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

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

Minimal Appeal

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

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

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

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

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

Director Without A Clue?

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

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

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

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

Oscar To The Greek

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

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

At the opening credit, my fear was confirmed.

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

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

Ars Electronica

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

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

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

Chariots Of Fire – Movie Moment

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

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

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

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

-Karel Segers

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

Karel FG Segers

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

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

:: The Five W’s
:: Conflict: The Foundation of Storytelling
:: Oz The Great And Powerful: Script to Screen
:: Toughest Scene I wrote: Beasts of the Southern Wild
:: The Toughest Scene I Wrote: Roman Coppola
:: 10 Screenwriting Lessons You Can Learn From Ghostbusters
:: Screenplay Review: Southbound
:: Tales from Development Hell

Script Perfection

:: Diagnosing Problem Scripts
:: Stage Direction – Cut It
:: TV Writer Podcast 072: Jeremy Smith & Matt Venables
:: The Hero’s Journey Meets the Screenwriter’s Journey
:: Screenwriting Skills: Knowledge
:: Things a Screenwriter Should and Should Not Do
:: Blunt Blade Runner Notes
:: What Makes You Special?
:: Welcome to the Visual Mindscape of the Screenplay
:: Scriptnotes Podcast Ep 81
:: Death of the Hollywood Sex Scene

Pitching & Selling

:: Staying in the Game
:: March 2013 Spec Market Scorecard
:: How To Write To Attract A Movie Star
:: Give the Banana to the Monkey
:: The Struggle Of Trying To Make It As A Screenwriter
:: You’re a Screenwriter – But Are You a Team Player?
:: Interview: Carter Blanchard
:: Screenwriter F.Scott Frazier Interview

Best of the Rest

:: 5 Things Necessary For a Writer to Survive
:: Game Of Thrones Season 3 – War Preview
:: The 10 Best Robots in Movies
:: Movie Review: The Place Beyond the Pines
:: Christopher Walken: ‘I’m a Regular Guy’
:: ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ Screenwriters
:: Joel Silver Taking on ‘Escape from New York’ Remake
:: Are Side Effects and Silver Linings Playbook the Same Film?
:: Impressive POV Short Film
:: ‘Trance’ Director Danny Boyle
:: Where Did The Current Golden Age of TV Go?
:: Video Essay on Steven Soderbergh, Secret Cinematographer
:: 10 Bad Movies That Could Have Been Good
:: Dr. Seuss Does Die Hard
:: RIP Google Reader
_______________________________

With thanks to Jamie Campbell.

Enjoy!

Karel

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

by Karel Segers

Rarely does a memorable movie scene lack the main character; this one does. And Blade Runner lacks a lot more… like a plot that works. Despite all the hype before and after the release, the movie was a commercial disaster, grossing only $14m in 1982.
There is absolutely no shame in loving a movie failure, and Blade Runner is still one of my all-time favourites. As a young boy I was obsessed with sci-fi and Vangelis’ music was prominent in my vinyl collection. No matter how much I love the music though, it has always had a soporific effect on me (Kathryn Bigelow’s brilliant Strange Days is an other one that always puts me to sleep) and as a result I would always struggle with the plot. But when I screen a film with my students, I do it early in the day – and I have an incentive to stay sharp.

I THINK THEREFORE I AM

I have written before about what I believe to be some of the key story flaws, namely the shallow character setup and the resulting 8-mins Act One. The film has a monumental second act with minimal stakes for the main character – and very little empathy; it is more an intellectual discourse on humanity. Some of my students watched the film for the first time and others taught me a few things I didn’t know or had not picked up. Did you realize ‘Deckard’ (Harrison Ford) is a reference to French philosopher René Descartes ? I couldn’t believe I had never figured that one out, as I once hosted a radio show with the tag line “Audio ergo sum” (“I listen therefore I am”). To me, Blade Runner has always been a meditation on free will, one of my favourite mindf***s: the droids are limited in the way they were programmed by their Maker… and perhaps so are we

FUTURE NOIR

Watching the film’s ‘Final Cut’ again on BluRay, it struck me how dark this sci-fi film noir really is. The one scene that stood out above all others was Roy Batty’s scene with Tyrrell, his creator. We are approaching the end of Act Two after a late mid point, in which Deckard and Rachel engage in a long, awkward semi-love scene. In the following ‘threshold sequence,’ Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) schemes his way into the Tyrrell tower using a game of chess. By the way, skilled screenwriters often introduce important scenes by showing the effort characters make to reach the location. It sharpens our attention and primes us for the scene the come.

THE MOMENT: I WANT MORE LIFE

The scene is about Roy asking Tyrrell to extend his life beyond the programmed 4 years. I find this scene interesting for countless reasons, one being the human kind’s obsession with extending our lives. However, screenwriter Hampton Fancher put the 4-year lifespan in the script simply as a reference to the way car manufacturers keep commerce running by using built-in obsolescence. Interesting to know is that the writer’s intention with Roy’s kiss was no more than a “Good-bye, Pa”. Much has been written about how Roy is in some way more human than Deckard and perhaps this is the very scene where his human side takes over. Ultimately, killing its maker is a bizarre action for a machine – one that perhaps only a human would contemplate…

THE UNICORN

Nope. I’m not talking about the unicorn. You watch it (again) and figure that one out for yourself.

– Karel Segers

Blade Runner screenplay(1981.05.15 draft)
Script Excerpt: I Want More Life

(first published for ScripTips)

Karel Segers is a producer and script consultant who started in movies as a rights buyer for Europe’s largest pay TV group Canal+. Back then it was handy to speak 5 languages. Less so today in Australia.

Karel teaches, consults and lectures on screenwriting and the principles of storytelling to his 7-year old son Baxter and anyone else who listens.
He is also the boss of this blog.

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!

Story & Structure

:: “Never Write Timidly”
:: What if Wes Anderson made Batman reboot?
:: Interview with ‘Bullhead’ Director Michael Roskam
:: A Dangerous Method Review

Script Perfection

:: Screenwriting Tips: Real-life Conversations Go Round in Circles
:: Karel Segers Screenwriting Basics Workshop – The 2012 Australian Film Festival
:: Karel Segers Screenwriting Basics Workshop – Coogee Legion Club
:: Fountain – Screenwriting Program Without Software

Pitching & Selling

:: Hollywood’s First Spec Script
:: LaTulippe Set to Direct Paramount Comedy
:: Harrison Ford Returning in Blade Runner Sequel?
:: TV Pilots 2012: The Complete Guide
:: DreamWorks & Working Title Remaking Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘Rebecca’

Best of the Rest

:: Non Signatory Agents – Complications Ensue
:: 5 Things Learned from Whedon’s ‘Avengers’ Twitter Chat
:: What not to do when trying to be funny
:: The Dark Secret Behind Romantic Comedies
:: Alex Proyas’ ‘Paradise Lost’ Officially Shutdown
_______________________________

With thanks to Jamie C.

Enjoy!

Karel

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

The ‘setup’ is often a complete sequence in which we see the ‘Ordinary World’, the protagonist’s ‘normal life’, an area of the story that by its name and nature risks to be a dull stretch. We see the life of the main character before the overwhelming event that marks the real start of story.

For the solution, we go back to a lesson from Alfred Hitchcock.

Remember the difference between surprise and suspense? Surprise is when a bomb suddenly explodes. Suspense is when we know there is a bomb, and it can explode any moment.

The Inciting Incident is our first story explosion.

How do we make our audience hang in there until it explodes? By foreshadowing the Inciting Incident. By creating anticipation.

Create strong anticipation during the story setup by foreshadowing the Inciting Incident.

DIE HARD: While John McClane argues with his ex, we see bad guy Gruber et al. preparing their actions. Worse is yet to come for John.
JAWS: Swimmer Chrissie is crab meat by the time we meet with hero Chief Brody. We know the reported ‘missing person’ won’t be seen again.
TOUCH OF EVIL: In the classic opening shot we see a bomb planted on a car, it ends on the explosion. This marks Vargas’ (Heston) call to action.
OMAGH: Terrorists from the Real IRA plant the bomb that will later cause carnage in the Northern Irish town, and kill the hero’s son.
E.T.: In the opening scene, an alien is left behind on earth, 12mins later it will disturb the life of little Elliott.
THE UNTOUCHABLES: Capone’s hitmen bomb a pub and kill a girl. In the I.I., her mother calls on Eliot Ness to stop the violence.
BLADE RUNNER: At the end of the Voigt-Kampf test and before we meet with Deckard, we see replicant Leon shoot his interviewer.

Note that these examples show the foreshadowing of an Inciting Incident of such a magnitude that it would not just disturb the hero’s life, but anyone’s under the circumstances. In other words, we don’t really need a lot of exposition or setup to understand that this Inciting Incident will stir the pot.

This approach may not work with just any story.

Most stories will still need you to first set up the protagonist’s character before introducing the Inciting Incident, just because the impact of the Inciting Incident is specific to that particular character.

First we are fully immersed in the life and world of Truman Burbank in The Truman Show before the appearance of his father on the street will be seen as a major event.

We need to know the character – and flaw – of Stu Sheppard in Phonebooth before we fully get how important it is when some stranger seems to know all those secrets he has been carefully hiding.

Even in most of the seven examples above, between the foreshadowing near the opening of the movie and the actual Inciting Incident, the screenwriters make sure they build on the gravity of the I.I.’s impact:

– in Jaws, Chief Brody is relatively new in Amity so he may only have limited authority when he asks to close the beaches.
– in Touch of Evil we learn that Mr. and Mrs. Vargas are still honeymooning, so Mike is not really prepared to take on a case.
– in Omagh we see how close father and son Gallagher really are, before the son dies in the bomb attack.
– In The Untouchables, the domestic scene at the Ness home shows a dedicated father Eliot, so he is the right person to respond to the distraught mother later on.

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!

REPLICANTS, SCREENWRITERS AND DOGSWhen last year the restored BLADE RUNNER screened in Sydney in all its 4k digital splendour, I was present at the Cremorne Orpheum, on the hunt for story weaknesses. It didn’t take me long. After fifteen minutes and thirty seconds, I put the scalpel aside and thoroughly enjoyed the rest of the film, i.e. Act Two and Three. (For Premium Subscribers, my brief analysis is here.)

This year the Coen brothers snatched the top Oscars despite issues with the ending of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. I won’t add to that discussion but if you would like to read some incisive thoughts, check out this article on the Mystery Man on Film blog.

Long before the Coen brothers won their first Oscar with FARGO, they had established themselves as favourites of the Cannes film festival with a Golden Palm for BARTON FINK. I have watched it a few times since and I still enjoy its Faustian slant, the flamboyant performances of Michael Lerner and John Goodman and the wonderful production design.

Why could BARTON FINK never appeal to a mainstream audience? It is about a screenwriter. But more importantly, the end of Act One makes a promise, then Act Two doesn’t deliver. Variety wrote at the time:

“After a little more than an hour, the pic is thrown in a wholly unexpected direction. There is a shocking murder, the presence of a mysterious box in Fink’s room, the revelation of another’s character’s sinister true identity, three more killings, a truly weird hotel fire and the humiliation of the writer after he believes he’s finally turned out a fine script.”

In essence there is nothing wrong with ‘a wholly unexpected direction’ but the problem is: no new promise is made. What do I mean by that?

The end of act one shows us what the protagonist’s objective is: Fink wants to write a screenplay. It promises a clear direction for the film. Once the murder is introduced, Fink doesn’t really have a clear objective and the story suffers from that. The film as a whole survives because of the exquisitely funny references to the real world of Hollywood in the 1940’s, the sensational performances, the amazing sound design etc.

Recently somebody mentioned WAG THE DOG (1997) to me, written by Hilary Henkin and David Mamet. In my memory, this movie was a hilarious touch of genius. Upon re-viewing, I was dumbfounded as not much of the exhilaration from ten years ago had survived for me.

Again, problemo numero uno: Hollywood behind the scenes. No matter how important we believe the workings of Hollywood are, no-one cares.

Secondly: no matter how clever, genuinely funny and genuinely TRUE the premise – don’t trust your president when he goes to war, the story is preaching to the converted. I don’t believe one single vote was gained or lost because of this film.

The core problems with this film lie on a pure story level. It seems Robert De Niro is the protagonist, his objective: fix a potential presidential scandal. Then we shift to Dustin Hoffman. His objective: stage a war. Soon, however, it appears neither are really facing any seemingly unsurmountable obstacles. Problems are solved as quickly as they arise.

Ultimately the film industry outsider is left with a self-indulgent, unsatisfying and uninvolving story. Mamet’s dialogue is brilliant but this is not the type of film I can watch more than once without an element of disappointment.

Whatever I may say about WAG THE DOG, the fans will rightfully point at the film’s respectable BO figures. Oh well. Star-power saved the dog.

PAGE RANK FOUR!

The Story Dept.’s Page Rank has gone up a full notch and I’m now in the company of such excellent PR4 blogs as The Unknown Screenwriter and the above mentioned Mystery Man on Film.

If you have the Google Tool Bar installed, you can see a white/green strip indicating the PageRank of the page you are visiting. It is usually located in the top middle of your page, under the address bar.

Last year, the world of SEO was turned on its head when millions of web sites saw their Page Rank drop. OZZYWOOD Films was one of the victims, sliding from a respectable Rank 4 to an okay 3.

In all fairness and humility, this web site may be on par for PR with Mystery Man and UNK, but no need to say yours truly will have a long way to go to deserve equal status with these boys.


THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS

Your second draft is the easiest of all. Why? Because the first draft is so bad each problem sticks out like a sore thumb. It is full of great ideas, but the execution stinks. To your editor/consultant it will be instantly obvious what needs fixing first. Hence, improving your story massively, immediately is actually a breeze.

On the other hand: the final draft is the hardest. Almost everything is as almost good as you can get it. Still, those few minor details that need fixing, jeopardise the entire rest of the script. Not only is it technically challenging, you aren’t quite sure which one is the right move. You can’t see the wood for the trees any longer.

Worst of all: after a long development you are so worn out you may be sick of this script and want to move on. You will need all the support and encouragement you can get, from your producer, your editor, your mum and dad (or wife and kids).

To move from draft one to two, it really takes only basic to intermediate skills. To move from draft eleven to twelve, it takes tremendous craftsmanship, talent and arduous persistence. Early on you will get heaps of great tips and advice from your story/script editor; towards the final draft more and more decisions will be yours: here is where your instinct comes into play.The comforting factor: it is often no longer a matter of working or not working, but of good or great. At this stage, you might have also shown the script to a few industry people, who should be encouraging you to run the last mile.

NEXT POST

With Michael Hauge’s Australia tour in May, I’ll be publishing a podcast and interview transcription, in conjunction with Inscription.

Also:
– Movie structure breakdowns (Premium)
– RATATOUILLE’s deleted scene
– Why the ‘3 Act Structure’?

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!

Furthermore, be open to the weaknesses in your favourite films. Most often, it won’t harm your love for the film. Some of the handful of films I re-watch every year, I won’t mention in my seminars because I appreciate them for reasons other than their story.

As a matter of fact, I use some of my favourite films as examples how not to do it.

BLADE RUNNER is such a film.

I have never stopped enjoying this movie. To my personal taste, BLADE RUNNER has the most perfect marriage of astounding visuals and a downright gorgeous score. The film addresses philosophical and ethical issues that were challenging when the film was released, but even more now, in our increasingly over-technological and digitized society.

Yet, despite the film’s phenomenal reputation, the original release of Blade Runner was close to a non-event. The film flopped.

It is not that hard to see what could have been a possible reason for its failure. Let’s look at the first twenty minutes in terms of its plot points. The numbers refer to the counter reading on my DVD player.

00:00 Opening titles

After titles and rolling text, the film opens on a spectacular night skyline, painting a dystopian picture of Los Angeles, anno 2019.

After a prolonged series of establishing shots, we enter into an interrogation room where a character by the name of Leo is undergoing an ’emotional response’ test, the

02:40 The Voight-Kampf Test

At the end of a 2mins scene, we have the first plot point in the film: Leon shoots his interrogator. But we don’t have a protagonist yet. Therefore we first descend to the streets and alleys of downtown LA for the

07:30 Introduction of Deckard and arrest

We find him reading his newspaper, he is called to a foodstall and orders noodles. While he is eating, he is being ‘arrested’.

The counter now reads 9.30mins and we have had two plot points, only one with our hero. Like it or not, this movie is slow.

It takes another one minute transition scene (traveling) before we enter into the next scene:

10:45 Introduction Bryant

This scene contains the Inciting Incident: Bryant ordering Deckard to go out and ‘retire’ four replicants. He is reluctant but: “No choice, pal.” Second plot point for Deckard.

12:30 The Mission Explained

What follows is three minutes of pure exposition, no real plot point: Captain Bryant gives Deckard some more details on the job and, hey presto, Deckard is on his way to retire replicants.

Guess what?

15:30 End of Act One

You did read that right: the first act contains less than sixteen minutes and only a measly two plot points for our main character.

Actually, drop the opening titles and Act One finishes only thirteen minutes into the film. Or worse: only eight minutes after we see our hero first.

For a movie with a running time close to two hours, this is simply not enough.

No proper introduction of character. No ‘ordinary world’, no ‘refusal of the call’, no ‘mentor’.

Fans have argued this is all on purpose, because Deckard has no history. He is a replicant himself and was created for the mere purpose of chasing the outlaws.

Nice try, but it doesn’t work. It might in a short story, a novel(*), a play perhaps? Not in a movie.

(*)The source work, Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep has ample character introduction before it enters into the story of Deckard retiring the Nexus-6’s. Check out the novel or read Paul Sammon’s brilliant Future Noir, about the making of BLADE RUNNER.)

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!