by Karel Segers

I have been wanting to analyze this film for a long time because I love it so much. I like how we care for the bad guys, sometimes more than for the hero. I love how the movie has an unbelievably powerful opening sequence and to my taste the best L.A. based shootout in terms of impact and realism. Filmed nearly twenty years ago and still razor sharp and completely up to date.

On the other hand I was somewhat intimidated to take on the analysis because the film is so long and fairly complex – and it has so many fans! What to do with the two main characters. Dual journey? I wasn’t sure…

If you would like to understand this analysis, you must watch the film first. Remember that it is impossible to perform a proper analysis the first time around. You can’t do this ‘on the fly’ unless you roughly know what is going to happen.

And finally – if you are a writer, the objective of looking at a film in this way is to learn and apply techniques to your own scripts, so you can increase the chances of success. Of course each movie is different but even experienced craftsman like Michael Mann uses principles of storytelling he has learned elsewhere – or from experience. By understanding how this film works, you may be able to solve problems in your own story.

I surely don’t claim this is the way to analyze this film. Feel free to comment as I will most likely missed a few things here and there (and sorry about using Vincent/Hanna inconsistently).

So here it is. The journey of Vincent Hanna and Neil McCauley, in one hundred and sixty-three minutes.

SPOILERS: THE ENTIRE STORY WILL BE REVEALED

ACT ONE

Sequence A: The Money Transport Score – “They’re good.” (21mins)

00.00 TITLES
02.00 Neil dressed as paramedic, leaving train station.
02.30 Goes to hospital, takes ambulance.
03.30 Chris purchases explosives.
04.30 Vincent at home, making love.
05.00 Vincent has a shower; no time for coffee. “Outa time, babe.”
06.30 Justine’s daughter Lauren freaks out: she’s late for her dad.
07.00 Wayngro joins Michael in the truck, he learns they’re a tight crew.
08.30 Neil radios the others, all are wearing paramedics uniforms now.
09.00 The men put their masks on, the truck rams a money transport.
10.00 Security men call the police. The team know they have 3 mins.
10.30 One of the guards is deaf and ignores Wayngro’s requests.
12.00 Wayngro shoots the guard, the others are shot, too.
12.30 Police arrives on the scene, they’re too late.
13.00 The ambulance explodes.
13.30 Neil, annoyed, delivers the money to Nate, who asks what happened.
14.30 Hanna is on the crime scene, he represents Robbery – Homicide.
17.30 Hanna: The M.O. is that they’re good.
18.00 Neil, Trejo, and Michael at diner. Wayngro is kicked and warned.
19.30 Wayngro escapes

Our first big question: who is the main character? We need to know because we cannot talk about structure unless we know whose journey we are following. Structure is defined by the main character(s)’s goals – and the actions to achieve these.

We could assume that HEAT has a dual-journey structure but Neil’s goal is open-ended: takes scores. Vincent’s goal in this movie is very clear: catch the guys who robbed the money truck and killed the guards. This is a clear, visible goal.

Thematically, it is clear from this first sequence that TIME is a major factor. Lauren’s dad is late to pick her up and Vincent tells Justine he can’t have coffee because he’s “outa time”. Neil’s team work towards a strict timing of 3 minutes and although the police are notified while the robbery is ongoing, they arrive too late. This theme will be confirmed at the mid point, in the dialogue.

The Inciting Incident (I think both for Neil and Vincent) is the moment when Wayngro joins the team. The phrase “tight crew” foreshadows that he is going to disturb the equilibrium.
This first sequence is all Ordinary World and for Vincent The Call to Adventure happens when he realizes that he doesn’t understand the robbers’ Modus Operandi. “The M.O. is that they’re good,” he says. This is confirmed when  he finds that the explosives cannot be traced.

The sequence is closed with Neil’s Call to Adventure, when he realizes they’ve lost Wayngro, who now is a major liability. Later we see a Call to Adventure in Neil’s love journey, when he meets Eady.

Sequence B – Neil meets Eady – Vincent’s false start. (10 mins)

21.00 Neil at home, reflecting.
21.30 Chris and Charlene argue. Chris explodes and leaves.
23.00 Hanna says explosives are too common to trace.
24.00 Hanna at home, argues with Justine over getting home late.
25.30 Neil in book shop. Eady notices him.
26.00 Neil in diner, approached by Eady. He’s rude, then makes up.
27.30 Neil moves closer to her, asks questions.
29.00 Neil and Eady watching the city view together.
30.30 They kiss.

This sequence is the Refusal of the Call sequence for both characters. Neil is reflecting on what happened and Hanna starts investigating as if the robbers were of the regular kind. When he finds that the explosives are untraceable, his hunch is confirmed that they are the best. This is where his investigation will start properly.

Later we see a Call to Adventure in Neil’s love journey, when he meets Eady. Here, too, is a ‘refusal of the call’ as we will see when he leaves her place, he is not yet committed. But HEAT is not Neil’s story because his goal(s) are open-ended. He wants to keep being a robber but he also wants to avoid being caught. It is Vincent Hanna’s story because his goal is clear: ‘to catch the criminals’.

ACT TWO

Sequence C: Hanna finds first clue – Neil vs. Van Zant (22mins)

31.00 Neil leaves Eady’s place without leaving finger prints.
32.00 Hanna visits Albert for clues. He’s to meet his brother.
35.00 Hanna warns Albert: “Be there.”
36.00 Neil is briefed on the new job: $12m.
36.30 Van Zant orders to kill the thieves.
37.00 Nate tells Neil to call Van Zant to collect the money.
38.00 Neil talks with Chris about his gambling issues.
40.00 Neil to Chris: no attachments. But Chris; “the sun rises and sets with her.”
41.00 Don’s new job, recommended by parole officer. Boss is a jerk.
42.00 Neil calls Van Zant, details for the meet. He sees Charlene with man.
43.30 Neil confronts Charlene: “give him one more chance.”
44.30 Hanna meets Albert and his brother. A clue: “Slick.”
49.00 Hanna puts surveillance on Michael Cheritto.
49.30 Van Zant has set up Neil. Van Zant’s men are killed.
52.00 Neil calls Van Zant: he’s a dead man.

The fact that Neil exits Eady’s place without leaving finger prints proves that he is still in ‘pro mode’. But will he be able to sustain his professionalism? This feeds into the main theme of the film, also reflected in the title.

When Hanna goes to see Albert, it is his first scene in Act Two; his first action in the chain of events that will lead to solving the case. As a result of this, he will receive the first clue.

The theme is stated when Neil tells Chris he should be able to leave everything behind “in 30 seconds flat” when the heat (the Police) is on him. Chris responds with a line that will become beautiful irony later in the story. He says “the sun rises and sets with her”, setting up a weakness. Ultimately, however, he will be the only one surviving the story in freedom.

When Neil goes to see Charlene to encourage her to give Chris another chance, this could be because he cares for Chris – but it may also be to make sure the wall around his team reminds water tight.

We’re early in Act Two and this is where typically new characters are introduced, about whom we wonder: ‘friend or foe’? In Vincent’s story there’s Albert; in Neil’s story there is Van Zant, Don and Nate. Note that Nate is not strictly a new character but he’s new to the audience.

The subplot around Van Zant shows Neil’s professionalism. From how he acts in this storyline, we have hope he may do the right thing when challenged later in the story.

Sequence D: Neil feels the heat – calls off the score. (22mins)

53.00 Dinner with the families. Hanna and his men are watching.
54.00 Neil calls Eady.
55.00 Hanna etc. watch the ‘convention’, wonder who Neil is.
56.00 Wayngro kills a prostitute.
57.30 Wayngro in a bar, looking for a new gig.
58.00 Hanna and his men out with their wives. Hanna is called out.
59.30 Hanna at prostitute murder scene, keeps mother away.
61.30 Justine stayed alone at the dinner. Hanna: keep my angst.
64.30 Don and Lilian
66.30 Neil and Eady dreaming of moving to New Zealand.
68.00 Hanna and his daughter Lauren. She feels alone.
69.00 Hanna and his men at stakeout in truck
70.00 Neil and his men arrive for their next job.
71.00 Swat team ready. Neil is outside, hears a noise.
72.30 Neil calls it off.
73.30 Hanna doesn’t want an arrest now: they will walk.
74.30 Hanna and his men come out of the truck

When Neil calls Eady, we know he is serious about this relationship, raising the question further: “will he be able to sustain his professionalism?” The fact that he keeps his true identity hidden from Eady adds to this tension.

From the scenes between Hanna and his wife, it is clear he is unconditional in his commitment to the job. He admits this to Justine.

The sequence closes with another indication Neil is still sharp: he decides to call off the job when he feels the heat. This is an anti-climax, but following a highly suspenseful scene, marking the culmination of this sequence. Both main characters seemingly fail in their operation but they don’t make a mistake. They do the right thing in terms of their outer goals.

Mid Sequence: Hero meets Shadow, then loses him. (21mins)

75.00 Neil warns Chris: there’s heat. Chris needs the bank job.
76.00 Michael wants in: “The action is the juice.”
77.30 Hanna has Marciano: give up Charlene and Chris’ crew.
79.30 Neil plans something, while the police are watching.
80.00 Hanna goes to the location. Makes no sense. Looking at us. Neil takes photos of them.
82.30 Nate gives Neil maps for bank job, warns him about Hanna.
84.00 Justine is going out without Vincent.
85.30 Hanna in heli, following Neil.
88.00 Hanna stops Neil, go for coffee.
89.00 I do what I do best. Regular type life… Hanna opens up.
92.00 Hanna dreams of corpses. Neil dreams of drowning – no time.
95.00 All surveillance dumped at 9pm.

The mid sequence offers the last bit of levity before the movie goes into its sensational, dark second half. When Neil tricks Hanna, he seems to have the upper hand and loving it. This will change quickly: Vincent shows how easy it is to get him by stopping him on the highway – and inviting him for coffee.

In what is a legendary movie scene (and I believe the first time ever De Niro and Pacino were in the same scene), we have a classic meet of the Hero and Shadow at the mid point. You might argue there is even a bit of love and understanding going on between the two.

An ironic aspect of this scene is that, while normally the mid point makes things personal, here it is made clear that if they’d end up killing each other, it’s NOT personal. But I guess to the audience, this diner meet inevitably does make things personal. Often the mid point is set at an unusual setting for the movie. Certainly for cop and robber to meet over coffee is highly unusual.

Not how Neil’s dream foreshadows what will happen at the end of this story: he won’t have time to do what he wants to do and the drowning is just another way of dying.

As all great mid points, this one marks the Approach to the Inmost Cave, i.e. the characters are preparing to face their worst fears, to enter the Inmost Cave. They both state that they’re ready to kill the other. From now on they’ll have to live their lives in (each their) integrity – or die.

The Mid Point Reversal has a seeming victory, followed by a major setback. The victory is Vincent meeting with Neil, showing it’s fairly easy to get to him, should he need to. Immediately thereafter, all traces have gone. Can you see how this is the equivalent of ‘boy gets girl – boy loses girl’?

Sequence E: Bank robbery and shootout. (19mins)

96.00 Neil’s team prepares for the bank job.
[?] 97.00 Van Sant with Wayngro
98.00 Neil & team at diner, phone from Trejo: cops are on him.
100.0 Neil hires Don as the driver.
101.0 Eady is packing.
101.3 Bank job: they’re going in.
102.3 Bank job in progress.
105.3 Hanna hears of bank robbery, road blocks installed.
106.0 Neil’s team are coming out, Hanna sees them.
106.3 Chase on foot.
107.0 Into the car. Chris starts shooting.
110.0 Chris is shot.
112.3 Neil and Chris get away.
113.0 Michael takes a child, is shot by Hanna.
113.3 Lilian sees the TV news about Don.

Past the Mid Point, the Hero does all the right things, yet it becomes harder to make progress. For Hanna it’s clear that he is not winning yet as he fails to prevent the bank robbery – and people get shot.

The deaths of Don and Michael have weakened Neil’s team and show that things are changing for him. Eady is packing to leave with Neil, which is a great metaphor for his ‘approach to the inmost cave’. He will have to prove that he can unconditionally stick to his mantra, now the heat is on him. Will he drop everything and get out?

Sequence F: Ticking clocks – Running out of time. (17mins)

114.3 Chris gets surgery. Neil: meet you at Nate’s.
116.3 Chris calls Charlene: see you in two hours.
117.0 Neil at Trejo’s. He’s dying, “done by Van Zant’s men”.
119.3 Neil gets Van Zant’s address, asks for a new ‘out’.
120.0 Hanna believes he has 8-10hs to catch Neil. “After that he’s gone”.
121.0 Hanna tries to get intel from Van Zant’s aide.
122.0 Neil finds Van Zant, who refuses to give up Wayngro. Neil kills him.
123.0 Charlene is in safe house with Drucker.
124.0 Drucker pressures her: “Betray Chris for Dominic” (their son).
125.3 Hanna sends men to hotel, in case Neil goes after Wayngro.
127.0 Eady knows and runs off, Neil follows her.
129.0 Neil gives Eady cash. She asks how much longer… 22 hours.
130.0 Vincent finds Justine: “to demean myself with Ralph to get closure”.

In a long movie like HEAT it is crucially important to keep things moving. The ticking clocks are countless here: Chris tells Charlene he’ll see here in two hours. Hanna believes he only hs 8-10 hours. Neil gives himself 22 hours. This could be trouble for Neil.

But things are going like clockwork for him; a typical situation for the Antagonist/Shadow at this point in the story. All this while the Hero suffers setbacks one after the other, both in the outer journey (the case) and the love journey (his marriage). The final scene of this sequence can be seen as the Ordeal in that relationship journey: Justine has betrayed him – be it reluctantly – with Ralph.

But the darkest part of the movie is yet to come…

Sequence G: Vincent’s ordeal – Neil’s failed redemption. (16mins)

132.0 Nate has organised a plane for Neil.
133.0 Neil tells Eady she needs to choose. He wants to stay with her.
135.0 Police trap set for Chris. Drucker to Charlene: Show yourself.
137.0 Charlene signals to Chris. He gets away.
140.0 Hanna believes Neil is gone. All was in vain.
141.3 Hanna finds his daughter in bathroom after suicide attempt.
143.3 Hanna reunites with Justine at the hospital. “Not going anywhere.”
145.3 Nate calls Neil, who’s driving. So long.
146.3 Neil and Eady: home free.
147.0 Neil wants to “take care of something”. “There’s time.”

Vincent experiences two ‘all is lost’ moments (or ‘Ordeals’). First he believes he lost Neil for good, which would mean the failure of his outer journey. Next he finds Justine’s daughter unconscious in the bath tub after a suicide attempt. In this metaphorical ‘Inmost Cave,’ he is facing his worst fears – and possible death (Lauren). But he does the right thing by looking after Lauren and his Reward (Seizing the Sword) is Justine’s encouragement to go and do what he needs to do.

Neil, as the antagonist, is at his ‘highest point’. Everything is on track for him to get away and he gets overly confident, believing he can make the detour to deal with Wayngro. The irony however is that the movie’s theme gives away how this will end, i.e. both characters will move to the opposite of their current situation in Act Three. Vincent, who believed he ran out of time, will be able to track Neil down and deal with him. Neil, who said “There’s time,” will experience the opposite.

In this way for both characters the plot (outer journey) pays off beautifully on the movie’s theme and the characters’ choices.

ACT THREE

Sequence H: Neil kills Wayngro – Vincent kills Neil.(17mins)

147.3 At the hotel. Neil: “Right back.” Gets room number.
149.0 Neil sees police at hotel.
150.0 Neil triggers fire alarm.
152.3 Hanna goes to the hotel.
153.0 Hotel evacuation; Neil is at Wayngro’s room. Kills him.
154.0 Neil escapes. Eady is still in the car, watching.
156.0 Hanna arrives in heli at the hotel.
157.0 Neil sees Hanna and runs. Eady watches.
158.0 Neil runs to the airport, followed by Hanna.
159.0 Hanna shoots. Neil returns fire.
160.0 Chase. Neil hides. Landing lights come up.
163.3 Hanna sees Neil’s shadow and fires three shots. Neil dies.

The third act has a unique energy. The chase is a conventional 3-act, hero’s journey story stage (The Road Back) but the elegic musical score tones it down, foreshadowing what is to come.

The movie has a traditional third act resolution, in that the characters get the payoff they deserve within their own morality. Vincent has been consistent, loyal to his beliefs – he lives. Neil has put revenge before his mantra and pays for it with his life.

No-one will be surprised to see the ending, particularly after hearing Neil’s account of his recurring dream about drowning. Still, we feel for Neil. He had an opportunity to get out and have the life we wanted him to have. The final shot with Vincent holding Neil’s hand could have been melodrama but it isn’t. It is a moving moment in which both characters achieve their ultimate humanity and a masterful coda to a terrific piece of cinema.

Karel FG Segers

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

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAGE RANK FOUR!

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

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

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

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


THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS

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

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

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

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

NEXT POST

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

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

Karel FG Segers

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

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

“Film is made in the editing room. In the writing and in the director’s preparation you’re planning what you’re gonna do in the editing room.”

He then refers to the Russian theory of montage from the 1920’s, which was followed by the Brits in the next decade (and used later to great commercial success by Alfred Hitchcock a.o.).

Anybody with a real interest in the effect of montage, should really do some reading on Lev Kuleshov and what is still known as the Kuleshov Effect. Using this, one could build a case that, if story is structure (which is what Stephen Gaghan doesn’t like), therefore transitions are structure.

Isn’t it remarkable that seventy years apart, two Russians were telling the world about transitions in their respective art forms?

Gaghan writes like a director. Similarly, Michael Mann is already thinking of what he will do in the editing room and therefore writes his story from scene transitions rather than starting from the overall dramatic arc.

(originally published 06/05/2006, edited 31/10/2007)

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!

Jim Mercurio makes the following point about Gaghan’s comments in the notorious CS podcast: “Gaghan’s comments are showing that he is evolving from a screenwriter into a filmmaker. “

With ‘filmmaker’, he undoubtedly means ‘director’ and with his quote he hits the nail on the head. However, Mercurio makes it sound as if this is a natural evolution, when he goes on to explain how his own latest script too is told with transitions. All of a sudden Gaghan is fashionable, and screenwriters are re-inventing Tolstoy. Now let’s not forget the following facts:

1. Tolstoy was a novelist
2. Gaghan is NOT a meanstream screenwriter
3. Transitions do not stand in the way of proper story structuring

What everybody seems to be missing in this discussion is that transitions play on a shot level, or at best on a scene level. Story structure goes way beyond that. Whatever Mercurio may think, a screenplay written solely from transitions will most likely end up in the same tiny niche market as KOYAANISQATSI.

DVD: THE MANN SPEAKS

The same day I stumbled on the discussion above, I heard writer/director Michael Mann’s commentary on the Restored Director’s Cut of MANHUNTER.

Mann’s comments focus mainly on the parallel psychology of the serial murderer and the cop, besides a few killer anecdotes about production nightmares. My favourite: the airplane scene with the little girl freaking out over Will Graham’s bloody crime scene photos. The only way to shoot this was to book the entire film crew on a United Airlines flight from Chicago to Orlando without informing the airline of their plans, keeping all equipment as hand luggage. Mid flight suddenly these hundred or so people got out of their seats and started filming. No need to say that Mann could kiss his United air miles goodbye.

But let’s skip to the last few minutes of the commentary in which Michael Mann summarises his approach to filmmaking. “Film is made in the editing room. In the writing and in the director’s preparation you’re planning what you’re gonna do in the editing room.” He then refers to the Russian theory of montage from the 1920’s, which was followed by the Brits in the next decade (and used later to great commercial success by Alfred Hitchcock a.o.).

I don’t want to get too theoretical here, but anybody with a real interest in the effect of montage, should really do some reading on Lev Kuleshov and what is still known as the Kuleshov Effect. Using this, I could easily build a case to prove that transitions are structure. I’ll spare you that one for now. But isn’t it remarkable that seventy years apart, two Russians were telling the world about transitions in their respective art forms?

To conclude: Mercurio is right when he says that Gaghan writes like a filmmaker. Like Michael Mann, he is already thinking of what he will do in the editing room and therefore writes his story from scene transitions rather than starting from an overall dramatic arc. This approach to script writing is indeed in many ways similar to that of Hitchcock or Mann but I am sure those last two went through far less drafts than Gaghan.

BTW: Don’t rush out to get Manhunter from HMV or Amazon.com: unfortunately Mann’s commentary only features on a rare DVD which has been out of print for a while, which limits your options largely to eBay. But as a bonus from OZZYWOOD, you can download the last four minutes of Michael Mann’s director’s commentary here.

LOOSE ENDS: The First Act Monolith

Recently I watched BRUBAKER, not knowing anything about this 1980 drama directed by Stuart Rosenberg. If you haven’t seen the film but are planning to do so in the near future, don’t read on as I will spoil the pleasure (and surprise).

The film strays from the traditional structure mainly because of its offbeat First Act. For the life of me, I could not detect an Inciting Incident, nor any significant protagonist characterisation. Instead we witness from Robert Redford’s detainee character’s POV how the most appalling injustice and brutality is inflicted relentlessly upon the inmates.

Over thirty minutes into the movie, Redford’s character identifies himself as the new warden and announces in the same scene that he wants to force through some serious reform. Finally we have our 1st Act Turning Point. I am still trying to understand why the warden’s identity was kept hidden from the audience all along. Apart from a sudden surprise, it doesn’t add a thing. The use of dramatic irony (i.e.: the audience knows, but the other characters don’t) would have been much more powerful and it would have allowed for the badly needed character development.

Leading US critic Roger Ebert wrote about this film: “There’s no room for the spontaneity of real human personalities caught in real situations. That’s especially annoying with the character of Brubaker himself, played well but within a frustratingly narrow range by Robert Redford. “

Redford’s performance is rock solid given the material. BRUBAKER’s real problem is its flawed structure: half an hour into the movie, we have run out of screentime to sufficiently set up the protagonist’s character and potential internal conflicts. Redford didn’t have anything to work with, which makes Ebert’s comment rather unfair.

What the screenwriters did achieve quite well though, is the setup of antagonists and external obstacles in the way of the protagonist’s objective. Perhaps this explains why the film did work for me.

It still beats me though why BRUBAKER was nominated for Best Screenplay back in 1980. Perhaps it was a fluke. In my view, this theory gains strength when we look at co-writer W.D. Richter’s latest work: STEALTH…

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!

Rather than opening a dialogue about why THE INSIDER works for some people and not for others, Linda treated it as an example of a failed script. To her defense: it was only part of that night’s workshop and time constraints didn’t allow her to divert.

THE INSIDER not only put Russell Crowe on the celebrity map with a Best Actor Nomination, the movie was also nominated for another six awards including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay. That’s a pretty good result for a ‘failed script’. As a matter of fact, it smells a bit like my not so smart move to call WOLF CREEK a ‘missed opportunity’ in terms of screenwriting at the offices of Australia’s Film Financing Corporation.

Linda Aronson’s workshops got me thinking and inspired me to the idea of an online forum about issues like this and about story structure in general. Australia doesn’t have a screenwriting culture which recognises the importance of story development as opposed to script development.

We have an abundance of script assessment services happily charging writers hundreds of dollars for a full screenplay assessment without assessing the story’s overall dramatic structure first. Does any established producer / government funding body / Hollywood Studio read a full-length spec script without judging the story outline first? Right.

But enough of this sub plot for now. Back to the main story.

THE INSIDER – SCHINDLER’S LIST

I don’t recall Linda’s argument about THE INSIDER in detail as I have the arrogant habit to shut down when I am not allowed to argue my point. In essence, I believe the bottom line was: the casting of Al Pacino shows that the filmmakers considered his character the protagonist (Russell Crowe was pretty much a nobody on the international scene until that movie) but Pacino’s character is too weak and underdeveloped to carry the movie for its runtime of over two and a half hours.

A lot of movie buffs (including members of the Academy) will agree that THE INSIDER worked, despite its slightly unconventional structure. Linda is right: the script does not follow a straightforward three act plot.

Instead I believe here are two main stories with three acts each, hooked into each other very much like SCHINDLER’S LIST in which we first follow Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley) who’s objective it is to get as many Jews into the factory as possible. Once we are well into his journey’s second act and over an hour into the film, Schindler (Liam Neeson) witnesses the clearing of the Krakow ghetto which demarcates his first act’s turning point. Now his objective is to get the workers out of the factory and into safety. Think about it: the Schindler character doesn’t really have a strong enough dramatic objective to get the story to that point. But Stern does.

Similarly, in THE INSIDER it is Wigand’s (Russell Crowe) Second Act objective to get his inside information safely to Bergman (Al Pacino), at which point we’re already into Bergman’s Second Act, which is all about getting the information to the public through his television show. Obviously we are now only talking about what Vogler would call the Hero’s Outer Journey, i.e. the ‘visible desire’. But I believe the Inner Journeys of these characters very much follow the same structure.

I would love to hear your view on these (admittedly rudimentary) story analyses. To me these two movies illustrate that:

– it is a myth that a movie should have three acts.
– it is a must that major characters have three acts.

However…

SYRIANA recently scratched a thin layer off my confidence in the traditional three act story structure. For a short while at least. To say that writer/director Stephen Gaghan is not really a slavish follower of the Syd Fields and Robert McKee’s of this world, is a bit of an understatement. Instead he learned from reading Tolstoy’s diaries in which the novelist explains his four main driving principles, the first of which is NOT “story”. Instead, in order of priority Tolstoy lists: Transition, Context, Story and Character.

McKEE vs. TOLSTOY

Clearly, this approach to screenwriting works for Gaghan who won earlier accolades with his script for Soderbergh’s TRAFFIC. Showing structural similarities with the latter film, SYRIANA paints a multi-textured, multi-protagonist tapestry giving us a hint of an insight in the complex issues that govern the world of the oil trade and middle-eastern politics. If you dig it, it’s riveting cinema and you’ll want to watch it again. If you don’t, you certainly have a valid reason for that.

SYRIANA is a brilliant piece of screenwriting but it appeals to the mind rather than the heart. Because of that, I don’t believe this type of political manifesto will mobilise the masses any time soon. Audiences today firstly want to be emotionally moved rather than intellectually engaged.

The above consideration is only an introduction to what I find one of the most entertaining discourses on screenwriting I have recently heard. In a podcast of nearly 90mins, Gaghan talks to CREATIVE SCREENWRITING MAGAZINE about his journey to screenwriting stardom, about his writing process and of course: SYRIANA.

Go to CREATIVE SCREENWRITING to find out how to download this podcast as well as other Q&A’s with the writers of CAPOTE, THE SQUID AND THE WHALE, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE etc. If you can’t find it, send me an email and I might point you to it.

DVD COMMENTARIES

Not a lot of DVD’s come with a commentary that is useful from a story or screenwriting perspective. Hence the excitement when we do find one that sheds a good light on the movie from the writer’s pov.

Hitchcock’s NORTH BY NORTHWEST comes with a commentary track by Hollywood legend Ernest Lehman. And although he doesn’t go into a lot of detail about the actual writing process, he reveals a goldmine of facts and anecdotes about his working relationship with Hitch. Ironically, it’s another movie that wasn’t written following the screenwriting text books.

Speaking of which: a great analysis of NORTH BY NORTHWEST can be found in a work that I have been recommending a lot lately: Paul Gulino’s SCREENWRITING – THE SEQUENCE APPROACH. This book offers only about twenty pages of theory, followed by a thorough dramatic analysis of such great and diverse works as LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, DINER, ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST and TOY STORY. The basis is the Aristotelian Three Act model, the principles of drama and anticipation as taught by the late Frank Daniel.

LOOSE ENDS (potential spoilers warning)

THE WORLD’S FASTEST INDIAN: Wonderfully crafted feel-gooder. The only problem with this movie is its title. A more appealing label would have drawn even more people to the Box Office and made word of mouth easier. Hopkins is sensational and most side characters go beautifully against cliche. Somebody on IMDb calls it “A Chick Flick for Guys”. So true.

V FOR VENDETTA: When your name is Wachowsky, you don’t have to worry about story structure or character development. As long as you have a strong concept, the fans will queue. I applaude the subversive concept of portraying Guy Fawks as a hero but I wish I could have loved this movie more. The story would have been helped with a more rigorous development of the V / Evey relationship. Also, the Wachowsky’s have the bad habit of leaving their heroes for too long, one of the problems I seem to remember sunk Matrix III.

THE PROPOSITION (DVD): Have a look at it from a story structure point of view. I sincerely enjoyed it until the scene when Captain Stanley (Ray Winstone) throws the keys to the jail in the sand. To me this marks the end of the second act, which comes way too early in the movie. It also takes the wind out of the sails of the Stanley / Martha subplot which up until that point had been really nicely developed.

KING KONG (DVD): If you don’t like the 1933 original, you probably won’t like this one either. After all you’re expected to empathise with an ape and his consenting playmate. Despite the groundbreaking and breathtaking visuals in Jackson’s KONG, the real action after The Longest First Act in Human History (that is not counting SCHINDLER’S LIST) starts with a dino stampede which just briefly looks downright clumsy. But I didn’t mind it and the FX only get better towards the movie’s phenomenal finale on top of the Empire State.

In terms of Jackson’s (or rather: Fran Walsh’s) structure and drama skills, I’d like to refer again to a great article in Paul Gulino’s SCREENWRITING – THE SEQUENCE APPROACH in which the author makes a razorsharp analysis of THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. It shows weaknesses that have been largely ironed out in the later installments of the trilogy and now also his version of KING KONG.

But I think I love this movie for a different reason. Peter Jackson is one of the very few living directors who can handle a colossal production like this and still retain a fresh, innocent and boyish feel. You forget the years of preparation and the sheer unmanageable machinery involved in getting this on the screen. It’s the type of magic which George Lucas has long lost.

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!