorated flat.

• After seven years of being blacklisted, Jerska questions his life for he’s no longer allowed to create his art. How can he be a director without a play to direct?This realization pushes him toward suicide.

• Wiesler’s supervisor, Grubitz, relishes that their interrogation practices effectively destroys the creative life of the artist.

• To show his allegiance to the system, Wiesler threatens to destroy Christa-Maria’s ‘life’ in the theatre. This pushes her to reveal the hidden typewriter. However, she realizes that by informing upon her boyfriend she may have retained her life on stage, but she’s destroyed the creator of her stage world.

• After Christa-Maria’s death, Dreyman can no longer write. When he discovers that his apartment was wired, and that Wiesler protected him, Dreyman elevates Wiesler’s life into art with his published work ‘Sonata for a Good Man. ‘

JERSKA AS MENTOR

Jerska becomes an important mentor for both Dreyman and Wiesler. Jerska is Dreyman’s master director, but he’s been silenced by an informant. As Wiesler observes Dreyman, he too becomes influenced by Jerska:

• Wiesler questions the evidence that destroyed Jerska’s career and life.

• Wiesler ‘borrows’ the book of Brecht that Jerska was reading at the party, thus bringing this inspirational art into his own apartment.

• Wiesler cries as Dreyman plays the ‘Sonata for a Good Man’, a birthday gift from Jerska and the inspiration for Dreyman’s final dedication to Wiesler’s sacrifice.

And of course, we must consider the significance of Jerska’s gift as it helps structure the story.

JERSKA‘S GIFT

Jerska’s gift of the ‘Sonata for a Good Man’ marks the turning points of the Journey of Transformation for both Dreyman and Wiesler. This birthday gift was intended to push Dreyman to act as the ‘good man. ‘The unwrapping of the gift is a Turning Point from Act I to Act II in Dreyman’s journey, and sets up the larger Journey’s Crossing of the Threshold.

Jerska’s suicide forces Dreyman to do the right thing, and compose the article for Der Spiegel. The Sonata’s title resonates during the scene in the tavern when Wiesler helps Christa-Maria, and she thanks this ‘good man. ‘Their encounter and Jerska’s suicide/Dreyman’s decision to write the article are significant during the Journey’s Ordeal or Midpoint.

During the Journey’s Road Back Sequence, and the Plot Point from Act II to Act III, Wiesler acts as the ‘good man’ and steals the typewriter. During the story’s final moments, the Sonata’s title becomes the title for Dreyman’s book that celebrates Wiesler’s sacrifice, and completes Wiesler’s Resurrection as a ‘Good Man. ‘

THE JOURNEY

In the following Journey Breakdown, I’ve presented some of the key story moments with an interpretation of their representative Hero’s Journey stage. The focus here is on Wiesler’s Journey. I encourage you to also look at this story through Dreyman’s journey, through his eyes and his actions.

Note that in Act IIA and IIB, I’ve emphasized two Ordeals. Since Wiesler travels a physical and emotional Journey, he experiences two central ordeals, one for each Journey. Each Ordeal brings a Reward but these Rewards collide, as Wiesler must choose between his loyalty to country, and his allegiance to his new friends, Dreyman and Christa-Maria.

Act I: The Journey‘s Separation

‘Will Captain Wiesler reveal Dreyman as an enemy of Socialism?’

Captain Wiesler serves as a loyal agent of the Stasi, determined to reveal the enemies of Socialism. (Ordinary World)

A former classmate and now head of the Culture Department at the State Security, Grubitz assigns Wiesler to monitor playwright Georg Dreyman, and his girlfriend-leading lady Christa-Maria. (Call to Adventure)

Wiesler’s team bugs Dreyman’s flat (Ordinary World), and he inhabits the attic for monitoring. (I see this sequence as another reflection of Wiesler’s Ordinary World. The unexpected problem that disrupts Wiesler’s Ordinary World arrives with the mysterious car. )

Wiesler observes a mysterious car drop Christa-Maria off at Dreyman’s flat, and Wiesler notes the license number. (Call to Adventure)

Wiesler listens to Dreyman’s birthday party, and observes that Dreyman does not speak up against the GDR. Later that night, Dreyman opens his gift from Jerska, piano music titled ‘Sonata for a Good Man. ‘He and Christa-Maria make love. (This rich sequence weaves several stages. Notably, it is a Refusal of his Call to reveal Dreyman as an enemy. But it’s also a Meeting of the Mentor, an invitation for Wiesler to be influenced by Dreyman’s world and his love shared with Christa-Maria. )

Grubitz informs Wiesler that the mysterious car belongs to Minister Hempf. And Grubitz warns Wiesler to strike this information from the record, for they are not allowed to monitor fellow members. (This Meeting of the Mentor is a significant Plot Point that initiates Wiesler’s Crossing of the Threshold. Wiesler realizes that he’s being used by Hempf to get rid of a rival, and Wiesler questions his loyalty. )

Wiesler completes the Crossing of the Threshold when he rings the doorbell, prompting Dreyman to discover Christa-Maria emerging from Hempf’s car. (This signals a moment of decision and action on the part of Wiesler. He’s longer a passive observer, but an active participant in the lives of Dreyman and Christa-Maria. )

Act IIA: The Journey‘s Descent

‘Will Wiesler help save the relationship between Dreyman and Christa-Maria?’

Wiesler’s Crossing of the Threshold has unsettled Wiesler’s personal world and his professional loyalty. His observations and actions are beginning to affect him and his world; these series of events Test his transformation.

Having observed Dreyman’s and Christa-Maria’s night of pain and shame, Wiesler’s doesn’t know how to feel and finds comfort with a prostitute. (Test)

Later, Wiesler enters Dreyman’s flat and takes his Brecht book, bringing this literature and art into his own apartment. (Test)

Hidden in the attic, Wiesler listens to Dreyman’s phone call announcing the suicide of Jerska. Dreyman mourns his friend’s death by playing the ‘Sonata for a Good Man’. Wiesler listens and cries. (Approach to the Inmost Cave)

When a boy at an elevator confesses his father’s disdain of the Stasi, Wiesler stops himself from demanding the father’s name. (Test)

With growing pressure from Hempf, Grubitz pushes Wiesler to ‘find something’ on Dreyman. Grubitz warns Wiesler of a rendezvous planned between Hempf and Christa-Maria that will jeopardize her relationship with Dreyman. (Approach to the Inmost Cave)

The Story’s First Ordeal works as a ‘death’ that affects several characters and their goals. Mourning Jerska’s death, Dreyman fears he’s lost his passion for writing. (An Ordeal)Christa-Maria prepares to leave Dreyman to ‘see a classmate’. Dreyman speaks his suspicions that she is going to sleep with Hempf. Dreyman asks her to trust herself as an artist, and to stay. But Christa-Maria questions both of their ‘needs’ for Hempf and the system he represents. She may sleep with Hempf for her art, but as the GDR’s favorite playwright, hasn’t Dreyman been sleeping with the system as well?Wiesler observes this Ordeal – a ‘death’ of their relationship, of their art, and of their allegiance to the system. Wiesler is interrupted by his surveillance replacement before knowing the outcome of this Ordeal. But Wiesler can’t simply walk away from these lives, and slips into a nearby tavern where he has an accidental encounter with Christa-Maria. Boldly Wiesler complements her as a great artist. She thanks Wiesler, telling him that he is ‘a good man. ‘Wiesler’s actions prompt Christa-Maria to rush back to Dreyman. The celebration of their love also gives Dreyman renewed strength as a writer. (The Resurrection of the Ordeal)

Act IIB: The Journey‘s Initiation

‘Will Wiesler protect his job and reveal Dreyman’s disloyalty?’

The primary Reward earned from the First Ordeal is Dreyman’s renewed passion for his writing. But his writing is now directed against the system that has destroyed his friend, Jerska, and threatened to destroy Christa-Maria. Dreyman prepares to write an essay revealing that the GDR has been hiding statistics of the high rate of suicide, especially amongst the artists.

This is also the Reward that Wiesler has been seeking to confirm his initial goal: to reveal Dreyman’s disloyalty.

Dreyman brings his friends back to his flat to make their plans. He assures them that his flat isn’t bugged. They Test his theory speaking openly about secretly bringing a relative across the border. Wiesler prepares to call the Border Agent, but doesn’t go through with it. (Wiesler’s monitoring Dreyman’s ongoing plot Tests the Stasi agent’s two conflicting goals: to reveal Dreyman as traitor; and to protect Dreyman as artist – to help him become the ‘good man’ that Jerska had hoped Dreyman would become. )

Wiesler’s transformation as a ‘good man’ is rebuffed when he discovers that the person he helped cross the border was the editor of Der Spiegel. Furthermore, Dreyman’s arrogant shouting in defiance of the system pushes Wiesler to compile the evidence for Grubitz. (Approach to the Inmost Cave)

Wiesler meets with Grubitz where his two conflicting goals collide head-on. Holding his sealed report in his hand, Wiesler listens to Grubitz praise their interrogation system that successfully destroys the artist. Witnessing his mentor’s arrogance, Wiesler keeps the evidence and requests that they step down their operations against Dreyman. (The Second Ordeal)

Wiesler’s action allows Dreyman to complete the anti-GDR article, which is published in Der Spiegel. Dreyman and Christa-Maria make love, while Hempf sulks without a bedmate. But these Rewards threaten Wiesler’s career; Grubitz begins to question Wiesler’s loyalty.

With pressure from Hempf to destroy Christa-Maria’s theatrical career, Grubitz interrogates her and forces Christa-Maria to name Dreyman as the author of the Der Spiegel article. Monitoring from the attic, Wiesler listens to the search of Dreyman’s flat. He now knows that Grubitz is suspicious of Wiesler, but Wiesler’s relieved when the search team fails to find Dreyman’s typewriter. Grubitz pressures Wiesler to interrogate Christa-Maria, and prove that he is still on the ‘right side’. Wiesler faces Christa-Maria and threatens to destroy her art and her ‘life’ unless she can reveal the location of the typewriter. She gives up the location, but Wiesler defies Grubitz and returns to Dreyman’s apartment to take the evidence. Christa-Maria’s revelation is the story’s Plot Point or moment of greatest despair – and it initiates the Road Back sequence.

Act III: The Journey‘ Return

‘Will Wiesler recognize himself as a Good Man?’

The Road Back continues at Dreyman’ flat. As Dreyman arrives, Wiesler slips away with the typewriter. Armed with his search team, Grubitz personally uncovers the hiding place, but it’ empty. During this ‘death’ moment, Dreyman confirms Christa-Maria’ deception. And she realizes that she has lost love and life. Wiesler witnesses her tragic exit.

Without the damning evidence of the typewriter, and with the death of Christa-Maria, Grubitz closes the investigation against Dreyman. But Grubitz makes Wiesler suffer for his sacrifice, and demotes him to years of service steaming open envelopes.

This Road Back sequence is a Resurrection for Wiesler’ Journey to do the right thing, and become a ‘good man’. But this doesn’t complete his transformation, and his Journey. He has sacrificed his career to protect Dreyman, and now recognizes how the system destroys its people. Wiesler’ Resurrection will be complete when he’ honored for his sacrifice, and receives the assurance that indeed he is a ‘good man’. That assurance comes from Dreyman who takes over the Journey in Act III.

Christa-Maria’ death and the fall of the Berlin Wall have silenced Dreyman’ voice as a playwright. After an encounter with Hempf, Dreyman confirms that his flat was wired. He investigates the agent in charge of the surveillance and discovers that agent ‘HGW XX/7′ was his protector. Dreyman and Wiesler have now switched positions within the story’ journey. Dreyman observes his ‘guardian angel’ from a distance and finally writes his ‘report’ – a book celebrating Wiesler’ sacrifice. This Resurrection sequence restores Dreyman’ faith in humanity, his passion to write, and elevates Wiesler’ life to a work of art.

Delivering mail, Wiesler passes a store window and discovers the display of Dreyman’ Elixir ‘Sonata for a Good Man. ‘Wiesler reads the dedication, and purchases the gift. ‘It’ for me. ‘ (Return with the Elixir)

FADE OUT.

Stuart Voytilla

Stuart Voytilla is a writer and producer, known for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2002), The Death of Poe (2006) and The Sorcerer of Stonehenge School (2005).

write-brain.com

Michael Hauge closes the first of his six story stages with it, at the 10% point of the story (10mins in a 100mins movie).

Paul Gulino sees it as the end of the first of a typical eight sequence movie. Christopher Vogler says:

The hero is presented with a problem, challenge, or adventure to undertake. Once presented with a Call to Adventure, she can no longer remain indefinitely in the comfort of the Ordinary World.

This moment better be BIG. If it ain’t, it may go unnoticed and the audience will still be waiting for the story to start.

Michael Tierno, in Aristotle’s Poetics for Screenwriters says:

It’s a self-initated action, a virtual “big bang” that sets the entire plot in motion, that can be committed by either the protagonist or antagonist, and that is an act of pure will.

According to Robert McKee:

The INCITING INCIDENT radically upsets the balance of forces in the protagonist’s life.

And later he says:

The protagonist must react to the Inciting Incident.

I wish authors would develop a common terminology but, alas, they don’t. Here is Linda Aronson’s approach:

Early on in the film there will be an event which changes the normal scheme of things and forces the protagonist in a new direction, effectively starting the story. This is called a catalyst or disturbance.

Linda Seger writes in her book Making a Good Script Great:

The catalyst is the first main “push” that gets the plot moving. Something happens, or someone makes a decision. The main character is set in motion. The story has begun.

Next: Inciting Incident: Key Aspects and Examples >>

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!