romantic comedy – The Story Department

So he’s sprinting through the airport, security chasing after him, he’s going the wrong way on the walkway thing. I’m not gonna lie, it’s your typical clichéd climax scene (except that I want to open the film this way). I don’t need to go on, you can put it together and that’s not really what I want to talk about. What I want to write about is that for whatever reason, whenever I think about this I hear ‘We Belong’ by Pat Benatar.

Pat Benatar?

Thing is, I’m writing a romantic comedy and for whatever reason it’s much easier thinking of funny things when I’m listening to 80’s synth pop/rock. I’m sort of torn between trying to justify it and wearing it as a badge of honour. No one admits to liking stuff like Def Leppard do they? My friends know that I do but, you know when you’ve just met someone and they ask you what music you like, you have to really size the person up before you drop a “yeah I’m a big Phil Collins fan” into the conversation. It’s not really fair but my brain definitely screens that thought before letting it fly. Maybe that’s just me.

I was really struggling to get into this rom-com, it’s hard to feel like you’re doing something original with the genre because, well, you’re not. Ultimately if you decide to write one you’re better off just focusing on making it good. But how do you do that? Comedy is such a personal thing and as soon as I try to make people laugh it instantly stops being funny.

This is sort of what this post is about in a way, finding ways to inspire yourself.

I used to be embarrassed to admit my love of 80’s synth pop to people because, well it’s such a mocked type of music. The fact that it’s really not cool though is kind of perfect for my purposes. Not in a parody way, just that cool isn’t good for comedy. My comedy heroes are Will Ferrell, Ricky Gervais, Trey Parker and Sascha Baron Cohen, and I guess the thing that I want to steal from them is that there’s absolutely no pretense of cool in anything that they do. And it’s because cool isn’t funny, it’s cool. That seems so obvious, but I find it really hard to turn that part of my brain that screens this stuff off and just let it come out.

So right now I’m writing the romantic comedy that I want to see. It’s big, it’s ridiculous, it’s not cool but it has a lot of heart and isn’t ironic, just like 80’s synth pop.

– Ben Cox

After gaining his B.A in English Literature at Loughborough University, Ben Cox spent 4 years as a musician, playing bass in the band Kyte, touring internationally and releasing a top 5 selling album in Japan.
He left the group to pursue a career as a director and writer. Since graduating from the International Film School Sydney in 2012, he has written and directed three music videos.

Photo Credits: Ben Cox

Video: Steve Kaplan & RomCom

niels123 — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 02:12:32 +0000

After attending Steve Kaplan’s RomCom seminar in Sydney earlier this year, I became an instant fan.

It’s my intention to interview him some time over the next few weeks and I thought the following video would be a nice warming-up exercise for this.

The video was recorded during a radio interview for ABC at the start of his Australia trip this year. If you’re interested in more after watching the video, be sure to check out the article Steve wrote on The Hidden Tools Of Comedy.

Have fun!

With thanks to Louise Lee Mei.

_____________________________________

Check out this video link…

_____________________________________

For more videos about screenwriting or filmmaking, look in the sidebar or click on the category link under the title of this post.

If you know of a great video on Screenwriting, let me know!

Just complete the form below and send me the link.

Thank you!

Karel

[contact-form]

Best o/t Web 14 Mar 10

Karel FG Segers — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:05:25 +0000

:: Black on action (via Scott Myers).

:: Christopher Nolan on what to expect from Batman 3

:: How to logline a dual plot story? John August helps.

:: Dick happy about Blade Runner (via Kottke).

:: Final word on the Oscars (and Karel agrees)

:: The North By Northwest shooting script for download

:: Charlie (and Donald) Kaufman’s Adaptation script

:: (we keep going…) The Shawshank Redemption script

:: Finally: Basic Instinct (for Forest Gump and MANY others, go to MyPDFscripts.com)

:: Hitchcock on Content vs. Technique (via Bill Martell)

:: To three-act-structure or free-form, that is the question.

:: Cultivating a following- writing for a TV series.

:: Advice: never send out your first screenplay.

:: Own up to your audience: your inciting incident.

:: What really goes on in act one?

:: Satire with a touch of truth: the Super Script

_______________________________

COMING SOON to the Story Department:

The next week articles

With thanks to Sol.

Enjoy!

Karel

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!

Michael Hauge Interview – Part 1

Karel FG Segers — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:50:17 +0000

MICHAEL HAUGE is a story consultant, author and lecturer who works with writers and filmmakers. He has coached or consulted on projects for Will Smith, Julia Roberts, Robert Downey, Jr. and Morgan Freeman, plus every Hollywood studio.

I am speaking with Michael about his career, his teaching and his first visit to Australia in May of this year. With apologies for the poor audio quality of the telephone recording.

Karel: Terry Rossio, co writer of ALADDIN, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN and SHREK, says you are “the only screenwriting instructor who might be truly wasting his time because he should be writing screenplays instead.” That’s my first question: Have you ever felt like you were wasting your time?

Michael: It’s very generous of Terry to say that. We first met when I did a special event as part of the American Screenwriters Association conference where I interviewed Ted Elliott and him. It was just when SHREK was in theatres. I gave a one hour lecture about SHREK and then they came on stage and we did a Q&A. They said later they appreciated that everything I had talked about was exactly what they intended when they wrote the script.At the time they were in the midst of writing Shrek 2 and weren’t real happy with the direction things were going, and people not appreciating their approach to it, which the studio ended up using anyway.

I really don’t think I’m wasting my time as a consultant. My strength, and my passion, is for working with writers and filmmakers, empowering them to get their stories on the page and on the screen, either by working with them one-on-one, or through my lectures, books, DVDs, articles, etc.

Karel: Have you ever written a screenplay?

Michael: Some time ago I made a stab at writing a screenplay, and it was OK, but it really wasn’t where my passion was. I just have so much fun doing what I’m doing.

————

Karel: How would you position yourself among the known screenwriting teachers?

Michael: Good question… How would I position myself? Well, first of all I’m somebody that has been around now a long time. There are a few of us who are sort of regarded as the front guard, or the old guard.

There’s me, there’s Bob McKee, there’s Syd Field, Linda Seger, Chris Vogler, John Truby, Kathie Fong Yoneda, a couple more that I’ve probably forgotten. So I think that gives us all a certain cachet. We all have books; we all have reputations and so on.

As far as lecturing goes, we all seem to have different things that we kind of enjoy doing. Linda goes to a lot of festivals and does a lot of work outside the US. I don’t do so much outside the US and I don’t do so much lecturing as her or Chris or Bob McKee. The trip to Australia, is the first time I will have come to Australia to give a seminar or to do a workshop, so that is a bit different.

I think of that whole group I mentioned, I’m the one that does the most coaching. Linda writes a lot of books. Chris, is working for Paramount, and he travels to Europe a lot to lecture and collaborate on projects. But I think I’m the guy who is primarily a script consultant

————

Karel: In your view, are there any contradictions between the various story theories?

Michael: In my experience, all those people that I mentioned, Bob and Syd and Linda and Chris and John, we all have our own approach to story, character and structure. And I have yet to find anything significant about which we disagree. It is just a different way of getting at the founding principles of story developed by Aristotle, and probably even before that.

That’s why I wanted to do the DVD of The Hero‘s 2 Journeys with Chris Vogler. He uses Joseph Campbell’s model, a mythical model for approaching story. I think it is wonderful, and I think his work is among the best out there. He and I don’t really disagree on the core principles of story, we just have different approaches, so we can sort of make fun of each other and argue about that.

I will say that there are a lot of myths about screenwriting floating around, and some are perpetuated by other lecturers. Myths like ‘if you live outside LA you don’t have a chance’ or ‘it’s not what you know, it is who you know’. It is important to know people, but you can get to know people. There are ways to network and contact people and get them to read your script and you’ll get to know them.

There are a lot of things like that, that I disagree with, but not the principles that I hear espoused by the top screenwriting teachers, or by the successful writers that I work with.

————

Karel: We know you from your books and DVDs but what keeps you busy most of your time?

Michael: I primarily do three things: I consult with writers, directors, producers, filmmakers and storytellers of all kind; I’m invited to lecture to lots of different groups; and I write — books and articles and so on. And of course, I have DVDs and CDs of some of the lectures that I give.

Karel: You seem to have a lot on your plate. How do you organize your day?

Michael: In a typical day, the majority of what I do is the consultation. I get up in the morning and I read a client’s script, and take extensive notes on that screenplay.

Later that day, I have a consulting session with that client, either in person or by phone. If it’s the first time we’ve talked, that might take up to three hours. If it’s an ongoing client, our session is closer to one and a half or two hours.

Then I might have another session with a writer who has outlined changes they plan to make as a result of our previous sessions. I might have a third coaching session with one of my clients who wants to get my guidance on their writing process, or on their pitch. And in between, I talk to prospective clients, write articles, prepare for lectures, add information to my web site and newsletters, and answer emails.

And after I’ve been in the office for about twelve hours, I’m done! And then my wife and I will have dinner and watch television or a movie. And that’s pretty much it. Glamorous, isn’t it?!

————

Karel: Which are your favourite TV series?

Michael: Well right now there are two new series that may not yet be playing in Australia. The season is kind of truncated because of the Writers Guild strike here. But there is a half-hour series on HBO called In Treatment, which I love. It’s on six nights a week. Gabriel Byrne plays a psychologist, and each episode shows him in therapy with one of his clients. The series is set up so every Monday we see the same client as we saw the previous Monday, just like it would be with a real therapist. So Monday nights are about a young woman, and Tuesday night it’s about guy, and Wednesday nights it’s a teenage girl, and Thursdays a couple. Then Fridays the shrink goes to see his own therapist and talks about his own problems. It’s just talking heads, just two or three people in a room doing therapy. It’s based, I think, on an Israeli series, and it’s brilliantly written and wonderfully performed.

My other favourite series so far is Terminator: The Sarah Conner chronicles. I was a big terminator fan and they are doing some interesting new things with that franchise.

Karel: What is your favourite classic movie?

Michael: When I hear the term ‘classic’, I think in terms of pre-1950. I don’t think of movies from the 70’s on as classics in the same way. I guess you would have to regard The Godfather as a classic film. But when you say classic, I think of black and white, Hollywood in its heyday. And then I think without exception it would be Casablanca.

In more recent times, certainly Chinatown, certainly The Godfather. Those are sort of easy, because everybody puts those on the list. But I think any list of great movies would have to include Sleepless in Seattle, Shrek, When Harry Met Sally, L.A. Confidential, and a number of Woody Allen movies – but probably most of all Manhattan.

To be honest, it is an impossible question. There are so many movies that I love, so many movies I think are just wonderful. I actually hate the questions because I know I’m gonna forget to mention a movie that is just very close to me. And there are more coming along all the time!

————

Karel: Do you watch a movie every day?

Michael: No, I probably watch on average about two movies a week, maybe three. But I watch television too, because I also consult with television writers, plus I’m a fan. I mean there are certain TV series that I really like, so I watch those. And I watch videos, and I go to the movies about once a week.

Karel: Do you have any favourites that don’t follow the principles you teach?

Michael: Oh yeah, yeah. There are a number of movies that I think are wonderful, that I generally don’t talk about when I lecture. The reason is: I want people to understand the core of what I consider the essential principles of story and structure and character arc and love story and eliciting emotion. So the examples I use are ones that follow the formula – if you want to call it that – so they can strengthens a writer’s understanding of it.

No movie breaks all the rules, but great movies often push the envelope, or they take liberties, or they fit into a niche that is less commercial.

So people regard Annie Hall as a great romantic comedy. But the basic formula for a Hollywood romantic comedy involves deception – a character with a compelling goal is lying about something to get it, then she meets someone and falls in love, but the person doesn’t know that the hero is pretending to be somebody she’s not, as in Working Girl or Tootsie or The Wedding Crashers. Or maybe the hero is just lying, as they are in a Sleepless in Seattle or Sideways. In any case, there is almost always deception, and always a happy ending.

Annie Hall doesn’t have any of those elements. It is more like a dramatic love story, but it’s so funny that it is regarded as a romantic comedy. And it doesn’t have a happy ending. Woody Allen is pretty much allergic to happy endings because he sees love affairs and relationships as finite. So he breaks the rules, but it’s still a great movie.

Another example, one of my all-time favourite movies and one of the great screenplays coming out of Hollywood in the last twenty years, is The Shawshank Redemption. It certainly follows rules for creating empathy, and giving characters visible goals, and developing character arc and theme. But it doesn’t follow a common structure. Instead it uses a three-stage structure. We see the hero in one period of time, then we jump ahead quite a few years, see them again, jump ahead, and see them a third time. That structure is used by When Harry Met Sally, by Steel Magnolias, by Driving Miss Daisy, by numerous other movies. But those movies are a very small percentage of the movies Hollywood makes.

So that’s not a typical film, yet it’s also a great screenplay.

Here’s the way I usually say it: you can break the rules only after you know the rules so well that you can honestly say, “I will elicit more emotion, and create a better emotional experience for the audience, by pushing the envelope rather than following the formula.”

When writers get in to trouble is when they say, “I don’t believe in formula, I’m just going to ignore the rules and tell whatever story I want to tell.” Those movies rarely work.

END OF PART ONE

For information on Michael’s books, DVDs and one-on-one consultation, or to contact him directly, please visit his web site: www.ScreenplayMastery.com. To register for any of his Australian seminars, go here: www.epiphany.com.au.

Karel FG Segers

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

Structure: The Lives of Others

Stuart Voytilla — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:40:10 +0000

A loyal agent for the Stasi spies on a playwright and his actress girlfriend. Intent on revealing their disloyalty to the GDR, the agent becomes involved in – and transformed by – their lives.

The Lives of Others
(Das leben der anderen)
(Germany, 2006)
Written and Directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

-by Stuart Voytilla

The Lives of Others is a story about transformation and learning how to do the right thing. This film also reveals the interdependence of physical and emotional journeys that characters often take. In some stories, the protagonist may initially enter the journey anticipating an emotional change or elixir; romance and romantic comedy are two genres that regularly celebrate a character’s willing pursuit of emotional growth. For other journeys, the Hero may not initially realize that he or she needs to change; their view of life may be clouded by a flaw or misperception, or even restricted from seeing life’s potential benefits. This protagonist begins a trek determined to accomplish a physical goal, unprepared that this pursuit will transform him or her in an emotional and significant way. Such is Wiesler’s Journey in The Lives of Others.

Captain Wiesler initiates his journey to reveal playwright Georg Dreyman as an enemy of Socialism. This is Wiesler’s physical goal, and one that he willingly pursues as part of his Ordinary World as a loyal agent of East Germany’s secret police, Stasi. Initially a dispassionate observer, Wiesler becomes an active participant in the lives of Dreyman and Christa-Maria, and his loyalty to his career and government crumbles. His transformation becomes a poignant metaphor for the collapse of the German Democratic Government. In Act III, the fall of the Berlin Wall signals a resurrection for Germany and for Wiesler; the former agent is honored by Dreyman for his service as a ‘good man. ‘

Since movies allow us to show character, revealed by action, we can appreciate von Donnersmarck’s choice to mark Wiesler’s transformation by his profession. Initially, Wiesler’s job is secluded in an attic, with earphones attached to his head, listening and monitoring the secrets of others. He sacrifices his career for the lives of Georg and Christa-Maria. Still under the Stasi, Wiesler steams envelopes. But with Glasnost, Wiesler leaves the basement steaming room, and soon serves his country and his countrymen as a mail carrier. No longer the isolated revealer of secrets, he now walks the streets as a deliverer of people’s privacy.

But Wiesler isn’t the only character that grows in this story. He becomes a catalyst that triggers transformation in the others that he observes. Notably:

Georg Dreyman goes from celebrated and loyal playwright of the GDR to activist against the system.

Christa-Maria transforms from loving girlfriend to tragic informant.

As you explore this movie, also consider how art, or lack of it, defines a character’s life:

Art provides contrast between protagonist and antagonist, for example, Wiesler’s austere apartment versus Dreyman’s richly decorated flat.

After seven years of being blacklisted, Jerska questions his life for he’s no longer allowed to create his art. How can he be a director without a play to direct?This realization pushes him toward suicide.

Wiesler’s supervisor, Grubitz, relishes that their interrogation practices effectively destroys the creative life of the artist.

To show his allegiance to the system, Wiesler threatens to destroy Christa-Maria’s ‘life’ in the theatre. This pushes her to reveal the hidden typewriter. However, she realizes that by informing upon her boyfriend she may have retained her life on stage, but she’s destroyed the creator of her stage world.

After Christa-Maria’s death, Dreyman can no longer write. When he discovers that his apartment was wired, and that Wiesler protected him, Dreyman elevates Wiesler’s life into art with his published work ‘Sonata for a Good Man. ‘

JERSKA AS MENTOR

Jerska becomes an important mentor for both Dreyman and Wiesler. Jerska is Dreyman’s master director, but he’s been silenced by an informant. As Wiesler observes Dreyman, he too becomes influenced by Jerska:

Wiesler questions the evidence that destroyed Jerska’s career and life.

Wiesler ‘borrows’ the book of Brecht that Jerska was reading at the party, thus bringing this inspirational art into his own apartment.

Wiesler cries as Dreyman plays the ‘Sonata for a Good Man’, a birthday gift from Jerska and the inspiration for Dreyman’s final dedication to Wiesler’s sacrifice.

And of course, we must consider the significance of Jerska’s gift as it helps structure the story.

JERSKA‘S GIFT

Jerska’s gift of the ‘Sonata for a Good Man’ marks the turning points of the Journey of Transformation for both Dreyman and Wiesler. This birthday gift was intended to push Dreyman to act as the ‘good man. ‘The unwrapping of the gift is a Turning Point from Act I to Act II in Dreyman’s journey, and sets up the larger Journey’s Crossing of the Threshold.

Jerska’s suicide forces Dreyman to do the right thing, and compose the article for Der Spiegel. The Sonata’s title resonates during the scene in the tavern when Wiesler helps Christa-Maria, and she thanks this ‘good man. ‘Their encounter and Jerska’s suicide/Dreyman’s decision to write the article are significant during the Journey’s Ordeal or Midpoint.

During the Journey’s Road Back Sequence, and the Plot Point from Act II to Act III, Wiesler acts as the ‘good man’ and steals the typewriter. During the story’s final moments, the Sonata’s title becomes the title for Dreyman’s book that celebrates Wiesler’s sacrifice, and completes Wiesler’s Resurrection as a ‘Good Man. ‘

THE JOURNEY

In the following Journey Breakdown, I’ve presented some of the key story moments with an interpretation of their representative Hero’s Journey stage. The focus here is on Wiesler’s Journey. I encourage you to also look at this story through Dreyman’s journey, through his eyes and his actions.

Note that in Act IIA and IIB, I’ve emphasized two Ordeals. Since Wiesler travels a physical and emotional Journey, he experiences two central ordeals, one for each Journey. Each Ordeal brings a Reward but these Rewards collide, as Wiesler must choose between his loyalty to country, and his allegiance to his new friends, Dreyman and Christa-Maria.

Act I: The Journey‘s Separation

‘Will Captain Wiesler reveal Dreyman as an enemy of Socialism?’

Captain Wiesler serves as a loyal agent of the Stasi, determined to reveal the enemies of Socialism. (Ordinary World)

A former classmate and now head of the Culture Department at the State Security, Grubitz assigns Wiesler to monitor playwright Georg Dreyman, and his girlfriend-leading lady Christa-Maria. (Call to Adventure)

Wiesler’s team bugs Dreyman’s flat (Ordinary World), and he inhabits the attic for monitoring. (I see this sequence as another reflection of Wiesler’s Ordinary World. The unexpected problem that disrupts Wiesler’s Ordinary World arrives with the mysterious car. )

Wiesler observes a mysterious car drop Christa-Maria off at Dreyman’s flat, and Wiesler notes the license number. (Call to Adventure)

Wiesler listens to Dreyman’s birthday party, and observes that Dreyman does not speak up against the GDR. Later that night, Dreyman opens his gift from Jerska, piano music titled ‘Sonata for a Good Man. ‘He and Christa-Maria make love. (This rich sequence weaves several stages. Notably, it is a Refusal of his Call to reveal Dreyman as an enemy. But it’s also a Meeting of the Mentor, an invitation for Wiesler to be influenced by Dreyman’s world and his love shared with Christa-Maria. )

Grubitz informs Wiesler that the mysterious car belongs to Minister Hempf. And Grubitz warns Wiesler to strike this information from the record, for they are not allowed to monitor fellow members. (This Meeting of the Mentor is a significant Plot Point that initiates Wiesler’s Crossing of the Threshold. Wiesler realizes that he’s being used by Hempf to get rid of a rival, and Wiesler questions his loyalty. )

Wiesler completes the Crossing of the Threshold when he rings the doorbell, prompting Dreyman to discover Christa-Maria emerging from Hempf’s car. (This signals a moment of decision and action on the part of Wiesler. He’s longer a passive observer, but an active participant in the lives of Dreyman and Christa-Maria. )

Act IIA: The Journey‘s Descent

‘Will Wiesler help save the relationship between Dreyman and Christa-Maria?’

Wiesler’s Crossing of the Threshold has unsettled Wiesler’s personal world and his professional loyalty. His observations and actions are beginning to affect him and his world; these series of events Test his transformation.

Having observed Dreyman’s and Christa-Maria’s night of pain and shame, Wiesler’s doesn’t know how to feel and finds comfort with a prostitute. (Test)

Later, Wiesler enters Dreyman’s flat and takes his Brecht book, bringing this literature and art into his own apartment. (Test)

Hidden in the attic, Wiesler listens to Dreyman’s phone call announcing the suicide of Jerska. Dreyman mourns his friend’s death by playing the ‘Sonata for a Good Man’. Wiesler listens and cries. (Approach to the Inmost Cave)

When a boy at an elevator confesses his father’s disdain of the Stasi, Wiesler stops himself from demanding the father’s name. (Test)

With growing pressure from Hempf, Grubitz pushes Wiesler to ‘find something’ on Dreyman. Grubitz warns Wiesler of a rendezvous planned between Hempf and Christa-Maria that will jeopardize her relationship with Dreyman. (Approach to the Inmost Cave)

The Story’s First Ordeal works as a ‘death’ that affects several characters and their goals. Mourning Jerska’s death, Dreyman fears he’s lost his passion for writing. (An Ordeal)Christa-Maria prepares to leave Dreyman to ‘see a classmate’. Dreyman speaks his suspicions that she is going to sleep with Hempf. Dreyman asks her to trust herself as an artist, and to stay. But Christa-Maria questions both of their ‘needs’ for Hempf and the system he represents. She may sleep with Hempf for her art, but as the GDR’s favorite playwright, hasn’t Dreyman been sleeping with the system as well?Wiesler observes this Ordeal – a ‘death’ of their relationship, of their art, and of their allegiance to the system. Wiesler is interrupted by his surveillance replacement before knowing the outcome of this Ordeal. But Wiesler can’t simply walk away from these lives, and slips into a nearby tavern where he has an accidental encounter with Christa-Maria. Boldly Wiesler complements her as a great artist. She thanks Wiesler, telling him that he is ‘a good man. ‘Wiesler’s actions prompt Christa-Maria to rush back to Dreyman. The celebration of their love also gives Dreyman renewed strength as a writer. (The Resurrection of the Ordeal)

Act IIB: The Journey‘s Initiation

‘Will Wiesler protect his job and reveal Dreyman’s disloyalty?’

The primary Reward earned from the First Ordeal is Dreyman’s renewed passion for his writing. But his writing is now directed against the system that has destroyed his friend, Jerska, and threatened to destroy Christa-Maria. Dreyman prepares to write an essay revealing that the GDR has been hiding statistics of the high rate of suicide, especially amongst the artists.

This is also the Reward that Wiesler has been seeking to confirm his initial goal: to reveal Dreyman’s disloyalty.

Dreyman brings his friends back to his flat to make their plans. He assures them that his flat isn’t bugged. They Test his theory speaking openly about secretly bringing a relative across the border. Wiesler prepares to call the Border Agent, but doesn’t go through with it. (Wiesler’s monitoring Dreyman’s ongoing plot Tests the Stasi agent’s two conflicting goals: to reveal Dreyman as traitor; and to protect Dreyman as artist – to help him become the ‘good man’ that Jerska had hoped Dreyman would become. )

Wiesler’s transformation as a ‘good man’ is rebuffed when he discovers that the person he helped cross the border was the editor of Der Spiegel. Furthermore, Dreyman’s arrogant shouting in defiance of the system pushes Wiesler to compile the evidence for Grubitz. (Approach to the Inmost Cave)

Wiesler meets with Grubitz where his two conflicting goals collide head-on. Holding his sealed report in his hand, Wiesler listens to Grubitz praise their interrogation system that successfully destroys the artist. Witnessing his mentor’s arrogance, Wiesler keeps the evidence and requests that they step down their operations against Dreyman. (The Second Ordeal)

Wiesler’s action allows Dreyman to complete the anti-GDR article, which is published in Der Spiegel. Dreyman and Christa-Maria make love, while Hempf sulks without a bedmate. But these Rewards threaten Wiesler’s career; Grubitz begins to question Wiesler’s loyalty.

With pressure from Hempf to destroy Christa-Maria’s theatrical career, Grubitz interrogates her and forces Christa-Maria to name Dreyman as the author of the Der Spiegel article. Monitoring from the attic, Wiesler listens to the search of Dreyman’s flat. He now knows that Grubitz is suspicious of Wiesler, but Wiesler’s relieved when the search team fails to find Dreyman’s typewriter. Grubitz pressures Wiesler to interrogate Christa-Maria, and prove that he is still on the ‘right side’. Wiesler faces Christa-Maria and threatens to destroy her art and her ‘life’ unless she can reveal the location of the typewriter. She gives up the location, but Wiesler defies Grubitz and returns to Dreyman’s apartment to take the evidence. Christa-Maria’s revelation is the story’s Plot Point or moment of greatest despair – and it initiates the Road Back sequence.

Act III: The Journey‘ Return

‘Will Wiesler recognize himself as a Good Man?’

The Road Back continues at Dreyman’ flat. As Dreyman arrives, Wiesler slips away with the typewriter. Armed with his search team, Grubitz personally uncovers the hiding place, but it’ empty. During this ‘death’ moment, Dreyman confirms Christa-Maria’ deception. And she realizes that she has lost love and life. Wiesler witnesses her tragic exit.

Without the damning evidence of the typewriter, and with the death of Christa-Maria, Grubitz closes the investigation against Dreyman. But Grubitz makes Wiesler suffer for his sacrifice, and demotes him to years of service steaming open envelopes.

This Road Back sequence is a Resurrection for Wiesler’ Journey to do the right thing, and become a ‘good man’. But this doesn’t complete his transformation, and his Journey. He has sacrificed his career to protect Dreyman, and now recognizes how the system destroys its people. Wiesler’ Resurrection will be complete when he’ honored for his sacrifice, and receives the assurance that indeed he is a ‘good man’. That assurance comes from Dreyman who takes over the Journey in Act III.

Christa-Maria’ death and the fall of the Berlin Wall have silenced Dreyman’ voice as a playwright. After an encounter with Hempf, Dreyman confirms that his flat was wired. He investigates the agent in charge of the surveillance and discovers that agent ‘HGW XX/7′ was his protector. Dreyman and Wiesler have now switched positions within the story’ journey. Dreyman observes his ‘guardian angel’ from a distance and finally writes his ‘report’ – a book celebrating Wiesler’ sacrifice. This Resurrection sequence restores Dreyman’ faith in humanity, his passion to write, and elevates Wiesler’ life to a work of art.

Delivering mail, Wiesler passes a store window and discovers the display of Dreyman’ Elixir ‘Sonata for a Good Man. ‘Wiesler reads the dedication, and purchases the gift. ‘It’ for me. ‘ (Return with the Elixir)

FADE OUT.

Stuart Voytilla

Stuart Voytilla is a writer and producer, known for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2002), The Death of Poe (2006) and The Sorcerer of Stonehenge School (2005).

write-brain.com