Sometimes I watch a movie and a week later I have forgotten everything, except for one single scene. Do you have that, too? Invariably, this happens more often with movies that have an unusual narrative structure.

After watching Charlie Wilson’s War, I forgot everything except for a handful of masterful scenes and the ‘zen master’ ending.  To me, one scene stood out above all else. It is an instant classic, and a class example of expert use of dramatic construction, exposition and subtext.

You could do a whole masterclass, just on the scene structure of this moment.

Charlie Wilson’s Fail

Charlie Wilson’s War is by all standards a solid film, but most people will agree this is not a great movie.

With Sorkin on story, a budget of $75m, and Tom Hanks’ & Julia Roberts’ star power, the studio must have looked at the domestic result of $66m as a big disappointment. If a film of this calibre doesn’t reach the mainstream, usually the filmmakers are to blame.

But if you’re a discerning viewer, you don’t want the studios to stop making these pictures.  In fact, if you love political intrigue, you’re on the left of the political spectrum, and you enjoy great dialogue, then this film is pure delight.

Sorkin has said that he never has an agenda when he writes. Really? Charlie Wilson makes a pretty darn strong statement.

Out of its contemporary 2007 political context – the West fighting a heavily armed Taliban in Afghanistan – this is a straightforward hero movie with a happy ending. Add the zen master perspective, and it becomes a wry satire about the bungling and moral murkiness of American politics.

The stuff of great drama.

Why Didn’t It Work?

Satire is a tricky genre at the US box office, particularly if it’s just smart, and you leave out the primal elements.

Borat worked – primal allover – but what other satires do you know that broke out and went big?

Charlie Wilson’s War recounts the eponymous Texan Congressman’s lobbying in the arms race during the Soviet-Afghan war of the late 70’s.

What started as a covert operation with a budget of $5m spins out of control to an all-out war effort spending more than a hundred times that amount.

With stars like Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Emily Blunt, a screenplay by Aaron Sorkin and Mike Nichols at the helm, this is nothing short of a dream team. Still, the movie didn’t made its money back.

In my view, one reason the film didn’t work is because it ends ironically. (The reason it did work for me, is Sorkin’s addictive dialogue, and his masterful sense of scene structure)

In the McKee sense of the word, the resolution is a tainted victory. There is no clear happy ending. Wilson wins his war, but at the end of the film we are reminded of where the resources of this arms race ended up: with the Mujahideen – and by extension, the Taliban.

We don’t really need McKee to explain that this is also pure, literal irony.

Flawed Movie – Fabulous Scene

If Sorkin’s movies lack cinematic arcs, their individual scene structure makes up for it. Borrowed from stage theatre, he creates sweeping mini-movements that put the best visual screenwriters to shame.

How often do we find a well-constructed, meaty, dramatic scene these days? Pressured by the kinetic editing rhythm of today’s action movies, scenes are often kept too short.

This movie moment from Charlie Wilson’s War is the exception: a classic three-act scene structure with a spectacular climax, and the entire event clocking off at three minutes sharp.

Interestingly, the protagonist is absent; the scene introduces the supporting character of CIA spy Gust Avrakotos.

Hero For One Scene: Gust

In a spectacular collision between Gust and his superior Craigley, we learn all there is to know about Gust.

His CV is substantial, and he gives us all the fine detail. Yet, we happily swallow the expositional subtext, as the drama keeps us at the edge of our seat.

The exposition is subtextual because at the surface, it all starts about an apology. But when Gust arrives at the Langley office, the last thing he wants to do is apologise.

The function of this scene is simple: to introduce the character of Gust.

In my classes, I explain how the most important character aspects are (in order) psychology and sociology. Craigley tells Gust to his face that the reason he lost the Finland job is because he is coarse.

In the scene’s final act, Gust speaks five words that sum up his character’s function (or sociology) in this movie, as well as the scene’s reason d’être: “I am an American spy.”

This has been the subtext of the entire argument, ultimately floating to the surface in the climax.

Scene Structure – Mini Hero’s Journey

When we understand that the argument is no longer about the apology, but about Gust’s missed career opportunity, Sorkin signals this with a First Threshold: a tradesman opens the door, and interrupts the conversation. Scene structure emphasised by action and setting. Beautiful.

If you don’t believe this constitutes the mythical curtain between the scene’s first and second act, do read on.

Gust builds his argument, with tension increasing to the boiling point. At the mid point, things get personal. Gust goes so far that he risks losing his job – and in Hero’s Journey terms his identity – when he attacks Craigley ad hominem, by revealing he knows about an affair. This is the scene’s lowest point, or Ordeal.

Time for the Final Threshold, and guess what Gust does… He opens the door again, to find the tradesman!

What follows next, you’ll need to watch for yourself. Too good to spoil. Let’s skip to the aftermath moment.

In the Hero’s Journey, after the hero has completed the quest, he brings the elixir back to his people (here: “How was I?”), and he is hailed by the community for his achievement: thumbs up!

Pure class.

-Karel Segers

Karel FG Segers

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

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

I’m now also sure the Untitled Blade Runner Project is in the best possible hands. (And I shall henceforth refrain from making derogatory remarks about Canadian film.)

Sicario shows an astonishing directorial discipline, bringing the very best out of its creatives. Roger Deakins’ 2.35 : 1 widescreen camera work is glorious, Emily Blunt gives her best performance ever, and I adore the movie’s score. This picture does full justice to the cinematic format, and reminded me why sometimes it is worth leaving your house to go celebrate theatrical films.

[box style=”rounded”]I may be spoiling some elements of the film, but I will attempt to discuss them in abstracto.

PLAYING WITH FORM

Given the issues of point of view, Sicario is a difficult story to tell for the screen, but Villeneuve delivers the movie with an elegance that belies its challenges.

We open from the POV of FBI agent Kate Macer (Blunt), who gradually learns more about the enigmatic character of Alejandro (Del Toro). When we are ready and we ‘get’ him, we step into his point of view, to witness his actions – including the film’s climactic finale – in the first person. This device, whereby we learn about the main character through the eyes of an ‘exposition character’ reminded me of the first half of the 2^nd act of Inception. In that movie, we learn about of Don Cobb (Di Caprio) from the character of Ariadne (Page).

Only, Villeneuve goes one step further.

Just after the mid point, Alejandro takes a decisive action that promotes him to the story’s Hero. At the end of act 2, he is the character who transitions into the last act, leaving Kate behind.

The final 24 minutes are entirely his, and all Kate does, is complete her Inner Journey in her final shot.

MARKS OF A HERO’S JOURNEY

It took me a while to get into this film. Twenty-five minutes to be precise. Before that time, we see FBI agents killed in a gruesome victim recovery operation at a gangster’s house. Next, we are left in the dark about the future of the team leader, agent Macer, just as much as she is, herself.

What are the FBI’s plans with Kate? Is this an art film? A docudrama? At the exact 25 minute mark, Sicario reveals itself as a mythical story. Not a traditional one, but a powerful journey including all the essential archetypes and plot points of a full-blown quest.

So what happens after twenty-five minutes?

The Sicario Threshold Sequence

The Threshold Journey is the Hero’s travel into the special world. This is often a geographical trip from one place to the next.

At the same time, it is a psychological journey, as the Hero prepares to go into psychological territory that is unfamiliar.

So in a sense, a Hero’s Journey pretty much always shows its protagonist as a fish-out-of-water.

In Raiders, Indie travels from the university to Nepal, and then to Cairo, where the story will take place. This double journey emphasises that the hero is far, far away from home. In Star Wars: A New Hope, Luke travels first to Mos Eisley, and next into deep space.

In the Sicario Threshold, Kate Macer flies to El Paso first, and from there she crosses the Mexican border towards ‘The Beast’: Juarez. This is a monumental sequence, lasting nearly fifteen minutes. All along, our heroine doesn’t do much more than watch, from her seat in a convoy of five fast-moving black chevy SUV’s.

Watching it in awe, I instantly fell in love with the movie. Structurally it threshold resembles a Russian doll, and the border represents the crossing into the second act … of the threshold. You still with me?

Through impressive helicopter shots we see the landscape change; from Kate’s POV we witness the gruesome dangers of the special world, and meanwhile we keep on moving deeper into this foreign territory. The travel becomes increasingly suspenseful, until the cars finally stop. We are now exactly halfway the sequence.

On the way back, the Sicario threshold gets its own hair-raising climax, at the return border crossing towards the US.

The filmmakers clearly understand their threshold journeys.

Needless to say, this time I didn’t walk out.

– Karel Segers

(The clip below doesn’t include the full Threshold Journey. We cut just before a shot that is R-rated.
However, if you watch the video to the end, you will get access to a draft of Taylor Sheridan’s screenplay.)

https://ozzywood.wistia.com/medias/ozgxsxl4iq?embedType=async&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 original broadcasts were in standard definition, and in the old 4×3 aspect ratio. Only at the end of 2014 – seven years after the last season premiered – a remastered version was released in 16x9HD. For me it was a reason to revisit 60 hours of spectacular drama.

60 hours of spectacular drama.

The Wire immerses us in stories from the street, in drugs beleaguered Baltimore. We live with the dealers on the corners and among the high-rises, and we follow homicide and narcotics police struggling to curb the unrelenting death toll. We see the connections with politics, the role and impotence of the education system, and the power of the press.

The Wire is pure mythical storytelling. We get an insight into the Hero’s Journey of an addicted Baltimore homicide cop, and we learn about the complexity of a micro-cosmos that is very much a metaphor for modern day America.

David Simon

Creator and executive producer David Simon is one of the smartest show runners around. He managed to fit an issue as complex and far-reaching as the urban drug trade into a one-hour entertainment concept, without dumbing down characters and plot (much). The feat is simply mind-boggling. That said, the Hero’s Journey myth helped Simon in his sheer insurmountable challenge.

Creator and executive producer David Simon is
one of the smartest show runners around.

David Simon genuinely cares about his characters. All of them. Long after the show had aired first, Simon keeps lobbying for the plight of his cast, many of whom weren’t professional actors, but plucked from the streets of Baltimore.

The ‘war on drugs’ is effectively a ‘war on the poor’. The Wire is a dramatic testimony to this fact. In the series, Simon also shows us how politicians have a stake in the trade, and therefore will never make serious attempts to fight it.

The ‘war on drugs’ is effectively a ‘war on the poor’.

Hero’s Journey In A Serial

Given Simon’s tremendous integrity when it comes to representing the Truth, I didn’t expect him to build a Hero’s Journey. Rather like a docudrama, I thought he would waive a more realistic narrative, without a conventional ebb and flow, let alone neatly closed storylines. Looking at the individual episodes, indeed it seemed he didn’t stick to the classic 4-act ‘clock’ one-hour drama.

I didn’t expect him to build a Hero’s Journey.

Then, we approached the mid of Season 1, and I realised a few things. We had not seen the face of the Shadow character Avon Barksdale until well into the series. Hero McNulty uses his little sons when he shadows Stringer Bell, and for the first time his addictions are mentioned explicitly in dialogue (work, woman and booze). Meeting with the Hero’s Journey Shadow, things becoming personal, and awareness of the Hero’s flaw; three typical aspects of a strong mid point in any major dramatic story.

It doesn’t end there. As we move towards the end of the season’s 2^nd act, things get more and more difficult… and McNulty must approach his ‘inmost cave’. Like in every Hero’s Journey story, it means the character is facing his own weakness, and a confrontation with death…

Three typical aspects of a strong mid point
in any major dramatic story.

True Detectives

When True Detective was released, my industry peers raved about the long one-take shot at the end of Episode 4. Admittedly, it was an impressive feat. More impressive even, was the sense of scope, the relative powerlessness of the heroes under the circumstances, and the feeling of dread and impending doom.

While watching that shot in True Detective, I remembered something. There is this brilliant sequence towards the end of The Wire S01E10, an episode written by the core team of David Simon and Ed Burns; and directed by Brad Anderson (“The Machinist”).

More impressive even, was the sense of scope,
the relative powerlessness of the heroes under the circumstances,
and the feeling of dread and impending doom.

Officer Kima Greggs goes undercover to witness a drug deal. She is covered by colleagues, who are tailing her in several unmarked police cars, all ready to jump in, if and when necessary.

Then, things feel wrong… Kima has lost track of where she is. Street signs don’t seem to make sense… and furtive shadows approach the car. What follows is a brilliant, cinematic sequence, brimming with menace and suspense: The Hero’s Journey Ordeal.

Not a single note of music, other than the diegetic hiphop track from the car radio.

No need for subtitles.

-Karel Segers

[vimeo 128212971 w=900 h=504]

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!

Because of its incredible success, it is worth studying the Avatar screenplay and its story structure. With the top two highest grossing movies ever behind his name, writer/director Jim Cameron knows what he is doing. These are not studio-driven movies: they are personal obsessions. Titanic was Cameron’s excuse (and funding source) to continue his infatuation with the deep ocean, while Avatar is now apparently all he wants to do – ever again. The sequels Avatar II, III and IV, which the director is working on in his new home in New Zealand, are currently scheduled for 2017 and 2019.

The Avatar Screenplay

Avatar is in essence a simple ‘boy meets girl’ story within the action genre, and it covers a whole range of themes – if you want to see them – from environmentalist, anti-colonialist, to buddhist. The movie is long, but clearly not too long, telling from its success. The post-production script  was only 110p.

How come Cameron’s movies put half the planet at the edge of their seat? No-one – probably not even Jim himself – know. But I believe his understanding of mythical storytelling has something to do with it. The only way to connect with a planet-wide audience, is to tap into the mythology of the times.

The film abounds with mythical imagery and archetypes. Jakes doesn’t just have one mentor. He has three. In the Ordinary World, Colonel Quaritch gives him the life lessons; once on Pandora, Neytiri will take that function. During the transition from the one world to the next, Jake’s third mentor, the ‘threshold mentor’, is played by played by Sigourney Weaver as Grace. The last thing she says to Jake, just before the start of the Threshold sequence is “Just keep your mouth shut.” He is going into unknown territory and will have to let his mentor(s) lead him. Throughout the scene, Grace keeps giving Jake advise. “Don’t run,” but a moment later “Run! Definitely run!”

Join Cameron’s Screenwriting Class

Avatar has been lauded for its eye candy, but too easily despised for its screenplay. In my view, any critics just don’t like this type of cinema, as Cameron’s screenplays are excellent. In fact, many of his peers could learn from him. Cameron doesn’t have to deliver a script to the industry standard, or any standard for that matter. Yet his screenplays are prime examples for any beginning screenwriter: clear, tight, visual, well-formatted, and with clear, dramatic subtext written into the scenes where necessary. Don’t forget that these are action movies, after all.

Cameron has a brilliant action writing style, with ample use of double dashes (—) to build and keep suspense for the reader.

Alien for dessert

The threshold sequence opens as the crew flies into the jungles of Pandora. Have you noticed that we never see the choppers take off? We never even see them climb. In this sequence, we can only see them descend. Do you believe this is coincidence, when every Hero’s Journey begins with a descent into the Special World? I don’t.

Jake goes exploring and the tension rises gradually, as he passes his first few tests in this new territory, assisted by Grace and her team. The third test – the Thanator – chases him away from his mates, until he is completely separated, and there is no way back before nightfall. Again, all mythical imagery…

Have a look at how the Thanatos is introduced in the script:

You have got to admit: this is a fun read. James Cameron doesn’t have to sell his script as badly as you and I do. He has to raise financing, yes, but by the mid 2000’s, people were pretty confident that Cameron would deliver the goods.

“This thing could eat a T-rex and have the Alien for desert.”

Note also that in this Threshold passage, Jake loses his rifle and his backpack. These are typically tools from the Ordinary World, and they are of no use in the new world. In a mythical sense, Jake is stripped naked from all that protected him, ready to be reborn.

And guess where he ends up in the final moments of this sequence… amneotic fluid, also known as Pandora water.

– Karel Segers

[vimeo 117134935 w=960 h=540]

Download the Avatar screenplay sample here.

Karel FG Segers

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

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

by Alicia Lawrence

To prove my point, here are 10 things the Bible taught me about screenwriting.

We Need a Hero

The need for a hero is never more evident than in the life of Christ as depicted in the Bible. John 15:13 tells us, “Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” Isn’t that what’s expected of all heroes? Firefighters, policemen, mothers, fathers and all-around good guys are all expected to risk their lives to protect those who can’t protect themselves.

If you’ve studied scriptwriting, you might find it interesting that multiple stories in the Bible follows every single touch point on The Hero’s Journey. One touch point is “the supreme ordeal” where the hero hits rock bottom and is forced to deal with his possible death. Jesus’ death on the cross was his supreme ordeal; of course, he comes back to life to finish the journey and seize his prize.

The Enemy

Without a villain, of course, there’s no need for a hero. The ultimate villain, Satan, is depicted thusly in 1 Peter 5:8: “Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.” It’s a highly visual and frightening description. Who wouldn’t want to be saved from a lion in search of someone to devour?

A Big Fat No

Think about your favorite heroes: Superman, Bilbo Baggins from The Hobbit, and David Burke from We’re the Millers. What do they all have in common… they didn’t want to go on their journey! Bilbo gives the most obvious example of this when he plain out says he’s not going. However, all heroes who refuse the call at some point become fully committed to it and gets past their fear.

Multiple stories in the Bible follow every single touch point on The Hero’s Journey.

Meet the Mentors

Step four in The Hero’s Journey is an introduction of a mentor to help the hero cross the first threshold. Ruth’s mentor was Naomi. Esther’s was her uncle. Most of the famous characters of the Bible had some kind of mentor helping them through their problems.

No Turning Back

William Shakespeare called this part of the plot “The Undiscovered Country.” For Esther, it was when she married the king. If you look at the Bible as a whole, Jesus’ first threshold was being born. He knew he would have to complete his task by dying and rising again before being able to go home to Heaven.

The Underlying Message

I think this is the secret to a great script. You can have every single part of “The Hero’s Journey” but if you don’t have this then your script is only mediocre. What do you need? A lesson. The best movies and books have an underlying lesson for the audience. Lord of the Rings teaches us to fight for the good in the world. Obviously, the Bible is about salvation along with a million other lessons on how to live life.

What do you need? A lesson.

Make the First Line Count

If your first storyline isn’t compelling, you’ll lose most readers right away. Although you can start a story in many ways such as beginning with the end and telling the story through flashbacks, most writers choose to start at the beginning. So did the Author. Genesis 1:1 reads, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Who is God? How can I find out more about him? Keep reading, of course.

Sum It Up

As a scriptwriter you need to be able to sum up your plot in about 25 words. The most popular verse in the Bible is John 3:16. It reads, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” That single sentence sums up the entire Bible. It covers the topics of love, sacrifice, hope, faith and life.

Most People Like a Feel-Good Story

Horror stories, depressing documentaries and heart-wrenching biographies have their place, but most people enjoy a feel-good story. That’s not new to our generation. Jesus comes back to life and saves the world. Esther saves her people and reveals the villain. The point is the return back to normal life with the result or “elixir.”

That single sentence sums up the entire Bible.

There are plenty of moral teachings in the Bible, but there are also lessons to be gleaned about every facet of life — including screenwriting.

-Alicia Lawrence

Alicia is a content coordinator for Havahart Motion Sprinklers and blogs in her free time at MarComLand.com.

She graduated from Liberty University with a degree in video broadcast.

Photo credits: Graphic stock

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 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

If you liked this, check out more videos about screenwriting or filmmaking. And if you know of a great video on Screenwriting, let us know in the comments. Thanks!

Character Analysis by Jamie Wynen

Andrew Dominik’s (The Assassination of Jesse James, Chopper)  latest film is an adaptation of the novel 1973 crime novel Cogan’s Trade, starring Brad Pitt as the excitingly dangerous Jackie Cogan, Animal Kingdom veteran Ben Mendelsohn, and the implausibly named Scoot McNairy. No really, that’s his actual name. It sounds like the punch line in a dirty limerick, but you’ll recognize him from TV land (Bones, The Shield). Unfortunately, despite a variety of strong characters, the story has more cogs missing than a clock tossed into a minefield.

If you’ve got a powerful, flawed, empathetic protagonist, why would you introduce him well into the second act?

After two junkies stage a daring heist on the local crime syndicate, the crime lords decide to fix everything by the expedient method of wholesale murder. Pitt, looking as though he stepped off the set of Fight Club by way of a boutique leather fetish store, plays a professional hitman with an aversion to people begging for their lives, which is about as blatantly ironic as you can get. Yet Pitt creates a compelling, mysterious, and ultimately empathetic character that I wanted to see more of.

Which is the first problem with this script. If you’ve got a powerful, flawed, empathetic protagonist, why would you introduce him well into the second act? I spent the first thirty minutes thinking it was the trainwreck junkie Mendelsohn’s story, which is just bad writing when you’ve got Brad Pitt tearing through the city firing off twelve-gauge shotgun rounds and pithy one-liners like a homicidal Jerry Seinfeld. This is an extreme case of failing to enter the scene as late as possible – we’ve entered the entire film far too early, at the expense of a well fleshed-out third act.

But this amazing protagonist is still further mistreated – by which I mean he is indulged. Cogan has got everything under control, identifying problems and avoiding all conflict with smooth, masterful manipulation. When he does choose to step in and get his hands dirty, his strikes are surgical and precise, as calm and routine as a day at the office photocopying contracts. Sure, there’s more blood and teeth lying around afterwards, but Cogan is never challenged, never given the stimulus to grow. He never leaves his ordinary world. Not once did I feel like Cogan was in danger. The character would’ve been so strongly improved by the addition of just one powerful confrontation at the climax. Instead, he gets his way, almost every time.

The strongest major conflict in the film never comes to a head, and is resolved offscreen.

Obstacles, instead of being presented through powerful visual metaphor, are delivered via dialogue. A spokesperson for the crime syndicate blandly mumbles his way through exchanges that should have been burning with tension. The strongest major conflict in the film – a potential challenge from another assassin – never comes to a head, and is resolved offscreen. We only find out through dialogue. This is the kind of epic, tense clash of titans that cinema was meant for! Instead we’re watching characters sit in cars and tell us about it. Cinema is a visual medium, with dialogue functioning best when giving action contrast, context and reinforcement. When vital conflicts are occurring in quiet, bloodless conversation, your audience is going to drift off and miss it.

But how can obstacles be important if there’s no reason to overcome them? Cogan doesn’t seem to want anything, except to kill a bunch of guys for money. That’s not compelling, because there are no stakes. The only people with stakes are his prey, the soon-to-be-corpses who exhibit the understandable but ultimately futile wish to keep their blood inside their bodies. By contrast, what has Cogan got to lose? What has he got to gain? What makes us side with him? All he has to gain is money, which is fine as an intermediate goal but is pretty dull and uninteresting as a long-term desire.

Even the most realistic film is still a story being told…

Desire and need drives a film, and Cogan can’t supply those things because he doesn’t have a character arc. He’s not going anywhere except murder town. Though Cogan shows flashes of a human soul beneath the calculating murder-robot façade, it’s never expanded on, and that’s garment-rendingly frustrating.

Having said all that, I actually loved Killing Them Softly. The world is rich, devastated, and tragically beautiful. The characters are nuanced and well-directed, the fighting shockingly visceral to behold. This is a dark film, with aspirations of grittiness, realism, and the experience of living with despair. But even the most realistic film is still a story being told, and whatever cinema magic is to be found in this film didn’t come from the script.

Killing Them Softly is out 11 Oct 2011.

-Jamie Wynen

by Karel Segers

Jean-Claude Van Damme plays himself, a dead end, down-and-out Hollywood star who returns to retire in his home country. But when he wants to withdraw money, first there is none, then he falls victim to a hostage situation and the robbers force him to pretend he is running the show.

MUSCLES – AND MOVIES – FROM BRUSSELS

I was born in Belgium and had been away for eight years when in 2008 a wave of nostalgia befell me while watching JCVD, with – and about – my fellow Belgian Jean-Claude Van Damme. Remarkably, this film had a greater effect on me than the overall more accomplished In Bruges of the same year (in fact, the over-emphasized medieval backdrop in the latter film annoyed me).

this film had a greater effect on me than
the overall more accomplished In Bruges

In JCVD the filmmakers really capture the soul of my country and its capital Brussels as I remembered it from living there. More importantly, JCVD’s cinematic style reminds me of a peculiar tone and style, as seen in other Belgian films such as Man Bites Dog.

NOT FOR EVERYONE

JCVD is an equally bizarre piece in that it mixes realistic drama with tongue-in-cheek comedy while also taking a stab at the crime genre. The result is not without its problems. Add to this the frequent shifts in POV and the non-linear story structure and your mainstream audience stays away.

JCVD succeeds in poking fun at the way small-town people treat their celebrities – they don’t have many – and the capital of Europe really still is a small town. Having lived there for a few years, it’s also a big part of its charm. But the joke wears off and the story struggles to survive on the tension around the hostages.

At the mid point, traditionally things become more personal when the Van Varenbergs, Jean-Claude’s parents, appear to try and convince Jean-Claude to give himself up.

At the mid point, traditionally things become more personal

REDEMPTION OF A BAD, BAD ACTOR

The best moment of the film sits somewhere close to the end of Act II, it is a single take of nearly seven minutes in which Jean-Claude breaks the fourth wall and summarizes his struggles as a star. The movie character blends with the real-life Jean-Claude and we witness the redemption of a bad actor and a very bad boy.

In this one shot, Jean-Claude outclasses anything he ever did in terms of acting in his entire career. We see a handsome but fragile man in his late forties reflect on the things he did and now regrets. It is a metaphor for the end of the glamor and a metaphor for everyone taking stock of their lives.

In this one shot, Jean-Claude outclasses anything he ever did
in terms of acting in his entire career.

Time Magazine named Jean-Claude’s performance in JCVD the second best of the year, after Heath Ledger’s The Joker in The Dark Knight. “He deserves not a black belt, but an Oscar.”

Oss!

You can read the full monologue in English on IMDB.

– Karel Segers

(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!

by Karel Segers

Spoiler warning for season 2!

I’m really a movie person and the only series I watched religiously before 2000 was Twin Peaks. That’s one series in twenty years. Over the past ten years, I’ve had less time, I kicked out my TV set, yet I’ve watched more than ten times the amount of TV drama. Because that’s where the action is.

BREAKING BAD

When Walter White delivered his speech about chemistry in the pilot episode of Breaking Bad, the screenwriting fan in me could sense we were in for a treat. “Chemistry is the study of … change.” This brand spanking new TV character was talking about himself – only he didn’t know. Vince Gilligan, writer/creator did, damn well.

I had only just completed the final episode of The Wire when I was introduced to Breaking Bad on DVD. In The Wire, Jim McNulty ultimately redeems himself and changes in three fundamental ways. Now here was Walter White and with him the promise of yet another changing TV hero.

To hell with the naysayers claiming character change doesn’t matter. When will you wake up?

THE CENTRAL QUESTION

If you want to learn something important about screen drama that many don’t get, listen carefully. In the greatest screen stories – and Breaking Bad is a class example – the most important question is not ‘will the hero achieve the goal?’ or even ‘how will the hero achieve the goal’? The real dramatic question is: “what is s/he prepared to do?”

To hell with the naysayers claiming character change doesn’t matter.
When will you wake up?

The most interesting characters are those that need to change their ways – and/or the world – before they can get what they want. Walter White wants to make enough money for his family to be comfortable before he dies. From episode to episode, from season to season the same question pushes this character: Later, his goal may shift and perhaps it is no longer about looking after his family. Still, whatever the goal, that central question remains: How far is Walt prepared to go? This is really what draws us in and keeps us glued.

SEASON 2

Ask a fan about their favourite season and they’ll say: the last. Season 4 was driven by the mythical shadow character of Gustavo Fring, without any doubt one of most frightening villains ever.

(Random name drop: I had breakfast with Giancarlo Esposito once. He’s so lovely I could eat him.)

The real dramatic question is:
“what is s/he prepared to do?”

My favourite is Season 2. I loved the mystery of the teasers, the demise of Tuco and the introduction of Saul Goodman, Gus Fring and Mike but above all: femme fatale Jane Margolis. Jane is a mesmerising character and we completely understand Jesse’s infatuation with her. A perfection setup for the horror where she is cruelly ripped away from him and out of the series.

THE SCENE

Jesse has been caught in the seductive web spun by Jane and his downward spiral is happening right in front of Walt’s eyes. That night, Walt goes to Jesse’s place and finds the two deep asleep, spooning in a post-trip stupor. From here, every detail matters… Walt turns Jesse over and as a result Jane rolls on her back – a chilling payoff of the scene where Skyler turns her little baby daughter on her side, earlier in the episode. A moment later Jane coughs… She vomits and starts choking. Walt reacts… but hesitates. He thinks, watches and…lets it happen, allowing Jane to die.

There are so many reasons why this scene is just phenomenally powerful. First, it has been prepared carefully and Walt’s action pays off on many levels. At the beginning of the episode, his daughter is born. At the end, he kills the daughter of the man he has just had a profound conversation with at the bar. In the next episode, which concludes the season, his action will have a (literal) fallout with mythical dimensions.

This is not just TV drama. This is the building of a screen myth.

.

This is not just TV drama.
This is the building of a screen myth.

Here is a main character who has reached his lowest point and his decision not to act is more powerful than any action I’ve seen on the big screen for a long time.

Walt has made a clear choice, answering the question “How far are you prepared to go?”

– Karel Segers

(first published for ScripTips)

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!