So here I am about to approach three years in L.A. (June 10 to be exact) and I feel the need to share my journey once again despite completely falling off the radar for well over a year with this confronting piece of my Hollywood sojourn.

As I look back, it’s been an up and down rollercoaster ride full of trials, tribulations, emotion and adventure. But then what else was it ever going to be. While I have disappeared for months at a time (across social media, email and more), I am still alive, I’m still kicking, and I’m still flying the flag as best I can.

 To be honest, that’s not always been easy. In fact, it’s been bloody hard at times.

 There have been days where I have wanted to be anywhere else but this city. I’ve not left the country, let alone this state, in the three years I have been here, and if you know me you know how much I love travel. So it feels like I have been going stir crazy. 

 But I found some solace as I discovered but then subsequently lost a relationship – my first here in the U.S and my first in over three years. And while I look back on that year we had with mixed emotions, I can only smile and say thank you to one very special woman who took her own serious leap of faith, and embraced me and my journey and in the process turned me into an even greater version of myself than I could have ever imagined. I am forever changed as a result. 

 But she wasn’t the only woman I had to say goodbye to that year.

 I lost a grandmother and step sister all within six months of each other last year but I didn’t go back. I was super close to my gran and she used to take great delight in reading these articles. I miss her, and writing postcards from abroad just isn’t the same.

I left Australian shores knowing I may never ever see her alive again. But it was with her gentle words of encouragement that I was able to make peace with that cold, hard reality.

 When she died last Mother’s Day, not only did I cry as the news filtered through, but I also had a beautiful vision of her that morning. She appeared before me and whispered: “Keep writing.” It was a profoundly affecting vision.

While all this disquietude, chaos, and loss was going on around me, somehow the only thing keeping me sane was my writing. And thank fuck! Because I am not sure where I would have been without it.

 I found myself sinking into a slow depression-like state during July yet I kept writing. My relationship was breaking down all around me but still I wrote. My grandmother passed, I wrote. My step-sister slowly had her life taken away after battling a brain tumor for years, more writing.

In the space of that one year, while my entire world was collapsing around me (even now I can shed some tears if I allow myself to reflect), my writing was my saviour. I wrote more than I ever have, I became more professional than I’ve ever been, and I churned out four feature scripts over the course of that year. One of which I pitched and which subsequently beat out over 40 other submissions vying for the gig.

 After my relationship broke down I also found myself in the position of moving out of the only apartment I had ever known during my entire time here. I stepped up as a man and offered my ex-girlfriend the space. A space that no longer felt like home. A space that allowed her a better chance to survive in this town than me.

I then found myself in North Hollywood, and while that sounds glamourous, it really isn’t. There are two very distinct parts to North Hollywood. The cooler, funkier ‘Arts District’ and what is unaffectionately called, “the ghetto”. Somehow I went from the clean, green, central beauty of Studio City, to a dirty, dry backwater Mexican suburb (nothing against Mexico).

From a private, spacious, comfortable apartment for myself and my girlfriend, to a smaller, cramped two bedroom place with two other guys – one of which slept on a couch in the lounge room.

 At times I have felt embarrassed by my living situation but this town can be brutal and sometimes you are forced to go backwards to move forwards. But when you are freelance copywriter and the Australian dollar drops (and hard), you are forced to make some serious changes.

 I hated going to bed alone. I didn’t like where I now found myself. I was miserable.

While I never ever lived above my means, I had to go where I could afford. It made me withdraw even further and made me truly understand the definition of humble, but what was more important, to look myself in the mirror and ask some very genuine, honest questions of myself.

 But it has all served to only strengthen my resolve and succeed where many others would have failed, fled or simply given up.

 My year turned and I met and fell into the most amazing, supportive writing group I have found during my time here, after I was fortunate enough to be accepted into a new writing program I applied for.

 It was the first time I felt ‘home’ among like-minded people. A writing group that despite my repeated searches and hopes, I had never ever found in the two years prior.

 And now this group of people I can call friends. How I have craved that. As I retracted from the outside world, I found my friendship base here shrink. In part due to changing dynamics as others disappeared, while a couple of others put their head down to become more professional themselves but also because I was seeking something deeper from myself, my writing… my heart.

It’s a writing group that’s made up of some talented and successful people where I have seen their valuable input and feedback further enhance, improve and rocket my writing skyward. A group of only seven other people who I get enormous pleasure from in so many ways. I cannot thank them enough.

Somehow I overcame a very tough, emotional year and became not only a greater writer for it but a kinder, more sincere, more authentic and honest me.

It’ll be three years in June since I first made the leap, and it’ll be three years I will celebrate in my own quiet, genuine way as I look back. I’m thankful for how far I’ve come, for what I have achieved, for where I now find the level of my writing, but most important of all, where I now find myself as a man.

So raise a glass and cheer on a man who continues to stare down this town. A man who is not afraid of a single thing. A man who will not make up the numbers. A man who will succeed. Because I have faced hardship, loss, death and yet I continue to smile and write.

Here’s to an even greater year of writing, greater success, greater wealth, and so much more as I continue to pursue dreams, my passion, and love.

– Mark Rasmussen

Mark Rasmussen

Mark Rasmussen has been a professional writer for over 15 years. He has written and produced three short films (two of which have IMDb credits), as well completed four features. One of his films ranked inside the Top 10 for the World Wildlife Fund competition (WWF). He is currently working on three feature scripts, two book adaptations, a TV pilot, and a web-series, as he increases his thirst for great writing and storytelling.

by The Judges

The Lost Kelly Gold

“When a search for Ned Kelly’s lost gold becomes a life or death battle, it is up to an introverted young Goth to stand up to the murderous local cop hunting them.”

The judges’ verdict:

Steven: “It seems highly unlikely that a Goth would leave the comfort of the city to go out bush hunting for some merely rumoured treasure. What compelling motive would he have to leave his apartment? How could such an incurable urbanite be naive enough to go chasing fabled pots of gold? The antagonist, at least, is effective. And the protagonist is nicely under-matched against him. A more credible protagonist would be some simple, young, honest farmhand who wants the gold to settle down with his town sweetheart. A corrupt cop certainly is a stark contrast against him.”

The antagonist, at least, is effective.

James: “Because the protagonist is so random in this scenario it feels almost like s/he was thrown in just to mix things up. The simple way around this problem is to change the way you have written the logline. Start out with what the Goth is doing out (presumably) in the bush. ‘When an introverted Goth is forced on a bush walk s/he discovers…’ then you can lead into her discovery of the gold and how s/he is the only one able to stop the murderous cop It’s always better to start with the inciting incident rather than the first major plot point in a logline.     ”

It’s always better to start with the inciting incident

And Death Rode With Her

“When a grieving medic with deadly powers resists induction into the horsemen of the apocalypse, she must battle the remaining three in order to save the world”

The judges’ verdict:

Steven: “The logline is almost camp as it is. Assuming that this is not meant to be a spoof, more clarity is needed here. A “grieving medic” is an interesting character to start with. Saying she has “deadly powers” is too vague. Some readers will lose interest just there. Then going on about the “horsemen of the apocalypse” brings the whole thing down to apparent silliness. As there is no clear connection between someone who is suffering the very personal experience that is grieving and a sweeping mystical battle that will shake the world.”

  A “grieving medic” is an interesting character to start with

James: “This logline suffers from giving too much away, which is remarkable as its only 27 words. With most good movies there’s going to be two goals for the protagonist. The first one takes up the first half of the film and the second one comes in at the mid-point; this one is an extension of the first. This logline gives away what that second goal is for the protagonist, to save the world. I think it would read much better if rather than having to battle the other 3 to save the world…’she must discover why she has been chosen to join this sacred order at the risk of creating world chaos’ or something like that.  By putting this in the logline rather than jumping right to her final goal it implies that there will be more to the film than simply a 2 hour fight sequence.

This logline suffers from giving too much away

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below. Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible. The objective is to all (that includes us, judges) learn from the exercise.

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

To read the full reviews and those from casual visitors, go to www.loglineit.com.

The Judges (click for details)

If/when you have seen the movie, tell us in the comments what you think of it.

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!

by The Judges

Judgment at Armageddon

“A scientist builds a satellite system that ends World War III; then must find a way to disable it to prevent another holocaust in the battle of Armageddon. “

The judges’ verdict:

Steven: This logline is a bit confused and circular, as it currently stands. A satellite system prevents WWIII yet needs to be disabled during some later world war? The why and the how is left too unsaid. Greater clarity is needed to prevent a reader from scratching their head and just moving on. Try “A new orbital guardian system is equiped with artificial intelligence that can swiftly cut short any explosive war. When the machine intelligence calculates that a small population is an acceptable loss, its inventor must turn against it.””

Greater clarity is needed to prevent a reader from scratching their head and just moving on

James: “The story line is a little confusing. You may need to add in some dates or something like ‘as a result of this satellite being built’. However apart from the confusion, this logline still possesses some strong elements. It has the protagonist, the first act is clearly laid out with a clear goal for the second act. I’m just curious as to whether there is an antagonist. Or is the satellite acting here as a pseudo-antagonist? Sorting out its clarity will definitely help improve the logline here.  ”

Is [there] an antagonist?

Remember the Malmo

“A small Texas border town fights for its independence from Mexico and the U.S. after an earthquake changes the course of the Rio Grande River and makes it an island.”

The judges’ verdict:

Paul: “You need to personalize it. Who’s the hero of the story? Is it the leader of the town? Someone needs to represent the parties involved on a personal level or we simply won’t care. Also, what are the consequences if it doesn’t gain independence?”

  Who’s the hero of the story?

Steven: “Interesting and different premise, certainly. Top marks for originality. But there’s the big hole of why would the former Texas town suddenly want independence. Being suddenly surrounded by water does not cut it by itself. Unless this town has a population of, say, far right survivalists and/or right-to-bear-arms types. (In which case this needs to be specified in the logline for the sake of clarity.)”

Interesting and different premise, certainly

James: I think that changing the order of the words here will make a huge initial difference. Try, “After an earthquake changes…a small Texas border town must…” this creates a nice cause and effect in the reading of the logline. Secondly this has to have a a central character. Every movie has at least one central character. If it doesn’t then don’t bother writing it. In the logline you have to highlight who he/she is and what her/his place in the story is.

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below. Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible. The objective is to all (that includes us, judges) learn from the exercise.

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

To read the full reviews and those from casual visitors, go to www.loglineit.com.

The Judges (click for details)

by The Judges

Ripper

“A promising young surgeon is appointed by the Queen’s Secret Court to eliminate an alien threat from the slums of London before it destroys the Aristocracy.”

The judges’ verdict:

Karel: “I LOVE IT! Only two things I wonder: Is there a character journey? “Promising young surgeon” sounds like a flawless character. Following from this: the logline as it is may or may not suggest a dilemma. Is ‘destroying the aristocracy’ a bad thing? This could be a story about the class of the classes and the surgeon may have reasons to allow the aliens to achieve their goal.”

Is there a character journey?

Geno: “I’m just slightly thrown by the mash-up of subject matter- the Queen, a doctor and aliens. They don’t seem to jive for me. if you have to explain it, it doesn’t work. You seem to have the right elements, but I don’t see the tie-in between them”

I’m just slightly thrown by the mash-up of subject matter

Steven: “Where this story has the most potential, I think, is an alternate-Earth setting (such as Steam Punk). Where the British Empire has continued on into a modern technology setting. Yet this same Empire anachronistically and stubbornly perpetuates old English traditions (such as colonialism, feudalism, racism, etc). In such a milieu, the reader could see that attacking the aristocracy would make a real difference to that society. This same milieu would be ripe with possibilities for political and social commentary as well (a potential bonus selling point).

Blood and Fire

“A brash missionary and a local gang must set aside their feud and defend their village against a violent drug cartel.”

The judges’ verdict:

James: “First of all I would try and emphasize the protagonist and little more. By simply saying “A brash missionary must team up with…” you’ve automatically made him the centre of the story (then throw him a nice flaw). Next there needs to be a clearer goal. With this the goal for the protagonist is clear, stop the cartel. With this kind of story though I think that you need to give the cartel a better goal, that is a reason for why they are destroying this town and in this the answer for why the town needs saving in the first place may appear.”

  I would try and emphasize the protagonist and little more

Steven: “Fundamentally, I see this as having legs. That two bickering rivals have to unite to face a greater threat has a classic story quality to it. The main thing that the logline lacks is a bit of atmosphere. A little more to imply either the tone of the film or to tell us a bit more about the protagonist. Mind you, “brash missionary” is an interesting and unexpected character description. Top marks for that!”

That two bickering rivals have to unite to face a greater threat has a classic story quality to it

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below. Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible. The objective is to all (that includes us, judges) learn from the exercise.

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

To read the full reviews and those from casual visitors, go to www.loglineit.com.

The Judges (click for details)

by The Judges

Works of Fiction

“A reclusive writer discovers the murders in her novels are becoming reality before they hit the shelves and must work with a suspicious FBI agent to find the killer and clear her name.”

The judges’ verdict:

Patrockable: “Stranger than fiction meets murder mystery! It’s an intriguing premise with all the right elements, including character flaw, goal and stakes. But how do we keep it under 25 words? Here’s my take: ‘When the murders in her novels become a reality, a reclusive writer must prove her innocence by finding the killer.’ ”

It’s an intriguing premise with all the right elements

Steven: “The fundamentals here are right. Clear stakes. Flawed protagonist. An interesting supporting character who has good reason to be supsicious of her. An interesting enigma: Copy-cating murders happening before any regular novel reader could know about them. The only thing I would suggest is to add to the protagonist’s apparent meekness. Making her elderly or disabled, for example, to enhance the apparent preposterousness of her being the killer herself”

An interesting supporting character who has good reason to be supsicious of her

Before Tomorrow Comes

“After returning to the present from a horrifying future he is responsible for, a disillusioned software developer must bring down the corporate giant he works for.”

The judges’ verdict:

James: “I’ll start off by saying that this is a clear logline. It has all those elements that make up a great logline, main character with a flaw, a goal, a clear inciting incident and a clear second act. However sometimes this just isn’t enough. When writing a logline for a high concept idea such as this one a little ‘flavour,’ needs to be added to help create the world and demonstrate what makes this so different. For example state what type of corporate giant it is he works for. This will help clarify the genre of the film. Also describe what is so terrifying about this future. Is his wife dead or is the world now controlled by giant lizards? Two very different scenarios that both fit into this vague logline.”

 A little ‘flavour,’ needs to be added to help create the world

Patrockable: “Intriguing. Two suggestions: What is the horrifying future? Describing this would really help flesh out the stakes. And can the goal be reworked to make the genre clearer? “Bringing down the corporate giant he works for” could mean action, sci-fi or political drama.”

Describing this would really help flesh out the stakes

Steven: “A tauter and more effective rendition would be: “An alcoholic and disgraced software developer is abruptly shown [or taken to] the horrific future his greatest work will be instrumental in creating. Shocked by this revelation, his last candle flame of idealism must overcome both his self-doubt and the giant multi-national that now owns all his work.”

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below. Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible. The objective is to all (that includes us, judges) learn from the exercise.

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

To read the full reviews and those from casual visitors, go to www.loglineit.com.

The Judges (click for details)

by The Judges

Untitled

“When a policeman’s family is kidnapped by a sadistic crimelord he must kill a rival crime boss to save his family.”

The judges’ verdict:

Steven: “More is needed here to hook interest. For example, is the cop the rival crime lord’s brother, or even son? (That would work well with the sadism trait.) Or is the cop an ex CIA or infiltration expert? (Which suddenly makes sense why the cop has been chosen over the regular goons.)”

More is needed here to hook interest

Patrockable: “Strong sense of genre. Cool goal. And high stakes! But the main character’s a bit bland. He needs a flaw. Also, something to consider: maybe not a cop? It might be too easy for a cop. Could we make him a librarian? A data analyst? Making it hard for the hero spices up the story. (Although it might mess with the sense of genre!) And very lean.”

The main character’s a bit bland

Sheep among Wolves

“When a privileged naïve young woman is attacked by an enraged lunatic accusing her of assassinating his wife, her sheltered world comes crashing down around her with the possibility he may be right.”

The judges’ verdict:

James: “This has the right idea but is just far to wordy. 25-30 words at the most is all that a logline should be. This one tries to use every adjective possible to describe the characters. The problem with this is that we go into the film with our minds already made up, this means that the characters never really stand a chance to develop in our minds. Secondly a goal is needed. The opening is good, we have the inciting incident but there’s know real indication of where the story will travel in the next act. After the first plot point is given away try something like …”She must then prove that this is not the case before (he goes to prison for murder?)’ Just a thought. ”

 We have a clear protagonist with a flaw.

Steven: “Bad choice of words here. And inefficient in other parts. For example, instead of saying all of “privileged naive young woman” you could just say “debutante” or “debutante princess”. Instead of labelling her attacker immediately as an “enraged lunatic”, create sympathy and credibility for him by first describing him as “a man whose wife was murdered”. If the reader is first told his motivation, then we will not so quickly dismiss his rage and desperation. Readers (including execs) are not interested in plain lunatics. But they WILL be interested in someone driven to ‘mad’ measures for a good and understandable reason. Always treat your characters with respect. Even supporting characters.”

Always treat your characters with respect

Patrockable: You’ve created an interesting main character and antagonist, but she needs a goal! And what are the stakes? It’s bad to be attacked, but what is the danger after? Does the antagonist continue to threaten her? Will the police arrest her unless she proves her innocence?”

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below. Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible. The objective is to all (that includes us, judges) learn from the exercise.

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

To read the full reviews and those from casual visitors, go to www.loglineit.com.

The Judges (click for details)

by Jonathan Empson

Films could have sex and violence and bad language. Yum.

These days, that’s all changed. Everything’s HD, digital effects are cheaper and televisions are bigger, so TV writers are able to ‘upsize’ their average scene from being just two blokes talking in a small room. Hence creature-feature series like Falling Skies and sweeping period dramas like The Borgias look cinematic rather than cheap and cheesy (check out the 1980s Borgias series for comparison). And subscription TV has allowed for more ‘adult’ material to be broadcast.

These days, film is pretty much having to justify its existence.

It’s currently doing so by outspending TV, either on big-budget international franchises (Spider-Man, Batman, Bourne and Bond in 2012) or on multi-star ensembles (What to Expect When You’re Expecting etc). Or ideally, both (Avengers).

But those of us who don’t already have George Clooney attached to our scripts are going to be asked by agents, producers and funding bodies, “Why is this a film?” And specifically, “Why would someone pay to see this at the cinema?”
I’ve been asked that about two of my recent feature scripts, including Leonardo’s War, a (surprisingly factual) historical comedy about Leonardo da Vinci’s rivalry with Michelangelo. It’s full of Renaissance cityscapes, battles and gigantic artworks (with Clooney playing Leonardo, obviously). The stuff of cinema, surely? Well, apparently not. In the words of one agent,

The fact that The Borgias can be made for TV kills the period film.
If you can grab a slice of historical drama without moving from your sofa,
why the fuck would you pay to see the same thing in a cinema?”

Cinema’s stuffed, then…

Of course, some stories will work only as stand-alone features because they’re about one-off events. It’s hard to imagine, say, The King’s Speech or Margin Call as TV series. But from the scripts, it’s easy to imagine them (with less stellar casts) as made-for-TV movies. And those can be a hard sell – in Australia at least – because TV networks don’t like one-off dramas: they like series that can draw a regular audience. That’s probably why it took David Seidler 20 years to get The King’s Speech made.

So, you may have to ask yourself not whether your movie works on TV,
but if it could work as a TV series instead.

I’m using the word ‘series’ loosely, as these days it’s pretty rare to find a show where episodes are entirely stand-alone and viewable in any order, as was once the case with Colombo, Magnum or the average old sitcom. TV networks used to like such ‘pure’ series because it didn’t matter if you missed the first episode(s): you could join in later after your friends told you how good it was. These days we have endless ‘encore viewings’, video on demand and hard-drive recorders, so most series have at least a few serial elements – usually character back stories or developing relationships – that play out over multiple episodes/series and engage viewers long-term.

Such longer arcs are still pretty light-on in shows such as Castle, Covert Affairs and Person of Interest, but Downton Abbey – a classic example of turning a movie (Gosford Park) into a TV show – is a pure serial.

Most shows walk a middle ground, with a story-of-the-week A-plot
mixed with B-plot and other threads that span other episodes.

It’s the typical cop/legal/medical series format, which is why they’re enduringly popular – think The Good Wife, CSI, House. Most cult series, meanwhile, extend the plot alphabet down to V and W over five or more seasons – think The Wire, Mad Men.
At the more trashy end of the spectrum, Revenge was smart in starting as a series, with the heroine picking off a fresh victim every week, then morphing into a serial once the viewers were on board.

In the US, networks are feverishly hunting for shows with a seven-year lifespan; in Australia and the UK, shorter runs are the norm. Hence they often have a clear destination right from the start, such as Life on Mars (Sam working out how to get back to his own time) or Laid (Roo working out why all her sex partners keep dying). But with, of course, a way of developing further series out of it. So your first task is to work out the ‘shape’ of your TV series/serial.

Next time I’ll discuss pilots, series bibles and my TV series, Chrome – and why it got optioned and AWGIE-nominated, but hasn’t (yet) been made.

– © Jonathan Empson

Jonathan Empson’s TV script Chromewas nominated for an AWGIE in 2010.

His recently completed historical drama-comedy feature Leonardo’s War is in circulation, and his black comedy-thriller Get Out of Here has been optioned.

He is represented by Rick Raftos Management.

by Karel Segers

A chase is never just a chase.

Have you noticed that the biggest scenes with movement, travel, running, chasing etc. usually happen at particular times in great movies? Have you ever taken the time to reflect on this? Believe me, this is no coincidence.

In the Hero’s Journey, these scenes or sequences are called ‘Threshold Sequences’. The hero travels, not only from one place to the next, but from one state of mind – or state of being – to the next. So these stages of movement occur whenever the hero is ready to move on, usually after an important turning point: the Act One Climax, the Mid Point or the Act Two Climax.

Moving on.

Most screen stories are about change. Change for the characters (triggered by the world around them) or change in the world (triggered by the main character).

Change is about moving on. And moving on is symbolized by movement.
The mythical dimension of movement can take many forms, at least as many as there are functions of mythology. It can be about having faith and being ready to dive into the unknown. Or about exploring (and imagining) uncharted parts of the universe. Sometimes it represents a ‘movement’ in our society but most often it is about completing a psychological stage. This can be coming of age, overcoming fear or grief, etc.

An escape or chase can be about embracing change but still being afraid of the past catching up. The obstacles in these stages of movement are called ‘Threshold Guardians’ and they represent the characters’ reluctance to embrace the change.

Great movies have lots of movement.

Just look at the structure of last year’s Toy Story 3 to see how often Woody and his bunch are traveling, running, driving, flying. First there is the travel from home to Sunnyside. Next, Woody chooses to return to Andy and at the beginning of Act Two he leaves the other toys to embark on a fabulous threshold sequence through the corridors of Sunnyside, crossing the bathroom, climbing the roof, sailing over the playground and finally landing in a tree.

The second half of Act Two constitutes what is probably Pixar’s most elaborate and impressive threshold sequence. It starts with leaving the toy room, followed by crossing the playground where Baby is a major threshold guardian. Next the toys climb through the garbage chute and end up in the garbage truck. In any other movie, this would signify the Ordeal but it is effectively only a modest taster. The threshold sequence keeps moving even after the toys arrive at the tip. They end up on the conveyor belt that will transport them to the Cave. An unforgettable, instant-classic sequence of pure cinema.

Movement is inherently cinematic.

If your script is full of dialogue and talking heads, you may end up with interesting drama but it will never be mythical. Your movie will never be big. Pure cinema shows characters in motion at those points in their journey when they require it. To understand how much movement a good story can absorb and where to best place it, have a look at the structure of the biggest movie ever.

Remember, the word cinema comes from the Greek word “kine”, which means “motion”.

Refusing the Travel

I’m working on a screenplay with a highly experienced team and the story rocks. Until the third act. After the mid point, the hero decides to follow the love interest to an exotic destination but just before the end of the movie, the hero decides against it and stays put.

It feels wrong.

We’ve gone through so much trouble with this character and at the end she decides to just stay where she is. Now, the character has a perfectly valid – and emotionally understandable – motivation to NOT travel. But it still doesn’t work for me. It feels like a story for a small audience.  The decision not to travel feels very much like a refusal to change. And audiences want to believe that the hero – and they themselves – are capable of change.

You are writing a Road Movie

The road movie is the ultimate ‘vehicle’ for a character on a journey of reflection and change. Have you noticed that every main character in every movie reaches the destination a different person? And even if they don’t reach their destination, like e.g. Thelma and Louise, they are fundamentally transformed characters.

In my Character Development seminars on 9 and 10 October, I will show more examples of different types of movement in stories and explain what this means for the characters.

Movement is essential for change.

Travel as a symbol for change was probably never deliberately introduced as a story device. Its origins go back much earlier than any written story tradition and it is effectively part of the collective unconscious, which some say is hardwired in our brain. Just look at the oldest surviving culture on our planet and its rite of passage called “walkabout” to support this theory.

Do you have lots of movement in your story? In the right places?

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

photo credit: LouisHvejsel

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 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!