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

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!

Structuring the Facts

Karel FG Segers — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:08:45 +0000

Turning real events into a working screen drama is a hell of a challenge. Whether it be a historical movie, biography or docu-drama, the smart screenwriter remains true to the spirit of the subject rather than an accurate report of the events. Plus: the principals of drama must dictate how the story is (re-)structured. UNITED 93 turns out a phenomenal success on all fronts.

Have you noticed the almost unnerving consensus that this is great movie? The SMH gave it 9/10 in yesterday’s paper, Roger Ebert hands out four stars, on IMDb it scores 7.8/10.

Who believes that the sheer magnitude of the events guaranteed the movie would work, should check out the TV dud “FLIGHT 93” and think again. I believe here’s a hell of a great script at work.

I watched Paul Greengrass’ movie last weekend and was truly impressed. When I had recovered from the emotional rollercoaster ride, something quite unexpected dawned upon me: this story boasts an amazingly conventional structure.

If you go with me that the protagonist in this movie is made up from the collective passengers of the flight, you’ll agree the film reflects the following 3-act structure:

– ACT ONE: Boarding until cruise altitude; hijackers take control.
– ACT TWO/A: Passengers try to notify the ground.
– REVERSAL: News of the WTC attacks – this is a suicide flight.
– ACT TWO/B: Passengers prepare to fight back.
– ACT THREE: Attack on the cockpit and crash.

An important subplot dominates the first half of the movie and intertwines with the First Act: Ben Sliney’s struggle at the FAA to stay in control of the US air space. Here I’d like to refer to my very first post and my structural note on SCHINDLER’S LIST and THE INSIDER. Both movies start with a major subplot, in the case of THE INSIDER possibly even a second protagonist. Once we’re in the Second Act of the subplot, the main story kicks in. Same here: we’re well into Ben Sliney’s Second Act before the action on board United 93 starts.

For all above reasons – and I know this one is hard to prove – I believe the movie would have worked fine for anybody completely unfamiliar with the 9/11 events. While we sit through the relatively uneventful First Act (if you don’t know what’s coming up), we empathise with Ben Sliney whose air traffic controllers are steadily losing control.

You may argue that this structure is a mere reflection of the facts. Don’t forget filmmakers have always made their own choices about how and which events are presented over the course of the available screentime.