Hauge claims the Inner and Outer Journey run in parallel. I think he’s right, with one small caveat.

A gorgeous Sunday morning in a Manly cafe with a view on the ocean. Perfect circumstances to switch off.

Not if you’re me. I was pondering story structure. And suddenly I had this thought.

Think of a character’s journey as a journey of change. Nothing new so far.

If you look at both the Inner and Outer Journey of a film story as defined in terms of  ‘change’, you’ll see they are structured identically.

I remembered this review of HANCOCK, where the critic pointed out that early in the movie we realise Hancock is a character who needs redemption. He needs to change. Like Bill Murray’s character in GROUNDHOG DAY, Robert Downey Junior’s character in IRON MAN, Bob in THE INCREDIBLES or THELMA AND LOUISE. Or pretty much any hero in any successful movie. They’re all transformational.

In every movie with a character arc, first there is a more or less visible ‘need for change’.

In this first sequence of many successful films, we see the hero’s flawed behaviour. We understand: this character needs to change in order to find happiness, an emotional or psychological balance, to realise a full life.

Then the Inciting Incident happens. Almost always AFTER we understand the character’s inner problem, that ‘need for change’.

Pondering over this, I started mapping it out over the 3-Act time line and I came to an interesting conclusion: the character journey, whether it is Inner or Outer, has three stages:

1. the need for change (a situation of conflict)
2. the journey of change (obstacles and increased conflict)
3. the result of change (conflict resolved, new situation)

Let’s look how these three stages play out over the inner and outer journey:

INNER JOURNEY (that which brings change to the character’s behaviour)

1. the need for change: opening until inciting incident (halfway Act One)
2. the journey of change: from inciting incident until crisis (end Act Two)
3. the result of change: conflict resolved, new situation (halfway to end of Act Three)

OUTER JOURNEY (that which brings change to the world)

1. the need for change: inciting incident until end of Act One
2. the journey of change: from beginning of Act Two until Resolution
3. the result of change: from Resolution to end of movie

Stages 1. and 3. are much clearer in terms of their visible clues about the change. The second stage (mostly Act Two) is murkier. It is a gradual change, which is a matter of ups and downs, victories and defeats.

The 2nd act Inner Journey is largely defined by the mid point.

Because the Inner Journey is weaker in this act, the mid point (the “S” in the middle on the pic.) keeps the story in balance.

Let’s have a look what this would look like on the 3-Act time line:

The vertical lines are the act breaks, the crosses are Inciting Incident and Climax/Resolution.

So we can conclude the following:

Inner & Outer Journey are identical, only shifted in time.

The meaning of this timeshift is simply the following:

In order to get what s/he wants, the Hero must first transform.

It may not be a new view at story structure, but I haven’t seen this approach anywhere else.
Try it, it may work for you.

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!

Most ‘gurus’ each have their own area of expertise and angle of attack, they each follow their own agenda. And with every new light shed on the craft, different people may see that light.

Don’t they ever contradict each other? And if they do, which truth do YOU choose?

Screenwriting is a dynamic craft. What Syd Field wrote back in 1979 was state-of-the-art… but things change.

Earlier theories fall short when it comes to writing successfully for today’s audiences.

And surely Aristotle’s basic  beginning-middle-end will not get you far – if applied only to the story spine.

Screenwriting principles and techniques keep getting ever more sophisticated as successful movies bend or refine the old molds and screenwriters share their secrets.

The mere fact that the gurus keep being reprinted (Field for thirty years now, Aristotle for 2,000) exposes them to obsolescence. Yet there doesn’t seem to be any flagrant contradictions between what most recognised story teachers and screenwriting authors have said.

Here is a choice of statements and claims that you may not fully agree with. Let us know what you think:

– McKee says “The finest writing not only reveals true character, but arcs”. This sweeping statement has been successfully contested by Mystery Man in a fine piece of research and clear and unbiased thinking.

– John Truby and James Bonnett denounce the 3-act structure. As I yet have to find a discrepancy between Truby’s teaching and the 3-act structure, I assume it’s just a matter of marketing.

– Michael Hauge once said that Inner and Outer journeys are completely separate. In an interview on this blog he tells us how he has changed his view on this, which will be included in the revision of WRITING SCREENPLAYS THAT SELL.

– In Save The Cat, Blake Snyder called the Mid Point either a “false peak” or a “false collapse”. No mention of an Inner Journey, which is essential to e.g. Michael Hauge’s approach to that crucial story point.

– Defining what we call the Inciting Incident, Billy Stoneking asks “What INITIAL PROBLEM or OPPORTUNITY confronts or is created by the main character […]” This includes the assumption that the Inciting Incident can be created by the Hero.

– Kal Bashir in his detailed and insightful Monomyth eBook says: “in Star Wars (1977), music when Luke appears signals that there is a quality about him.” But what use is it to the screenwriter?

What theory do you follow? Ever changed your mind along the way?

A very small minority of successful screenwriters denounces all theory. They follow “their gut”. But most working writers know there’s a hell of a lot you can learn from studying films and screenplays as well as reading up on modern story theory.

In my work with screenwriters, I’m learning every day and I constantly refine my own views. In the first screenwriting lesson I ever taught, I stated that the Inciting Incident should be a ‘deus ex machina’ (oh dear oh dear…). I knew darn well what a deus ex machina was but clearly hadn’t nailed the essence of the Inciting Incident yet.

I also once disagreed with Linda Aronson when she stated that Ridley Scott’s THE INSIDER was a failure. I vehemently argued against this. Boxoffice Mojo reports for THE INSIDER a worldwide Box Office of $60,289,912 and a budget of about $90,000,000.

Epic fail, 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!

Some hero flaws can sink your script – and your movie.

Before we dive into these murky waters, let’s start with a major disclaimer. Since Mystery Man gloriously won his Case Against Character Arcs, we know you don’t necessarily need a transforming character to write a great story. That said, the majority of  high-performing movies still have Heroes with arcs.

THE SELF-DESTRUCTIVE HERO

Our most primary instinct is survival.

A hero with a death wish is not a good idea, simply because an audience typically doesn’t seem to empathise with characters displaying behaviour that goes against our primal instincts. As a result, films such as LEAVING LAS VEGAS and even THE WRESTLER have only limited appeal.

THE DUMB HERO

Except in horror and comedy, the hero does not act stupid.

The Hero shows intelligence and initiative. Audiences usually wonder “What would I do under the circumstances?” You must get the obvious answers out of the way. In DIE HARD, the first thing John McClane does to attract the attention of the outside world is trigger the fire alarm.

THE UNRELIABLE HERO

Heroes may lie to their fellow characters on screen but they must share with us their thoughts and emotions or we cannot fully empathise with them. Director David Cronenberg has made the Unreliable Hero his trademark. In EXISTENZ, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE and EASTERN PROMISES the Hero keeps a secret from us. They’re all relatively small films.

THE CRAZY HERO

Unreliability – and unpredictability – can be caused by a mental disability.

Characters with a mental disability usually don’t make for good Heroes. The film PERFECT STRANGERS was a failure, as both the Hero and the antagonist are shown to be increasingly insane. Note how in THE SIXTH SENSE, RAIN MAN and MERCURY RISING the Hero is ‘normal’.

The exception is the Genius Hero, such as in SHINE or A BEAUTIFUL MIND.

At the Mid Point of A BEAUTIFUL MIND we seem to have evidence that John Nash (Russell Crowe) has gone completely mad. At this very point in the movie, the POV shifts away from the Hero and temporarily we experience the story from the character of the wife (Jennifer Connelly). Once John is aware of his condition and tries hard to manage it, the POV moves back to his character.

Do you know of any more examples or exceptions? Please tell us in the comments!

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!

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!

I am speaking with Michael about his career, his teaching and his first visit to Australia in May of this year. With apologies for the poor audio quality of the telephone recording.

Karel: Terry Rossio, co writer of ALADDIN, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN and SHREK, says you are “the only screenwriting instructor who might be truly wasting his time because he should be writing screenplays instead.” That’s my first question: Have you ever felt like you were wasting your time?

Michael: It’s very generous of Terry to say that. We first met when I did a special event as part of the American Screenwriters Association conference where I interviewed Ted Elliott and him. It was just when SHREK was in theatres. I gave a one hour lecture about SHREK and then they came on stage and we did a Q&A. They said later they appreciated that everything I had talked about was exactly what they intended when they wrote the script.At the time they were in the midst of writing Shrek 2 and weren’t real happy with the direction things were going, and people not appreciating their approach to it, which the studio ended up using anyway.

I really don’t think I’m wasting my time as a consultant. My strength, and my passion, is for working with writers and filmmakers, empowering them to get their stories on the page and on the screen, either by working with them one-on-one, or through my lectures, books, DVDs, articles, etc.

Karel: Have you ever written a screenplay?

Michael: Some time ago I made a stab at writing a screenplay, and it was OK, but it really wasn’t where my passion was. I just have so much fun doing what I’m doing.

————

Karel: How would you position yourself among the known screenwriting teachers?

Michael: Good question… How would I position myself? Well, first of all I’m somebody that has been around now a long time. There are a few of us who are sort of regarded as the front guard, or the old guard.

There’s me, there’s Bob McKee, there’s Syd Field, Linda Seger, Chris Vogler, John Truby, Kathie Fong Yoneda, a couple more that I’ve probably forgotten. So I think that gives us all a certain cachet. We all have books; we all have reputations and so on.

As far as lecturing goes, we all seem to have different things that we kind of enjoy doing. Linda goes to a lot of festivals and does a lot of work outside the US. I don’t do so much outside the US and I don’t do so much lecturing as her or Chris or Bob McKee. The trip to Australia, is the first time I will have come to Australia to give a seminar or to do a workshop, so that is a bit different.

I think of that whole group I mentioned, I’m the one that does the most coaching. Linda writes a lot of books. Chris, is working for Paramount, and he travels to Europe a lot to lecture and collaborate on projects. But I think I’m the guy who is primarily a script consultant

————

Karel: In your view, are there any contradictions between the various story theories?

Michael: In my experience, all those people that I mentioned, Bob and Syd and Linda and Chris and John, we all have our own approach to story, character and structure. And I have yet to find anything significant about which we disagree. It is just a different way of getting at the founding principles of story developed by Aristotle, and probably even before that.

That’s why I wanted to do the DVD of The Hero‘s 2 Journeys with Chris Vogler. He uses Joseph Campbell’s model, a mythical model for approaching story. I think it is wonderful, and I think his work is among the best out there. He and I don’t really disagree on the core principles of story, we just have different approaches, so we can sort of make fun of each other and argue about that.

I will say that there are a lot of myths about screenwriting floating around, and some are perpetuated by other lecturers. Myths like ‘if you live outside LA you don’t have a chance’ or ‘it’s not what you know, it is who you know’. It is important to know people, but you can get to know people. There are ways to network and contact people and get them to read your script and you’ll get to know them.

There are a lot of things like that, that I disagree with, but not the principles that I hear espoused by the top screenwriting teachers, or by the successful writers that I work with.

————

Karel: We know you from your books and DVDs but what keeps you busy most of your time?

Michael: I primarily do three things: I consult with writers, directors, producers, filmmakers and storytellers of all kind; I’m invited to lecture to lots of different groups; and I write — books and articles and so on. And of course, I have DVDs and CDs of some of the lectures that I give.

Karel: You seem to have a lot on your plate. How do you organize your day?

Michael: In a typical day, the majority of what I do is the consultation. I get up in the morning and I read a client’s script, and take extensive notes on that screenplay.

Later that day, I have a consulting session with that client, either in person or by phone. If it’s the first time we’ve talked, that might take up to three hours. If it’s an ongoing client, our session is closer to one and a half or two hours.

Then I might have another session with a writer who has outlined changes they plan to make as a result of our previous sessions. I might have a third coaching session with one of my clients who wants to get my guidance on their writing process, or on their pitch. And in between, I talk to prospective clients, write articles, prepare for lectures, add information to my web site and newsletters, and answer emails.

And after I’ve been in the office for about twelve hours, I’m done! And then my wife and I will have dinner and watch television or a movie. And that’s pretty much it. Glamorous, isn’t it?!

————

Karel: Which are your favourite TV series?

Michael: Well right now there are two new series that may not yet be playing in Australia. The season is kind of truncated because of the Writers Guild strike here. But there is a half-hour series on HBO called In Treatment, which I love. It’s on six nights a week. Gabriel Byrne plays a psychologist, and each episode shows him in therapy with one of his clients. The series is set up so every Monday we see the same client as we saw the previous Monday, just like it would be with a real therapist. So Monday nights are about a young woman, and Tuesday night it’s about guy, and Wednesday nights it’s a teenage girl, and Thursdays a couple. Then Fridays the shrink goes to see his own therapist and talks about his own problems. It’s just talking heads, just two or three people in a room doing therapy. It’s based, I think, on an Israeli series, and it’s brilliantly written and wonderfully performed.

My other favourite series so far is Terminator: The Sarah Conner chronicles. I was a big terminator fan and they are doing some interesting new things with that franchise.

Karel: What is your favourite classic movie?

Michael: When I hear the term ‘classic’, I think in terms of pre-1950. I don’t think of movies from the 70’s on as classics in the same way. I guess you would have to regard The Godfather as a classic film. But when you say classic, I think of black and white, Hollywood in its heyday. And then I think without exception it would be Casablanca.

In more recent times, certainly Chinatown, certainly The Godfather. Those are sort of easy, because everybody puts those on the list. But I think any list of great movies would have to include Sleepless in Seattle, Shrek, When Harry Met Sally, L.A. Confidential, and a number of Woody Allen movies – but probably most of all Manhattan.

To be honest, it is an impossible question. There are so many movies that I love, so many movies I think are just wonderful. I actually hate the questions because I know I’m gonna forget to mention a movie that is just very close to me. And there are more coming along all the time!

————

Karel: Do you watch a movie every day?

Michael: No, I probably watch on average about two movies a week, maybe three. But I watch television too, because I also consult with television writers, plus I’m a fan. I mean there are certain TV series that I really like, so I watch those. And I watch videos, and I go to the movies about once a week.

Karel: Do you have any favourites that don’t follow the principles you teach?

Michael: Oh yeah, yeah. There are a number of movies that I think are wonderful, that I generally don’t talk about when I lecture. The reason is: I want people to understand the core of what I consider the essential principles of story and structure and character arc and love story and eliciting emotion. So the examples I use are ones that follow the formula – if you want to call it that – so they can strengthens a writer’s understanding of it.

No movie breaks all the rules, but great movies often push the envelope, or they take liberties, or they fit into a niche that is less commercial.

So people regard Annie Hall as a great romantic comedy. But the basic formula for a Hollywood romantic comedy involves deception – a character with a compelling goal is lying about something to get it, then she meets someone and falls in love, but the person doesn’t know that the hero is pretending to be somebody she’s not, as in Working Girl or Tootsie or The Wedding Crashers. Or maybe the hero is just lying, as they are in a Sleepless in Seattle or Sideways. In any case, there is almost always deception, and always a happy ending.

Annie Hall doesn’t have any of those elements. It is more like a dramatic love story, but it’s so funny that it is regarded as a romantic comedy. And it doesn’t have a happy ending. Woody Allen is pretty much allergic to happy endings because he sees love affairs and relationships as finite. So he breaks the rules, but it’s still a great movie.

Another example, one of my all-time favourite movies and one of the great screenplays coming out of Hollywood in the last twenty years, is The Shawshank Redemption. It certainly follows rules for creating empathy, and giving characters visible goals, and developing character arc and theme. But it doesn’t follow a common structure. Instead it uses a three-stage structure. We see the hero in one period of time, then we jump ahead quite a few years, see them again, jump ahead, and see them a third time. That structure is used by When Harry Met Sally, by Steel Magnolias, by Driving Miss Daisy, by numerous other movies. But those movies are a very small percentage of the movies Hollywood makes.

So that’s not a typical film, yet it’s also a great screenplay.

Here’s the way I usually say it: you can break the rules only after you know the rules so well that you can honestly say, “I will elicit more emotion, and create a better emotional experience for the audience, by pushing the envelope rather than following the formula.”

When writers get in to trouble is when they say, “I don’t believe in formula, I’m just going to ignore the rules and tell whatever story I want to tell.” Those movies rarely work.

END OF PART ONE

For information on Michael’s books, DVDs and one-on-one consultation, or to contact him directly, please visit his web site: www.ScreenplayMastery.com. To register for any of his Australian seminars, go here: www.epiphany.com.au.

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