Your primary focus is on story and less on writing scenes, sharp dialogue or gripping action.

Inevitably, though, once figured out your characters and their journeys, you are down to the daunting task of writing that next draft.

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

You will be writing at the scene level, and a slightly different set of rules comes into play.

Suddenly the very particular way in which you organize and formulate your thoughts becomes crucially important, as your mastery of language, i.e. grammar and vocabulary.

From the most common mistakes I have found in my clients’ scene writing, I have deducted three particular qualities.These three qualities your screenplay MUST have if you want the discerning reader to continue reading all the way to THE END, if you want your script to stand up to the competition and have a chance of being produced.

In each and every scene of your screenplay, your writing must be:

1. Clear

2. Concise

3. Colorful

Let’s look at these primary qualities one by one, in order of decreasing priority:

CLARITY

It is of the utmost importance that what you want to show, is on the paper. Don’t leave anything essential to the interpretation of the reader, the actor, the director. If it has to be on the screen, even if you want it to be felt by the audience rather than seen, it still must be on the page and it must be undeniably clear in the mind of the reader.

If it is not going on the screen, it shouldn’t be in the script anyway.

Aesthetics are less important than clarity. If you can’t find an unobtrusive alternative to a long-winded description or dialogue phrase without causing confusion about the intention of the scene, leave it in.

CONCISENESS

An elegant screenplay moves fast. Clutter, both in action and dialogue slows down the reading experience and gives the impression of a slow moving film. Be brief, catchy, summarize as much as possible, but always without causing any confusion (see the first primary quality).

Using ‘lots of white’ is a crucial style tip, but this is only possible if you are able to condense the meaning of your scenes in only a few well-written sentences.

COLOR

What Robert McKee calls ‘Vivid Action in the Now’, I believe is a successful combination of conciseness and color. It is concise enough to move fast, yet colorful so it speaks directly to our imagination.

Film is a visual medium and therefore you can argue that it doesn’t necessarily matter how you express something, as long as we can imagine what the scene looks like. Although this sounds right in theory, the reality is slightly different.

People making decisions on film funding read many, many screenplays. If you make the reading a burden by using a defective, unimaginative style, this will have a negative impact on the reading experience and potentially on the assessment of your script.

– 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 8 February 2008 and selected for rerun by Adrian]

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!