by K.M. Weiland

“What is this deuced deus ex machina?” you ask. “It’s all Greek to me,” you say.

Well, actually, it’s Latin. If I wanted to get technical, I could explain that the phrase literally translates “god from a machine” and was originally a reference to the “god” (played by an actor lowered onto the stage on a “machine”) who descended at the end of the Greek and Roman plays to solve all the mortal characters’ problems and put everything in order for a happy ending. However, for our 21st-century English purposes, we could just say it translates “don’t do this in your story” and be just as accurate.

At first glance, deus ex machina—the idea of all the plot problems being fixed in one fell swoop—might seem like a pretty good idea. But the only thing deus ex machina is guaranteed to fix is your readers’ low opinion of your story. This plot device might have worked for the ancient Greeks and Romans (although Aristotle might—and did—argue that point), but for modern authors it presents a number of difficulties.

The only thing deus ex machina is guaranteed to fix is your readers’ low opinion.

It robs cohesiveness by introducing a new element at the eleventh hour. To reach full potential, every piece of your story must be part of a consistent whole. If the cavalry has no place in your western, the climax in which it charges in to save the pioneers won’t seem logical or resonant.

It frustrates readers by taking the power out of the characters’ hands. Readers want to see the characters put under excruciating pressure, so they can then observe their reactions and, usually, their tenacity, skill, and courage in escaping and triumphing. When the damsel tied to the railway tracks is saved at the last minute by a handsome stranger, the heroine herself becomes a non-factor.

It endangers suspension of disbelief through unlikely coincidences. Miracles may occasionally happen in real life, but in fiction they tend to make readers scoff. When your characters escape their mafia debts by winning the lottery or being adopted by a little old lady millionaire, the result is both unsatisfying and difficult to believe.

It cheats readers by eliminating proper foreshadowing. In order to achieve resonance, stories need to provide all the puzzle pieces to the reader by the time he reaches the climax. The foreshadowing found in the character’s previous struggles will lead us up to the moment when he uses the lessons learned in those struggles to overcome this ultimate challenge. When he suddenly develops magical powers at the last moment, his escape from danger won’t be satisfying because it’s too different from the one readers expected.

Stories need to provide all the puzzle pieces to the reader by the time he reaches the climax.

It disappoints readers by removing characters from danger too soon. After waiting for 300 pages to reach the climax, readers want to see the characters sweat. They want to see them pushed to the very brink of their physical, mental, and moral endurance—and then rise up from their own ashes to conquer both inner and outer demons. When the avenging angel swoops in to save the characters, the result is anticlimactic. Instead of thrilling readers, your ending is more likely to have them heaving your book across the room.

Deus ex machina comes in many different shapes, but once you learn how to look for it, you can squish it on sight and save your readers from wanting to think up uncomplimentary Latin translations.

-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.

Photo Credits: Stock XChng, K.M. Weiland

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

For years, I blindly followed this dogma, as it seemed to make a lot of sense. Learn from good and bad examples. Don’t we all do that in other fields? With hundreds of screenplays readily available for download from www.script-o-rama.com, www.imsdb.com and other sources, it appeared to be a quick and easy way to study the craft of scriptwriting.

But does it?

On average, I try to watch a movie a day, either in the cinema or on DVD. With the birth of my son late 2004, that became a bit more of a challenge. I found myself falling asleep in the second act. To remedy the ‘early fatherhood syndrome’, I would make notes, forcing myself to stay awake. As long as I had the discipline, I would even type them up into structural diagrams.

Suddenly, I had a revelation: the more I liked the film, the easier it was to find the Aristotelian three act structure and the principles of dramatic tension.

Revelation? Hardly.

What was truly phenomenal was that to crack the key to the film’s story structure, it had taken me only the duration of the film plus a few minutes. If I had read the screenplay instead, I’d have spent hours reading and taking notes – and only then would I be able to start work on piecing together the structure. A finished film underscores the drama in ways that help you identify the importance of the beat, scene or sequence: through music, fades or the use of light and colour (Soderbergh’s TRAFFIC is an extreme example).

At the time of writing I was developing a story with Wojciech – “Aerosol” – Wawrzyniak, whose structure is vaguely similar to Kenneth Brannagh’s MARY SHELLEY’S FRANKENSTEIN (thank you, Chris) so we decided to read the screenplay and watch the movie.

That’s when the true value in reading screenplays became apparent: it allows you to compare script and finished film. It shows the areas where filmmakers struggled, where what was on the page didn’t translate into what was onscreen.

Comparing script and film also reveals where directors made last minute decisions because they didn’t believe the script worked (or more often, the money ran out). A great example is the Chicago Train Station climax in THE UNTOUCHABLES. Mamet’s original Third Act had Capone’s accountant going on the train, with a chase and shootout following. However, De Palma had blown the budget and was forced to improvise.

For years, De Palma had been dreaming of shooting a homage to Eisenstein ‘Odessa Steps’ sequence from THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN. A budget issue in THE UNTOUCHABLES finally threw the opportunity into his lap. In my view, reading lots of screenplays is the hard way to learning how to write good stories. However, analyzing a few classic scripts in terms of language, style and formatting may help you find the right balance to turn your final draft into a better read.

– Karel

I have said before that the model you use to improve your screenwriting is your own choice.

At the end of the day it is all academic. Whatever works for you.

The Dept Revisited – A rerun of the best of the Story Dept.

A few things to consider before you take your pick:

First of all, whichever you choose, you will need to deliver the exact same turning points. In broad terms, these are the Inciting Incident, Turning Point One, Mid Point, Turning Point Two and Climax + Resolution.

In other words, the outcome of your story shouldn’t depend on the model you choose, but on your premise. The same premise should result in the same structure, irrespective of whether you think in three or four acts.

Otherwise the theory interferes with the result and this can’t be the idea.

Now, what IS the difference?

The four-act model equates to three acts with the middle act cut in two.

In many great stories, the objective as stated in Turning Point One changes at the mid point. In other words:

The mid point is not just a PLOT POINT, but a TURNING POINT.

Therefore you may argue we are moving into a new act.

A crystal-clear example is JAWS:

Act One: Amity has a shark problem.
Act Two: Brody tries to solve the problem by closing the beaches.

Mid Point: Brody realises his failure and decides to change tactics.

Act Three: Brody tries to solve the problem by hunting the shark.
Act Four: Brody kills the shark.

This results in four acts of roughly equal duration, which is kind of elegant.
The acts are also shorter and therefore more manageable, which helps.

I still prefer the three-act structure. Here’s why:

Great films have a strong cohesion in the main character’s journeys between Turning Point 1 and Turning Point 2. Cutting Act Two in the middle could cause a writer to ignore this cohesion.

In the example of JAWS, Brody has one over-arching desire: “to protect the people of Amity”. The Inner Journey, too, has a strong cohesion across Act Two: “to learn to act responsibly” (see the structural analysis of JAWS).

Although most great movies have this inner logic, it is often buried deep inside the essence of the character’s journey and not always clear through a simple analysis.

THE UNTOUCHABLES, however, is another great example. In structure and meaning it is not too dissimilar from JAWS:

Act One: Ness learns of the vicious methods of Capone.
Act Two: Ness tries to capture Capone.
Act Three: Ness tries to capture the bookkeeper.
Act Four: Ness captures the bookkeeper.

The over-arching desire, uniting Act Two and Three: “to protect the people of Chicago”. The Inner Journey: “to accept the Chicago way”.

Finally, another good reason to stick with the three-act structure is the fact that not all successful movies have such a strong reversal at the mid point.

Please let me know your views in the comments.

– Karel Segers

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 6-year old son Baxter and anyone who listens.
He is also the boss of this blog.

[this post was originally published on 9 September 2009 and selected for rerun by Adrian]

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!

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!

Here’s my weekly selection from the blogosphere. Feel free to recommend anything or give your feedback in the Questions and Comments below.

And don’t forget you can subscribe to our posts so you don’t miss any of this, ever.

• Robert McKee goes Campbell: Culture makes no difference
• “CUT TO:” – Cut it out.
• Final Draft adds highlighting – Easier PDF.
• Emily confused about Happy Endings. WTF is wrong with them?
• You can’t proceed without a PLAN: the crucial plot element
• How to write good characters: observation and mimicry
• Know bad writing so there’s no bad writing
• Breakdown of Indie “The Dinner Party”, writing lessons applied
• The Climax: finding the hero on villain turf
• More hypocrisy in our industry: 10 noms for Ward’s ugly egg
• Do’s and Don’ts for your spec script
• Don’t turn the lights out on your story: writing scenes in blacknessCOMING SOON to the Story Department:

• Structural breakdown of THE UNTOUCHABLES (Monday night midnight)
• Paul Gulino: Screenwriting, the Deadline Approach.

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!

And I see why it is not getting the word of mouth it deserves.

My take on the film is primarily from a broad story perspective. I don’t go into dialogue, performance, SFX etc. because I believe they are secondary and ultimately not decisive for the success of the film.

PUSHING IT: ACT STRUCTURE

In my view, Luhrman and Beattie have knowingly taken a few risks. The main one is the four-act structure. Here I mean: four acts according to the traditional three-act model. Not three acts with the second cut in two.

Both the drover and Sarah have a clear four-act journey. Their first objective is to get the cattle to Darwin, which spans most of the film. As a ‘road movie’, it works fabulously to my taste and it is in the second act that the film has its best moments, including some instant-classic scenes such as the cattle stampede threatening Nulla.

Ironically, the expectation of a traditional three-act structure is reinforced by the death of Flynn, perfectly halfway Act Two.

Then, when they reach Darwin and succeed in their objective, a new objective is set for the next act: the return to Faraway Downs. Here is where the structure begins to collapse. Where we had an instinctive feeling we were moving towards the end of the movie, we have exactly one more hour to go.

Act Three climaxes in the realisation that Nulla is in danger and drover decides to save him. The final act is the rescue of Nulla.

UNDERESTIMATED: POINT OF VIEW

The only other major potential problem is the multiple point of view (POV). Each POV has a serious problem.

The film is told through Nullah, Sarah and Drover.

Nullah’s story is that of the stolen generation: he is trying to stay out of the hands of those who want to take him away from his community.
This story is scattered across the movie and it doesn’t really have the power to span the entire film, to keep the three hours together. When we are in Nullah’s POV though, we all empathise with him because we understand this is a struggle for freedom, a basic human instinct. When sifting through the hundreds of promotional photo’s on australiamovie.net, the photo above is the only one I could find of Nullah. It says a lot about how important the filmmakers see this character and his story.

Sarah’s journey does a better job in tying the movie together, for at least three acts. In order to save her cattle station, she and the drover must undertake an epic cattle drive to Darwin. On the way, she falls in love with him. We empathise with Sarah, because we understand her journey, too. Because of the love journey, she is probably the most powerful POV in the movie. Everybody accepts her falling in love with the drover as he represents masculinity, freedom, her future.

Drover’s POV is more problematic. He wants to help Sarah, then falls in love with her. Here is the problem. Sarah Ashley is portrayed as a completely undesirable female. She is uptight, annyoing and sometimes plain naive. Who would desire such a woman, when you can get much better? I don’t believe many audience members would therefore identify with the Drover.

Looking at the three options, Sarah is the most likely character to identify with. After all, Hugh is a desirable male! I would like to see a breakdown of the demographics in terms of audience reception for Australia. It wouldn’t come as a big surprise if it turns out to be a chic flic.

MINOR ISSUES

Like most other good but not great movies, if you drill down you’ll find a lot of issues that keep you from fully participating.

Towards the end of the movie, I was getting totally annoyed by the mind-numbing repetition of the WIZARD OF OZ theme “Somewhere Over The Rainbow”. The original score of Australia is strong enough, there was no need to revert to this blatant recycling. A film’s identity gets lost when it has to rely on references to other movies to get a point across.

Finally, I found the visual style gorgeous until the arrival in Darwin, where things got completely out of control. Effects became totally in-your-face, unnecessary and plain badly executed. Luhrman had almost created a timeless classic piece of cinema, but in the last two acts he blows it.

That said, I enjoyed AUSTRALIA. The word of warning about its length did help me, as I gave it the time and space it needed.

And about the fascinating heated discussions after posting an article from the SMH and one from The Guardian on my Facebook page and Jason Gordon’s article on the Story Department Group at the end of last year, I would like to say the following: I am a Belgian and I look at Australia’s history with a certain level of neutrality. I find it hypocritical of a nation to say sorry but continue to celebrate Australia Day on 26 January. But I don’t have a desire to see social, political and historical issues resolved in the cinema.

In my view, despite its failure to appeal to the mass audience, AUSTRALIA is still one of the most entertaining Australian films of the decade.

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!

Since writing the below post, I have come to realise that the mid point may well be the last checkpoint to make sure you have the most powerful story you can get.

I believe the mid point can only exist if everything else works. Without knowing exactly what the outer objective is (Turning Point 1) and how the character changes (Turning Point 2) it is impossible to create the right mid point. The mid point changes the direction of the visible goal (Outer Journey), sometimes it completely changes the goal altogether. It also accelerates the Inner Journey as the protagonist is now committed to resolving the Need.

I have added some notes on THE INCREDIBLES and THE LIVES OF OTHERS to the examples below.

Many unsuccessful movies run out of steam halfway. Even a fair few memorable pics are weak in the middle, or have a ‘soft belly’. The Second Act seems to be the hardest nut to crack. But why? Perhaps because the protagonist is chasing the same objective all along? After all we have a massive chunk of script to fill, about an hour of screentime on average. One remedy is to chop the movie up in quarters. First and last act are roughly one quarter each already, so Act Two we just cut in two.

It’s variously called the mid-act climax, the mid-point, first culmination or the mid-point reversal. I prefer the latter, although it is not always a strict 180 degree turn. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a climax either but it must be a ‘major turning point’. Things will be dramatically different from this point onwards.

Syd Field describes it something like this: “An important scene in the middle of the script, often a reversal of fortune or revelation that changes the direction of the story.” Field suggests that driving the story towards the Midpoint keeps the second act from sagging. For once I find Field more helpful than others. An executive at the talent agency ICM is trying to get his head around it:

“An event occurs wherein the character cannot give up his pursuit. It is a “no turning back point.” The bridge has been burned behind him (figuratively speaking), and he can only move forward. Often, this is manifested as a TICKING CLOCK. In classically structure (sic) romantic comedies, this is the point where the man and woman sleep together.” Hmmm… Not sure about that last one.

Here’s my favourite definition, from Frank Daniel:

“Mid-Point or First Culmination: a Major Reversal of fortune, making Main Character’s task even more difficult. Often, give the audience a very clear glimpse of an answer to the Central Dramatic Question “‘ the hope that Main Character will actually succeed at resolving his problem “‘ only to see circumstances turn the story the other way. First Culmination may be a glimpse at the actual resolution of the picture, or its mirror opposite.”

Let’s look at a few examples to understand the mid point better:

THE UNTOUCHABLES – Not only a well-structured, commercial movie with a top notch cast; it has a midpoint that ticks all three boxes: After a shootout on the Canadian border far away from the crime-ridden streets of Chicago, Eliot Ness and his team find out they can get to Capone through his accountant.

The mid-point sequence happens halfway the movie (ironically, not all midpoints really do), it changes the course of the story (Ness is no longer after Capone but after his accountant) and it takes place in a very different environment/change of scenery from the rest of the movie. And indeed: catching the accountant does get Capone in court. Important for the Inner Journey at this point is Ness’ response to the criticism on the way Malone forces a confession out of one of Capone’s men. When he says “Well, you’re not from Chicago”, it proves Ness is now open to approaching things ‘the Chicago Way’, as taught by his mentor Malone.

JAWS – It’s more than thirty years old and scary as ever, and not because of its state-of-the-art FX. Look closely and you’ll see: that plastic shark is a big joke! This is one piece of brilliant writing. Police Chief Brody (Roy Scheider) has been unsuccessful in trying to stop the shark killings by urging the mayor to close the beaches. When his own son narrowly escapes death, he is forced to change tactics (different direction): he must go and attack the shark in its own habitat. It brings a fresh turn to the movie with a change of scenery and the stakes are heightened because we are now fighting the killer on his own territory. What’s more: the protagonist is under greater jeopardy because he can’t swim. At Brody’s Inner Journey mid point, he is committed to tackle things at the core in stead of dealing with the symptoms. See also my notes at the bottom of the structural overview of Jaws.

ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST – In his book THE SEQUENCE APPROACH, Paul Gulino mentions another function of the midpoint: it gives the protagonist a flavour of the possible outcome of the story (Frank Daniel’s “glimpse of an answer to the Central Dramatic Question“). Here, Nicholson’s character tastes freedom when he takes the patients out on a trip. The reality however is that after this point he learns he may never leave the asylum again. A powerful reversal: rather than proving he’s insane, he now has to try and get out. The scene/sequence of the mad men’s outing is another beautiful example of a change of scenery. At one stage during the edit, director Milos Forman cut the sequence out. About the result he says: “I cut it down television style, under two hours. And you know what was funny? It felt much longer.”

I wouldn’t necessarily call the following movies class examples but I’ll give them any way because their mid-points worked really well for me:

THE PARALLAX VIEW – Bang in the middle of this classic conspiracy thriller, Warren Beatty’s character undergoes a five minute brainwashing. The scene is borderline unbearable and would have probably been cut by today’s studio heads. We undergo the character’s psychological torture first hand while we stare at the seemingly random images, exactly like the protagonist experiences them. After this, Beatty’s character is no longer the curious outsider vs. the mysterious corporation; he is fighting the system from within, which will ultimately lead to his demise.

GIU LA TESTA (A FISTFUL OF DYNAMITE) – Very much like in THE PARALLAX VIEW, we share the point of view of Rod Steiger’s character Juan while he watches what will cause a major change in his personality and in the course of the movie. At the very midpoint in the movie Juan witnesses a lengthy, traumatic shootout with a life-changing effect: from a mindless and merciless robber dreaming of the ultimate big heist he has now become a freedom fighter and finally commits to the cause of his alter-ego Sean (incarnated wonderfully by James Coburn).

THE QUEEN – The Queen is stuck in the lonely hills near Balmoral, her Land Rover having let her down. Without help from anybody she is out of her comfort zone when she notices the deer her grandsons have been stalking, upon her own advice and encouragement. A moment of realisation (with a lot of symbolism) leads to the decision to chase the dear away in an attempt to save its life from the hunters. The parallel with Princess Diana’s end becomes even more apparent when it turns out the deer was shot by a group of hunters after a chase on a neighbouring land (France?). The Queen has witnessed something that has changed her view and we see it externalised in her lukewarm response to the Queen Mother’s statements about the British people in a following scene.

NORTH BY NORTHWEST – The single most memorably scene of this film sits right in the very middle: the famous cropduster scene. Again, an entirely new setting in the movie, with hardly any other characters around. While most of the movie is rather talky, this sequence offers pure visual cinema with minimal sound design, then gradually picking up the pace and finally (literally) exploding in a symphony of action and music. The reversal: Roger Thornhill learns that Eve has betrayed him.

THE INCREDIBLES – Mister Incredible has successfully completed the task he travelled to the Special World for: eliminating the evil robot. Now, for the first time he is about to meet with his employer.

The reversal happens when his mission turns out to have been a setup to get him killed. The employer is effectively his arch-enemy Syndrome and the mid point delivers two major reversals: 1) in stead of staying on the island, he will have to escape 2) in stead of working alone, he’ll have to collaborate with his family.

THE LIVES OF OTHERS – In the first half of this 2007 Oscar winning drama, Captain Wiesler tries to expose the suspected playwright Dreyer to satisfy his superior at the Stasi (the former Eastern German State Security Service). While listening to a phone call, he learns that Dreyers best friend and mentor has committed suicide. Wiesler realises his work is not doing the good he had always believed it would. He is effectively killing people. When Dreyer plays the piano music he received as a gift from his mentor, Wiesler is so moved that he decides to not expose but protect Dreyer from this point on. To my taste, this is one of the most wonderful and moving mid points in cinema in recent years.

In my earlier blog “STRUCTURING THE FACTS” I briefly mention the midpoint reversal in UNITED 97: The passengers learn this is a suicide flight, therefore they have to change their tactics from trying to notify their relatives on the ground to actively fight back the terrorists.

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!

When I watched the film during its theatrical release, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Because of the relatively low budget (an estimated USD$25m) for its production values, Tony Gilroy was able to make some brave non-commercial decisions with his screen story.

This didn’t go entirely unpunished, as the Variety review points out:

Gilroy’s fidelity to his script comes at the expense of the pacing, which initially lumbers forward so assiduously as to feel like a throwback to an earlier era.

and:

Some of the peripheral threads — especially Michael’s relationship with his family, both as an irritated brother and a single dad — occupy time at the outset but really don’t lead anywhere.

-Brian Lowry

Looking at the story structure in the first act, we’ll find some obvious causes for the problems addressed above.

The Inciting Incident doesn’t happen until 25mins into the film and I yet have to find a clear 1st Act Turning Point. The scene with Marty (Sydney Pollack) at 51mins feels like one but at that stage Michael is already on his journey. The monumental 25mins of ‘Ordinary World’ make the story drag on to a point the audience will get very fidgety.

Then, in sequence two – and even before the end of the act – we find an abundance of scenes and characters that are not dealing with the main plot: Michael’s son, his debt, the merger and the scenes from Karen’s POV. These are simply things you cannot do without having clearly set up the main story.

I won’t go into any further story issues, but here is how I would structure the film in terms of plot points and sequences:

ACT ONE

SEQUENCE A: Prologue, Ordinary World

00.00 Arthur’s VO: This is not a relapse.
03.00 POV(*) Bach is settling, at office late at night
04.30 POV Karen in bathroom, tormented
05.00 Michael is gambling, phone rings
07.00 Urgent job: accident, go see client at home
08.30 At client’s: What are you? Miracle worker?
12.00 Phone rings: Michael gives details to referee.
12.30 Driving, GPS flickers.
13.30 Gets out at field with horses
15.00 Car explodes

SEQUENCE B: Subplot and Call to Adventure

15.30 – 4 DAYS EARLIER
16.00 Subplot: Michael drives son Henry to school
18.30 Subplot: Michael needs $75k to repay debts
20.30 At work, assistant asks: Are we merging?
23.00 POV Karen (intercut) rehearsing + interview
25.30 I.I.: Arthur stripped in deposition room
26.00 Arthur’s VO (cont.). Did you meet Anna?
29.00 Arthur: I have blood on my hands.

ACT TWO

SEQUENCE C: To get Arthur back on the case

29.30 POV Arthur tape, U-North people learn about Michael
32.30 Michael will get Arthur back in 3-4 days; find briefcase
33.30 POV Arthur calls Henry: Realm & Conquest.
35.30 Michael & Karen: defends Arthur. She’ll call Marty
37.30 Michael & Arthur as Mentor: “We’ve been summoned.”
39.30 POV Karen calls Mr. Verne
41.00 Arthur has escaped

SEQUENCE D: Allies and Enemies, Midpoint

43.00 POV Karen shows Marty the memo.
43.30 Searching Arthur’s office; psychiatric commitment?
45.00 Arthur followed, Michael leaves msg: janitor to janitor
48.00 POV Arthur calls Anna, call bugged.
50.00 With creditor: one week
51.00 Marty: He’s calling the plaintiffs; Michael asks loan
54.00 Looking for Arthur; with son, sees him
56.00 Mid: Arthur changed. Not the enemy.”Then who?”

SEQUENCE E: Subplot and Ordeal Plot Point

59.30 POV Arthur reads report on voicemail
63.30 POV Karen orders murder
65.00 Asks brother for support; hang for an hour.
67.30 POV Arthur killed
69.30 Brother shows up, off alcohol, in front of Henry
71.00 To son: you’re not like this. You’ve got it.
72.30 Ordeal: phone call, Arthur’s dead
75.00 In pub w/ Marty. Why?? No note. U-North settling.

SEQUENCE F: Ordeal Sequence Approach / and Reward

77.30 Calls Anna, in NY right now.
78.30 Goes to see Anna in motel, being watched
79.00 Anna: “something that would win the case”
81.00 Approach: Gets seal, to Arthur’s place
82.00 Followed, watched; searches flat
83.00 Finds Realm & Conquest; Police come in
84.00 Released from cell, “Who called 911?”
87.30 Reward: 3,000 copies of memo
88.00 POV Karen finds out about memo: ‘situation’.
88.30 Marty ready for announcement;
89.00 Subplot Reward: cheque $80k
91.00 Pays off debt.

ACT THREE

SEQUENCE G: To get out, by bringing U-North down

92.30 Gambling // car bomb planted // phone rings, leaves.
95.30 Driving, miracle worker, fixer
96.00 Driving
99.00 Horses // Gimme cell // Explosion
99.30 Throws valuables in, runs off
100.0 Brother picks him up
101.0 POV Karen addressing board w/ settlement proposal
103.3 Climax: Confronts Karen: $10m
106.0 Resolution: Everything on record: NYPD

SEQUENCE H: Return with the Elixir – Finally Out

107.0 Taxi

(*): Scenes marked “POV” are not from the protagonist’s POV.

Karel FG Segers

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

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!