omniscient POV – The Story Department

Because the first shift of POV in a film may jolt the audience’s experience, it works best where this brief ‘disconnection’ doesn’t hurt the story: after a climax.

The start of Act Two is a good place to move to the antagonist’s POV.

We have just seen that our protagonist is ready to take on the main mission of the film. He knows what he is up against, he may even have a plan on how to approach it.

At the beginning of Act Two, you can immediately increase the stakes by creating dramatic irony. You show the protagonist only knows half of the truth and the antagonist is really a lot more powerful and the protagonist may be missing a crucial piece of information.

The shift can happen to any other character, exceptionally even to an omniscient POV. But the most powerful and most frequently used POV outside the protagonist will be that of the antagonist.

Almost always does this increase the stakes as you show how well the villain is prepared, how much stronger this character is than we (and the protagonist) believed and what he/she is capable of.

One of my favourite Act Two opening scenes is in NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Roger Thornhill has to clear his name of the UN murder and he must find out why he is being mistaken for the mysterious Mr. Roger Kaplan.

At the opening of Act Two we are in a boardroom full of unknown faces. The audience’s instinctive reaction will be to find a character to empathise with, to latch on to. None such in this scene.

This is the Secret Service, discussing a fictitious agent, created by them as a decoy for the spies. Now Roger Thornhill has been identified by the spies as this imaginary agent, the secret’s service’s plan works better than hoped for.

Not only do we now know Thornhill’s predicament, we also realise he cannot expect any support from the government as confirmed in the last line of the scene, spoken by one of the agents:

SECRET AGENT
Goodbye, Mr. Thornhill, wherever you are.

This scene shows how powerful a shift of POV can be to reveal an important piece of information the protagonist doesn’t have.

Another favorite example of dramatic irony created by a shifting point of view is taken from ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST and it constitutes the Mid Point Reversal.

McMurphy has just been on a fishing trip with his mates, sampling freedom outside the asylum.

The next scene shows the staff of the asylum discussing his fate, whether they should send him back to the work farm or keep him. McMurphy’s antagonist nurse Ratched drives the scene and the outcome is disastrous: he will stay in the asylum indefinitely.

See also:

Omniscient POV
Shifting POV
When to Shift?
POV in Ratatouille’s Deleted Scene
POV as Controller of Tone

Karel FG Segers

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

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

POV: Ratatouille’s Deleted Scene

Karel FG Segers — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:29:34 +0000

RATATOUILLE has 1 (one) deleted scene.

It is a long, uninterrupted travel from a wide establishing shot of the Paris skyline down to street level, through the Auguste Gusteau restaurant and ending on a medium shot of Remi.

The shot could have been spectacular, reminding of the opening shot of TOUCH OF EVIL and its pastiche in THE PLAYER.

Brad Bird’s commentary talks about the reason why it was cut and it is simply: Point of View.

The natural question that would occur is “Why would you cut this spectacular shot?”, because it is obviously great. “I want to see that film!” Well, I feel that way, too.

The problem, once you get passed the initial sort of rush of seeing this very elaborate shot that shows you a lot of different things in one shot and very impressively, is that it is no character’s point of view.

It is just a sort of God-like shot where you’re presented this whole world and it is spectacular and there have been many fine shots like that – Touch of Evil being one – that were great but I felt that this is Remi’s movie and it needed to be Remi’s perspective.

And I want to know the emotions that lead up to Remi looking into the kitchen. I don’t just want it laid on a platter, you know, just cut to Darth going “You’re my son, Luke.”

We should be with Remi when he has that moment. We should know how he is experiencing it and what is he feeling when he is experiencing it. And you kind of aren’t, this way.

It did lay everything out, but I don’t think that it took the audience with it.

-Brad Bird

Brad Bird’s reasoning confirms what I have written about ‘omniscient POV’: it is weak, or worse, it doesn’t work.

Movies are inherently about empathising, even identifying with characters.

When you step out of the protagonist’s POV, it should be to shift to another POV, most often the antagonist’s, never to take an omniscient POV, because it is devoid of emotion.

One exception: you may use an omniscient POV to create dramatic irony, i.e. to reveal information the protagonist doesn’t know but which has an impact on his journey.

Karel FG Segers

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

Exciting Coincidence?

Karel FG Segers — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:16:09 +0000

“A strong inciting incident is an event that happens to the protagonist, never an action by the protagonist“, I said.

Then I asked you for exceptions, i.e. strong Inciting Incidents that are actions by the protagonist.

Now have a look at the first three responses I received: 1.) THELMA & LOUISE, 2.) PULP FICTION and 3.) KING LEAR.

Look at them again and see if you remember 1) who causes the inciting incident and 2)how does the character end in the story?

The answer is baffling.

1. Louise kills a man. The end: Louise dies.
2. Vincent kills Marvin. The end: Vincent dies.
3. King Lear excludes Cordelia. The end: King Lear dies.

“If the protagonist triggers the story, he/she dies at the end of the story”.

Story rule or rubbish?

Either way, for these three striking examples, Tom, Brett and Margaret each earned themselves three months Premium Subscription. Well done.

Recently UNK blogged about Inciting Incident (another exciting coincidence: one day earlier, someone hit my web site using the key words inciting incident definitions.) and among his favourite I.I.’s he lists COOL HAND LUKE.

Here we go:

4. Luke cracks open parking meters. The end: Luke dies.

OK. It is getting quite convincing now, if you ask me. Does it mean that EACH TIME a protagonist incites the story, we have a down ending? Probably not. Perhaps the readers of this blog just have a slight predilection for somber movies. ;)

Anyhow, I found the examples you sent to me striking.

Here are some more exceptions to the “event-not-action” rule I received later:
– Simon: “Not my kind of thing really, but what about Ferris Bueller’s Day Off?”
– Simon D.: “What about any story where the protagonist activates something, like the Princess and the Frog in the pond, Pandora’s Box etc”
– Jim: “If Russell Crowe is the Protagonist in ‘Yuma’, then it happens in that.”
– Chris: “3 Movies that the protagonist is responsible for the inciting incident: Scarface, June, O Brother Where Art Thou.”
– Robert: “Chow Yun Fat’s Hitman character accidentally blinds a girl during a hit on a triad boss that he is carrying out. Therefore he himself sets in motion the “inciting incident” and for the rest of the film sets out to redeem himself and possibly help the bling girl regain her eyesight by doing more “hits” to pay for the operation!”

Thank you all! It was a great exercise.

WHERE TO START

As to screenwriting theory, there are so many sources of conflicting advice it is difficult to know who to listen to. Each new piece of advice can be as convincing as the one that came before it. What should you do?

How do you choose who to listen to?

Do you take the word of

the most influential,
the most popular,
the most convincing,
the loudest,
the most confident,
or maybe what they perceive to be the safest.

As a person who dishes out daily doses of advice I am as guilty as anyone out there who tries to offer opinions of what you ‘should’ do.

The fact is, at worst people do not have any idea what will work for you, and at best they can only rely on their own experience. Certainly I give you the benefit of what I have learned through my work, but you still have to work out what will work for you.

I am still learning, things still take me by surprise. You may have read me say before, I am of the opinion you can learn something from every person you meet. Your job is to not blindly accept what you are told but collate it, cogitate on it and apply it in your own unique way.

Work out the approaches that suit you best, that fit what you are trying to achieve and how. Which stories resonate with you, and enthuse you, separate out those that leave you cold.

You can never take the same journey twice, your journey is yours and yours alone, but you can learn about possible pot holes and beauty trails from people who have traveled a similar path before you.

Here I have to confess something: all the above (except the first four words “As to screenwriting theory”) was taken literally from Chris Garrett’s blog on blogging. When I read it, I found it so completely true for pretty much any field of learning, including ours.

My own little piece of advice on where to start learning?

Just write, every day, undisturbed by what you learn or what people say. While you are doing so, go through the list below. And take your time.

1. Read McKee’s STORY, or better: listen to the audio book. You won’t learn too much about the craft, but you’ll get a feel for what you’re in for. If you have less time and you want to be fashionable, read Blake Snyder’s SAVE THE CAT.

2. Take a craft workshop. Mine, Hauge’s or John Truby’s. Read the stuff they have published.

3. Watch movies a second time to break them down into acts, sequences and plot points. Dozens of them, until you start seeing the light.

4. Carefully choose a story consultant you can trust and you like to work with. You will continue to learn, but now specifically about your own strengths and weaknesses.

At this point, you will have found your vision and direction. You will see which of the savants out there fall within your view on storytelling. Read their books, join their seminars.

Finally, you are on your own, confidently.

And while you just continue writing, your craft will improve, and improve, and improve…

CONFIDENTIALITY KILLED THE CAT

My apologies if you were re-directed here from the newsletter. The article will be re-published at a later stage.

WHERE ARE YOU GOING? YOU AND YOUR HERO?

It has been the core of my consultancy and teaching: the protagonist needs a clear and present desire.

Nothing new, though, Michael Hauge has been teaching this for much longer. In the context of Michael’s visit to Australia in two months, I interviewed him and the full text will soon be available to my clients and for subscribers of The Story Dept. Here’s an excerpt:

Karel: Two problems I often find in screenplays by inexperienced writers are 1) the choice of protagonist and 2) the key qualities of the protagonist. Would you mind giving us an insight?

Michael: In almost every case where the problem seems to be choosing the wrong protagonist, the writer isn’t clear about what the story concept is, about what the hero’s visible goal is.

In other words: if the writer is operating under the belief that they just need to portray characters and show them going through a situation in their life and let’s see what happens, then that‘s the quicksand they have stepped into. Because movies are about heroes who are pursuing specific visible goals.

It is about stopping the serial killer, about escaping from the panic room or from N.Y. or from Alcatraz, about winning the love of another person or winning an athletic competition. Or it’s about getting the buried treasure. But the goal must be specific, must be visible, must have a clearly defined end point.

The first part of the full interview is now online on the Premium Ed. As usual, it will be visible for a few days only. After that you will need a subscription to see it. Part two and three will follow over the next few days, as well as a podcast (audio) version of the telephone interview.

NO POV, NO PLAY

The RATATOUILLE DVD shows has 1 (one) deleted scene. It is a long, uninterrupted travel from a wide establishing shot of the Paris skyline down to street level, through the Auguste Gusteau restaurant and ending on Remi, our hero.

The shot could have been spectacular, reminding of the opening shot of TOUCH OF EVIL and its pastiche in THE PLAYER.

Brad Bird’s commentary talks about the reason why it was cut and it is simply: Point of View.

The natural question that would occur is “Why would you cut this spectacular shot?”, because it is obviously great. “I want to see that film!” Well, I feel that way, too.

The problem, once you get passed the initial sort of rush of seeing this very elaborate shot that shows you a lot of different things in one shot and very impressively, is that it is no character’s point of view.

It is just a sort of God-like shot where you’re presented this whole world and it is spectacular and there have been many fine shots like that – Touch of Evil being one – that were great but I felt that this is Remi’s movie and it needed to be Remi’s perspective.

And I want to know the emotions that lead up to Remi looking into the kitchen. I don’t just want it laid on a platter, you know, just cut to Darth going “You’re my son, Luke.”

We should be with Remi when he has that moment. We should know how he is experiencing it and what is he feeling when he is experiencing it. And you kind of aren’t, this way.

It did lay everything out, but I don’t think that it took the audience with it.

-Brad Bird

Brad Bird’s reasoning confirms what I have written about ‘omniscient POV’: it is weak, or worse, it doesn’t work.

Movies are inherently about empathising, even identifying with characters.

When you step out of the protagonist’s POV, it should be to shift to another POV, never to take an omniscient POV.

Omniscient POV is devoid of emotion.

Read some more about Point of View here.

Karel FG Segers

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

POV: Omniscient Point of View

Karel FG Segers — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:55:57 +0000

In an Australian government document relating to script development I found the term ‘omnipotent POV’.

In a specialised screenwriting magazine I read “omnipresent POV”(*). Both are plain wrong.

You’ve got to wonder: if they can’t even get the terminology right, there is reason to be concerned about their understanding of the concept.

The correct term is ‘omniscient’, and means ‘knowing everything’. It is the divine, ‘God’s eye’ perspective.

‘Omniscient POV’ in film means: a point of view outside any of the story’s characters. The audience knows and sees everything that is relevant to know about everybody in the story. Because film relies heavily on empathy with the characters, this is not a POV that would typically be taken throughout the story.

Although the technique sometimes works when told by a narrator and/or when a story is one long flashback, it is hardly ever used consistently throughout a film.

The fact that the term exists, doesn’t mean the technique is to be recommended in film.

The very nature of the omniscient POV goes against the essence of good screen drama, which is firmly grounded in strong emotional empathy with (an) individual character(s).

An omniscient POV suggests a certain distance from the characters, which is exactly what you don’t want. In my view, what most people mean by an omniscient POV is a shifting POV.

Frank Daniel used the term ‘dramatic irony‘, which makes more sense than the phrase ‘omniscient POV’. The irony lies in the fact that the audience knows something the protagonist doesn’t. And usually this information is crucial, it has a great impact on the protagonist’s journey.

The term dramatic irony is also consistent with the notion of ‘dramatic tension’, which is the foundation of all drama.

A great example of dramatic irony is used – and explained – in the movie STRANGER THAN FICTION when literature professor Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman) elaborates on the phrase “Little did he know…”. Because the technique is used as an explicit plot device, the notion of ‘omniscient character’ gets definitely blurred.

Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson) may be the writer of the Harold Crick’s (Will Ferrell) life, but is she therefore truly omniscient?

Not in this film…

Karel FG Segers

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

POV as Controller of Tone

Karel FG Segers — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:31:00 +0000

A toddler looks at a man pulling funny faces, moving his limbs in crazy spasms. He falls on the ground, he hits his head. The toddler jumps with excitement.

A female bystander watches the scene, her face contorted, fighting back tears.

The introduction of the woman suddenly gives us a reliable POV. Although we still don’t know exactly what is happening, we are instantly trapped inside her mind, whether we like it or not. Is she the man’s wife? Is he having an epileptic fit? It doesn’t matter: the scene is emotionally disturbing because it is for her.

In a scene with a madman, actions and dialogue can be absolutely hysterical. But put us in the POV of one if his victims and the scene turns pitch black.

It happens, often in cross-genre films, that a scenes tone is not clear. Should we be scared or laugh? Dark comedies have this problem, but extremely suspenseful thrillers and horror movies may struggle in this field, too.

Sometimes audiences just can’t bear the suspense and resort to laughter as a pressure-valve. I’m not talking about the latter instance, as the intention of the scene is mostly clear: extreme suspense or fear.

If however the problem of a confusing interpretation occurs in a script or film more frequently, it may have an effect on the overall genre. Is it a horror or a spoof? A thriller or a dark comedy? By advertising a film in a specific genre, the audience is gently guided as to how to interpret ambiguous scenes. Cross-genre pictures are often unsuccessful because they are called this just because of the ambiguity of tone.

The problem: there shouldn’t be ambiguity as to the emotional content of a scene. You can be open about certain information, about your moral standpoint until the end of the film. But the emotional content should be clear or else empathy may be diluted and your statement at the end won’t work.

As in the example above, POV is an excellent tool to streamline the tone of a scene, sequence, film. Once an action or event is seen through the eyes of a character who has an emotional commitment, it will become clear how we are supposed to experience the scene and its impact will be much stronger.

Karel FG Segers

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

Shifting POV

Karel FG Segers — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:46:06 +0000

Often when filmmakers use the term ‘omniscient point of view’, I believe what they really mean is: ‘shifting point of view’.

Most of the film will still be told from the standpoint of one ore more individual characters, shifting from one scene to the next and from one character to the next.

Even in films like SUNSET BOULEVARD and AMERICAN BEAUTY, where the protagonist is dead and looking back at his life – an almost divine POV – this privilege is not extended for the whole duration of the film. We stay within the limited perspective of the character at the very time of the events, without the power of hindsight.

If the omniscient character is also the story’s narrator, the omniscient POV usually only kicks in on act or sequence breaks. Hardly ever will an omniscient character interrupt a climactic scene or sequence.

In an article about conventions of the horror genre, Phil Parker states a prerequisite of the genre is an omniscient POV. But is the omniscient POV really a primary element of the genre? Ultimate fear can be suggested powerfully from a single POV and does not need an omniscient POV.

“Action is often seen from the antagonist’s POV, secondary characters are often given whole scenes or sequences without the central protagonist, and the audience are often shown things which neither the protagonist nor the antagonist can have seen or known.” (Phil Parker)

When Parker says “seen from the antagonist’s POV”, he is effectively admitting this is not an omniscient POV.

“Secondary characters are often given whole scenes” proves we are talking about a shifting POV rather than an omniscient one.

Karel FG Segers

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

POV: McKee’s View

Karel FG Segers — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:17:48 +0000

“The more time spent with a character, the more opportunity to witness his choices.

The result is more empathy and emotional involvement between audience and character.”

-Robert McKee

In his introduction about point of view (POV) in the scene, Robert McKee focuses on screen time and the physical location of the camera. POV is more. It is about one character’s emotional experience of that scene.

The director will now take the literal camera POV of the character, then show the character’s emotional response.

As a writer you don’t need to go in this level of detail about camera POV. Writing from a specific POV means: to write from the character’s ‘centre of consciousness’, to share with the audience what the character sees, knows and feels. This doesn’t need to include direction on shots and angles. The drama will determine this indirectly anyhow.

The heart of McKee’s statement is essential to good screenwriting. Few screenwriters, even experienced ones, exercise full control over the POV. Yet it is hugely important in establishing empathy with the protagonist and making an audience forget they are in a theatre watching a movie.

If you feel you don’t exercise complete mastery over your screenplay’s POV (yet), go through the script systematically from the point of view of POV (no pun) to see whose POV each scene is written from. If you do this early in the development, you will be amazed how a few simple changes here and there will improve the impact of the story tremendously.

A good understanding of POV will empower you to create scenes that will capture an audience inside the head of your character, whether they like it or not.

Karel FG Segers

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!