I love teaching, I adore my students, and I’m fortunate enough to see some good results, as some of my students go on to build a writing career.

Yet, I am growing increasingly frustrated.

There is a missing component in the learning of these young people. Some take the initiative to fill in the blanks, but others aren’t even aware of what is missing.

By just taking courses, there is little chance you will survive the real world.

So what else do you need?

Let’s first look at the positive aspects of books, courses and gurus.

Book, Courses And Gurus

I have written about the merits of film school. You can learn a lot from the experts through books, courses and videos. I have the best memories of binge reading screenwriting books, and then attending lectures by the authors.

In some instances, you can speed up the process of understanding how screenplays work, what has worked in the past and what hasn’t.

You’ll also learn the systems and terminology used in our industry.

Courses give you a general overview, based on more material than you can process in a lifetime. You learn about genres and styles outside your taste, which will help you communicate with professionals.

Books and courses give you different perspectives. No matter how long you study a subject, you’ll still only see it through the lens of your own eyes.

Screenwriting courses may give you a wholly new, valuable point of view.

However, one of the biggest problems with courses, is that only little of what you learn specifically relates to the work that you (will) write.

Therefore it is essential that you get feedback to your own work. It will help improve your performance, and level up to the requirements of the market.

Talk, Don’t Write

One of the local film schools offers their students industry feedback. Professional script consultants come in to help the students improve their scripts from first to final draft. It’s great. Students love it.

Not only is this an introduction to how the industry works; it is an invaluable addition to the lectures. Lecturing is a transfer of knowledge in bulk. The consults provide bespoke feedback, different for each student. Even if two students struggle with the same issue, they may need different solutions.

Consults outclass written reports. In the studio system, notes are a standard form of communication with writers. But without produced credits, you will benefit far more from a direct two-way conversation.

In a live consultation, you are able to ask questions, and so can the consultant. This helps define your objectives, as well as the issues standing in the way of achieving them.

The Consult Is Your Inmost Cave

Most of us work better and faster when we can verbally discuss our work, rather than write or read about it in a snapshot report.

Many aspiring writers are not familiar with the lingo, and consultants should not have to explain or define every concept in a report.

A good script consultation is a mini-workshop, where client and consultant work together to determine the priorities for future work, and the way they could be addressed by the writer. The best consult is an intense, inspiring and rewarding experience for both sides.

A welcome side-effect of some consultations is that writers discover what they are actually writing about.

Often new writers are not aware of the themes they infuse their stories with.

As a consultant, you are in the privileged position of discovering these themes with the writer. What is their world view? What bugs them, and how do their stories comment on society?

A great consult creates an Inmost Cave, for writers to discover their own voice.

It allows them to develop their voice, and articulate their ideas in ways that the industry and the audience will understand. Sometimes it allows them to clarify, sharpen and refine their ideas.

Often these young writers are yet to find their path in life, and their writing provides a valuable introspection into their values, hopes and dreams. As a consultant, it is a humbling experience to be there, and witness this fascinating process.

And yet, no matter how inspiring, poetic and even mythical these experiences may be, they are no substitute for learning from the source.

Back To The Screenwriting Source

A few years back, a member of a screenwriting forum was eaten alive when he dared to ask for a method to learn screenwriting for free. Many of the readers had paid good money for their education, and they came down on the boy to annihilate him.

It turned out the boy didn’t know any better. He was new to screenwriting, and with a mental health disorder he didn’t know how to be diplomatic when asking his question.

It set me thinking.

Screenwriting books and gurus have only been around since the 1970’s, while some of the very best movies were written long before.

How did screenwriters learn the craft before there were any gurus around?

My guess? From reading great screenplays, stage plays, and novels.

It seems that we have collectively forgotten that the best learning lies in the best scripts. Yet, students these days seem to believe they can educate themselves without opening a single screenplay.

From reading lots of great scripts, you can learn style, structure and dialogue, virtually by osmosis.

One of my most dedicated students used to read a full-length feature screenplay every day, for months. This experience helped him so much, that he skyrocketed to the top of the best screenwriting contests, and was introduced to Hollywood agents. You can do this, too.

To be perfectly honest, though…

Just reading scripts is not going to cut it, either.

Enter Immersion

Thousands of screenplays are available online at any given time. They’re only a download away. So why don’t we all get to work, like, now?

It turns out to be a massive challenge to tell the wheat from the chaff.

Many are mere dialogue transcripts, which is utterly useless for the screenwriter who wants to learn how to use proper formatting and descriptive style.

Others are butchered versions, converted from one format to another, and ending up in a crappy TXT or – even worse – HTML format.

And only a few dozen scripts are available freely from their rights holders.

Fortunately, some sites publish a curated offering of these scripts, so you don’t have to make the selection for yourself.

In my view, once you are reading a rock solid selection of the best scripts, the only other mandatory daily action you need to take, is: write.

This is why after teaching screenwriting courses for nearly ten years, I decided to completely overhaul the philosophy behind my teaching.

I made a thorough review of what had worked in the past, and what didn’t.

I looked at which students had been successful, and who failed. Then I looked at the practices of working screenwriters, and built a system that helps writers build better habits, and prepare them for the writing of a professional screenplay draft. All without a tutor.

I named the course Immersion Screenwriting.

The results have been phenomenal.

The writing exercises I designed for this course emulate some of the brain processes of the seasoned screenwriter. Others are meant to create a steady writing habit, while building some sort of format muscle memory.

By performing these exercises on a daily basis, you adopt the practices of the professional screenwriter effortlessly. The basic version of the course runs for seven weeks (50 days), enough to change or create a new habit.

Take Action

If this all sounds like something you’d like to try, head over here.

If you have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on screenwriting courses and consults, rest assured that none of that was a waste. You will have acquired a top level understanding of the screenwriting trade.

But to get in the successful habit of writing effective screenplays, you need to not only know but feel what a great script looks like. This takes some time, and a fair amount of reading.

You need to know your genre inside out, you need to know its flagship movies and writing conventions. In addition, you need to be able to apply a contemporary writing style.

Readers want to enjoy your screenplay not only for its story, but also for its reading experience.

So, what script are you reading next?

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!

Every structure model is academic. There really are no rules. Instead, these systems are merely tools to allow us to communicate about story.

In the course of my screenwriting training career, I have always strived for simplicity. What we need in screenwriting, is an MVP, a Minimum Viable Product: the simplest possible system that still delivers the results for you. So you can focus on the creative aspects rather than the ‘how to‘.

Ideally, each screenwriter develops their own method. Only, there wouldn’t be much communication in that screenwriting utopia, as each were to use a different language.

As a thought experiment, I would like you to consider my approach to the Grand Story Arc: the 2-Act Structure. Before we venture into that, let’s brush up on the 2 main competing approaches: the 3-Act Structure (mostly for film and TV half-hours) and the 4-Act Structure (mostly for one-hour TV).

The 3-Act Structure

Although different people use different criteria to determine act breaks, I like a combination of dramatic tension and Hero’s Journey. In my approach, you will find that:

1. Act One ends once the main character’s goal is clear; either to the audience, to the characters itself, or both. Then, in Act Two we see the active pursuit of that goal.
2. Act Two ends after the character has almost given up on that goal, but finds a final reason or clue to push through.
3. Act Three sees the character’s final – and mostly successful – action in pursuit of that goal.

A massive problem of the 3-Act Structure is that chunky mid-act. Most writers struggle to create interesting story material that sustains 45-60 minutes. This is why the Mid Point is so important. I prefer calling it the Mid Point Reversal because in great stories, a very important value is completely reversed.

(It’s about time I write another piece about this, after early attempts in 2006 and 2009.)

Just because this Mid Point Reversal is so critically important, I believe the 4-Act Structure is a really helpful way of approaching screen story structure.

And look, in one-hour TV drama, we already have 4 acts, as the act breaks are roughly every 15 minutes on the ‘TV clock’. So before we move on to the mysterious 2-Act Structure, let’s examine the 4 acts.

The 4-Act Structure

This structure is no different than the 3-Act Structure, with the only difference that we have an act break for the Mid Point reversal.

So what does this Mid Point Reversal do that it is so important?

Let’s first look at what other authors and teachers think (that I don’t necessarily agree with).

1. It’s a point of no return.
   Yep, that may well be, but both act breaks are also points of no return.
2. It raises the stakes.
   Like those other act breaks, you mean? More proof the Mid Point is more like an act break.
3. It’s a false victory or false defeat.
   In fact, it is most often a false victory followed by a false defeat. A kiss and a slap.

The Mid Point Reversal

Here is what I think the Mid Point Reversal (MPR) really means … and it supports the 2-Act Structure beautifully:

1. A reversal of fortune
   In Groundhog Day, Phil (Bill Murray) believes his scheme has worked when Rita (Andy MacDowell) kisses him. But she immediately sees through the con, and slaps him.
   In The Untouchables, Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) achieves a major win by stopping a liquor transport at the Canadian border, and he seizes the accountant’s ledger, but at the end of the sequence one of his ‘untouchables’ is murdered.
2. A reversal of approach
   In the first half of Die Hard, McClane tries getting help from the outside. At the MPR he receives it, only to realise he now has to solve the problems himself because the outside help is making matters worse. A reversal, indeed.
   In One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest McMurphy tries to stay in the asylum, but after the mid point he tries to get out. Quite the opposite!
   In The Incredibles, Mr Incredible works [inadvertently] for Syndrome until the MPR. Here, he learns the truth about all the Supers, and now he will fight Syndrome. The ally becomes an enemy (or Shadow, in Hero’s Journey terms).
   In Avatar, Jake first works with the military against the Navi’, but after the MPR this reverses, and he now fights with the Navi against the military.

I am a huge fan of great mid points, and I will dedicate a full article to this soon. Meanwhile, see if you can find the meaning of the MPR in your favourite films. It is not always as clear as in the examples above, but you may be surprised…

The 4-Act Structure proves that the MPR has fully fledged act-status. It is just as important as the other act breaks.

In fact, I think it is even more important.

The 2-Act Structure

In many great movies, at the MPR two major reversals occur. One is often experienced as the result of an EVENT – or series of events – that happens to the character; this is the reversal of fortune. The other is a reversal in the way the character pursues the goal, or ACTION; This we call the reversal of approach.
In the greatest movies, this reversal is so profound that it sometimes feels as if we are entering a whole new movie altogether. Do you remember Life Is Beautiful? The first half of this incredibly successful foreign language Oscar winner was a love story, the second was … a World War II-drama.

Because the MPR really cuts the movie in two in a way that is much more obvious than the break from act 2 into 3, I would propose to do exactly this: cut the movie in two at the halfway point.

Voilà. The 2-Act Structure is born.

Two Parts Of The Journey

Michael Arndt, writer of Little Miss Sunshine and Toy Story 3 gives us another strong argument to support the 2-Act Structure.

After the Inciting Incident, the hero responds with actions that demonstrate the character flaw. Michael Arndt calls this the hero’s flawed response.

The MPR mostly starts with what looks like a major win for the character (false victory). Whatever approach they took, it worked! Then, they’re put with both feet on the ground, and they suffer a major loss (false defeat). These two polar opposites are part of the same MPR.

The negative polarity, the loss in the MPR, is a major event, and it actually looks very much like a second Inciting Incident, effectively testing the hero’s response after what they learned in the preceding story stage.

This time around, the hero will change their attitude, and respond in a way that shows they have learned something, or are learning.

See? There really are two parts to the story. Here is how I would summarise it.

Act One
The hero experiences the (first) Inciting Incident.
The response to the Inciting Incident is flawed, as they continue their dysfunction.
They enjoy a major win, and for a moment it seems the goal is (almost) achieved.

Act Two
The hero experiences a second Inciting Incident, as part of the MPR.
The response to this MPR Inciting Incident is the right response, as now the Hero makes an effort to improve, to heal.
They enjoy a final win, and we trust that in the future they will continue to act in the right way.

What do you think?

I believe the 2-Act Structure is a simple, appealing way of looking at the character’s journey, both in terms of plot and theme.

This approach recognises what some people call the ‘Inner Journey’ and the ‘Outer Journey’ in one simple, integrated model.

There is no need to throw out whatever structural tools you have been using up to this point, but perhaps this sheds a new, fresh light on how stories for the screen are structured from a bird’s eye perspective.

Let me know if the comments in this approach makes sense to you, and if you would like to use it in the development of your own stories.

– by Karel Segers

– 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!

While you’re stuck, it may be an idea to just do a few writing exercises. No pressure of having to come up with new material; this is not so much about story. It is all about honing your style skills. These writing exercises will help create the right habits for when the creative juices explode again.

Writing Exercise 1: Reverse Screenwriting

This is one of my absolute favourite writing exercises. It is extremely powerful in that it may help you find your ‘style voice’.

What is it?

In the normal world, scripts are written, then movies are made. For this exercise we reverse it. So you take an existing scene, then write the script for it.

When to do it?

It suits beginning writers but will also help those who have been writing for a while. If you need to improve your style or find your descriptive voice, this is for you.

How to do it?

Pick a scene from a script you own – and love. Initially, keep it short, a minute or two, three at the most. Play the movie scene on your computer screen, in loop. While it plays, write the script for it.

When you’re done, compare your version to the one in the script.

Do this exercise regularly, once or twice a week initially. Your description skills will skyrocket.

Writing Exercise 2: Dialogue Bug

This is one of the more involved writing exercises, depending on your approach. It is super useful to the beginning writer – and always a lot of fun.

What is it?

Write one or two minutes from a real-life dialogue in screenwriting format.

How to do it?

Record a conversation between two people who don’t know they are being recorded. Keep taping for at least 15 minutes.

Next, ask their permission to use the dialogue.

Then, transcribe the best two minutes from the conversation. Write minimal description, focusing on the dialogue.

If you can’t find a suitable situation to tape others, record yourself in conversation with someone else. Ideally, this would be a face-to-face chat, but if you have no alternative, tape a Skype call.

In the latter case, tape for as long as it takes you to forget about the recording. The material has to be 100% authentic, and therefore neither of you should realise they are being recorded. Oh, and don’t forget to ask permission from the other party.

When to do it?

This is one of the writing exercises I recommend to everyone early in their writing training. It is an excellent way of learning what real dialogue really looks like in a screenplay. It is also a fun exercise, and a real eye-opener to most.

Now don’t get me wrong. The objective is NOT for you to forever write dialogue the way people actually speak. It is more about discovering that magical quality of real dialogue. Once you get this, you can use the skill when you design your own characters and their language.

Writing Exercise 3: Complete Plagiarism

This is the mother of all writing exercises.

You will steal from the best. Not just borrow a line here and there. The whole bloody thing. All for the good cause.

I first learned about this exercise from my friend Arvid at the film school on the Swedish island of Gotland. One of the other visiting teachers had recommended it to the students. Coincidentally, the very next day I read that Steven Spielberg recommends this exercise to writers wanting to quickly learn the crux of the craft.

Are you ready? It is a big one!

What is it?

Download your favourite screenplay.

Copy it.

Word. For. Word.

You may do this in Celtx or Final Draft, but there is another way some people claim is even more effective.

Handwrite it. In a lined notebook.

Spend half an hour every day, and it may take you a month or more. But it will teach you a hell of a lot more than just reading the script.

When to do it?

This is definitely one of the writing exercises to do early in your screenwriting training. Or when you’re bored, or uninspired.

If slowly working through your absolute favourite screenplay won’t bring back your zest for writing… what will?

More Writing Exercises

Still not feeling the itch to continue on with your script (or novel)? Then check out these five writing exercises that are seriously left field. Or try any of these 25 writing prompts to get you unstuck.

If you’re struggling with a major case of writer’s block, you may want to re-read this article here on our own old Story Department.

And if you’re really badass, you combine Exercise #1 and #3.

Watch the movie. Write the script.

Enjoy!

-Karel Segers

(PS: If you like these tips, please repost on your own blog with a link to the original. Thanks!)

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!

by Karel Segers

This ‘new look’ thing seems a bit out of character for me. I mustered the courage before going into a 10-day meditation retreat – where I didn’t expect anyone would know me. I expected wrong. After the experiment with super-short hairdo and lack of facial hair, I’m now back to (fairly) normal. Other changes have stayed, like getting up before sunrise every morning. You should try it – it is totally awesome.

So here I am with a rare, more personal kind of article. I’ve tried to start a regular thing like this before – but was too shy, too much of a perfectionist – or probably just not good enough a writer to stick to it on a weekly basis.

But after a few inspiring chats with my team members last week, we have a plan for a regular Saturday post.

And lots more.

The Future And The Past

My Facebook friends witnessed how last year was quite amazing in that I had tons of fun teaching and consulting. I’ve worked on my biggest projects ever, with wonderful people. One project involves the director of Australia’s most successful film of recent years.

So not much blogging in there.

Now I’m staring 2013 in the face… and suddenly last year pales in comparison, both in terms of work volume and scope. I’ll be teaching at 5 different places in Sydney and after trips to Asia and the Middle East, this year for the first time I’m going back to my European roots to lecture in Sweden. And I’m working on some very exciting projects.

Still, I’ll try to update you here every month.

I do want to get back into writing about the craft of screenwriting again, too. My study of movie structure and screenplays and the work with my clients have given me a some insights I have not read about anywhere else and I would love to share them with you.

One Hundred Articles – One Great Team

Behind the scenes of this blog, 100 draft posts are waiting to be developed and published. For some other bloggers this may not seem so much but for me, who has only posted a handful of articles over the past year, it’s pretty intimidating. I’ve made a commitment to ship more often this year.

The most exciting thing of all is that I have an amazing team behind me to start this year, and I would like to introduce the five members of the core team to you:

Jamie Campbell: She is a novelist, blogger and screenwriter from sunny Queensland, who has taken the role of Co-Editor. Jamie has been helping me for quite a while to make The Story Department the best website on screenwriting in the Southern Hemisphere. Jamie runs Tuesday’s Guest Posts as well as Sunday’s Best Of The Web.

Jamie Wynen: This young man has talents coming out of his ears. He is an excellent writer and equally gifted behind the camera. Jamie collects the best videos on screenwriting, storytelling for the screen or filmmaking in general and presents them to you on Wednesdays. If only he would write more posts himself as his insight and style are both terrific.

James Michael: Like Jamie, I met James during a screenwriting course in which he excelled in terms of story originality and scriptwriting and I was thrilled when he accepted my invitation to join the team. He bridges the gap between The Story Department and “Logline It!“, the website on loglining that I started last year. James posts the Thursday logline reviews and often adds his own incisive feedback.

Marie Setiawan: I’ve know this screenwriter, filmmaker and blogger for a few years and was over the moon when at the end of 2012 she agreed to become one of the contributors to this web site. Marie graduated from the International Film School Sydney, where I consulted to the students on their projects. Marie will be tweeting on screenwriting and monthly on a Saturday, Marie reports on her path to becoming a professional screenwriter.

Cameron Pattison: Also a graduate from the IFSS, Cameron blew me away with the feature treatment he presented before graduating. Not only is he a promising screenwriter, Cameron is very much au fait on what is happening in the industry. His calm appearance disguises a burning passion for the craft. Cameron is keeping an eye on what’s reeling in the blogosphere and tweets it to @ozzywood.

Become One Of Us!

In addition to the core team, I’m hoping to present regular articles by Steven Fernandez, Mark Rasmussen, Ben Lenzo and other great regular contributors I am dying to read more of. We also have a fantastic monthly series coming up by JT Velikovsky, which will start next month.

If you have a screenwriting blog or would like to try your hand at writing a piece, drop us a note! We’d love to (re-)publish your stuff here.

Alongside all these collaborative efforts, I’ll make a superhuman effort to bring back the popular Structural Analyses.

If it weren’t for those wonderful people who have been helping me over the past few years, this blog would have virtually disappeared off the radar some time mid 2010. That’s when I dropped the ball due to real-life developments. But my volunteers have always stayed around – and so have you, my dear readers.

I thank you humbly for this.

– 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!

The scene in this clip is a trademark Cameron setup.

Remember the unobtainium – ‘floating rock’ scene in Avatar? That is a case of exposition that some love and others loathe.

This scene from The Abyss sits around about the same time into this movie and sets up an equally important concept, which will be crucial in the movie’s climax.

The scene is in my view one of the most supreme examples of exposition. It combines character and tension with essential story information.

It shows how James Cameron has always been a tremendously gifted screenwriter.

Enjoy!

In fact – and contrary to the unobtainium scene – Ron Cobb confirmed to me that the fluid breathing system is not sci-fi but fact.  Hippy’s rat is submerged in actual fluid breathing system liquid and in this scene it is really breathing underwater. Apparently, Beany the rat survived for quite a while afterwards and died of natural causes.

(On the contrary – as you might have guessed – in the movie’s climax Ed Harris did not breathe liquid. The glass of his suit was tinted amber to suggest it was filled with the liquid.)

_____________________________________

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]

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!

“Just a few days ago, we released version 2.0 of the Celtx software.

A lot of people don’t quite get what Celtx is about. I guess people see things from their own perspective. If they are screenwriters, they see a screenwriting application, if they are filmmakers, they see a pre-production package, if they are storyboard artists, they see a media application, if they are comic book creators, they see a new tool to help them make the same. And so it goes, each person seeing in Celtx what is useful to them in their own pursuit of creativity.

Don’t get me wrong. That’s all fine by us. In fact, that’s what we hoped would happen. That people would derive their own benefit based on their own needs. We always figured that there were, are, as many different ways to create media as there are users, so we tried to make the Celtx software as flexible as possible.

Thing is, no matter how they work, whether following traditional bottom up approaches to developing their story, or employing non-linear methods, most every media creator uses a lot of the same tools as the next person. It comes down to Story – characters, a situation, and locations.

You see a lot of references these days about the trend towards “convergence”, the merging of many different media formats – film, game, audio – the re-purposing of one media format for adaptation to another format. This in our view, is only describing what has always been the case. Artists have never been afraid to try new forms; to apply, and expand their skills beyond the confines of a single type of media.

Very few, if any, of the existing media software offerings seemed to recognize that fact, choosing instead to pigeon hole users in to one type of media, and through the use of proprietary file formats, and rigid work flows, preventing those same users from expanding beyond their initial canvass.

This, ultimately, is the opportunity we saw – to provide media artists with a tool that would be as expandable as they wanted it to be. One that let them easily re-purpose their media to other formats, and re-purpose their data to other applications.

What was needed was a universally accepted tool. A platform. Whatever you want to call it. But a way for any and all media creators to use one system that supported all of their requirements and let them collaborate without worrying about data formats, and incompatible technologies. Making media is hard enough without being frustrated by files that won’t open or technologies that limit creativity.

This is why Celtx is open source and uses only open standards. It ensures maximum flexibility and a common platform that all media makers can use.

Being an open source software application, Celtx is open to anyone to integrate their own technology in to the system. Just recently, another company developing a script writing offering had indicated that they are developing a tool that ties in to the Celtx software.

That’s the whole idea. To make Celtx the default system for developing media regardless of the specific application you are using to create different aspects of their project. Once saved in a Celtx Project, the media is unassailable, re-purposeable, convertible, and sharable by all.

This usually begs the question of how do we make money from all of this? What motivation do we have to make Celtx a success (other then for altruistic reasons)?

The growing use of web services is an undeniable, and unstoppable trend in the technology business. Every company developing technology sees the writing on the wall. The future is in selling web services that augment the desktop environment.

When the cell phone industry first got going in Europe, everyone agreed (with the help of some gentle persuasion from the regulators) to a common standard. The risk was that without a common standard everyone would go off madly in all directions, balkanizing the cell phone environment in to a myriad of networks, none of which would talk to each other. The result would have been very bad for users.

Instead, an open standard was promulgated, and everyone rushed to innovate off that open standard, introducing new hand sets and new technologies to gain market share. Nokia became one of the best in the industry at being the first to market with new innovations, gaining more and more users. The rest, as they say, is history.

This is what we hope for Celtx – that it continues to establish itself as the open system for creating and sharing media. We may have invented it, but we don’t own it, any more then Nokia owns the 3G cell phone network that they have so successfully leveraged.

The new Celtx Studios is our first commercial offering based on the open standards Celtx software. It is designed to provide media creators with web based access to their media projects, including optimized archiving for sub-versions, collaboration features and the ability to create protected web Previews.

The same offering, or one similar to it, could be developed by anyone using the open source code of Celtx to achieve their goal, just like the Nokia competitor, Ericsson, has also developed new cell phone technologies that work on the same system as Nokia’s.

One open system, many offerings based on that system, all benefiting users. That’s the promise. That’s the future.”

-Mark Kennedy
CEO Celtx

]]> https://www.thestorydepartment.com/from-one-to-many/feed/ 5 1341 https://www.thestorydepartment.com/the-story-revolution/ https://www.thestorydepartment.com/the-story-revolution/#comments Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:06:25 +0000 /the-story-revolution/ Read more]]> Nafa – Choctops Meeting: 18/2/08

(Report by John Haly,
Thank you to Tony Chu)

Karel -a Belgian producer and script consultant – founded OZZYWOOD Films and The Story Department (which is a unique Australian blog and online resource for screen story theory). Karel headed production and programming at London’s Digital Broadcasting Company and was a film buyer for CANAL+, (Europe’s largest pay TV service). He was the host for a movie show for MTV Europe. His production credits included two short dramas, a documentary and a feature film. In post-production, he has a short animation and a feature film. As a script consultant, he has clients both in Australia and overseas. Of interest to Nafa members, he also runs regular workshops on script writing. A notable fact is that the 2007 nominees and also the winner of the Australian Writer Guild Monte Miller Award were Karel’s clients. Accordingly, if you are a script writer, you will, indeed, be well advised to pay particular attention to his views on ‘What our industry needs is a Story Revolution’.

Karel began by delving back into his personal history stating that he had started in Radio as a reporter who would phone in initial reviews of films for night radio – a far cry from the online internet reviewing of films of the contemporary culture. His first venture into a screenplay dates back to 1989, although he admits to abandoning that path because of early criticism by an established script writer. His next attempt was twelve years later, and he promptly lost the first draft.

In 2001, he moved to Australia where he co-produced a documentary and then a short film, but the last didn’t go anywhere. The next film was “Aerosol” which was dispatched to, and was selected by a few film festivals, but won no significant prizes. As a consequence, he then contemplated a change of direction and began studying and reading in an effort to get new insights as to the creative writing process.

The author at the top of his reading list was Robert McKee. McKee’s book, ‘Story’ is considered by some as the “screenwriters’ bible”. When purchasing the software for screen writing called ‘Power Structure’, he was offered at a reduced price a DVD called ‘The Hero’s 2 Journeys’ which was promoted as extremely enlightening material capable of educating writers and which revealed the template upon which the vast majority of successful stories and Hollywood blockbusters are based. Michael Hauge and Christopher Vogler’s DVD opened Karel’s eyes as it offered a unique insiders’ understanding of the ways screenplay structure, character, and theme must combine to be successful.

Karel became aware of the sad fact that there seemed to be little by the way of ‘Story Education’ available in Australia. Michael Hauge’s principles were applied in advising writers of script plays. With the aid of AFC funding, it became possible to produce a following accompanied by good results. He educated writers that the structure of writing was important, particularly from the perspective of Character. His insight centred on the question: Where does drama happen? He emphasises that it is not in the visualisation of the story, but the subtext beneath the story that good scriptwriting lies.

The fault to which many writers fall prey is that of visualising the scene as they are writing, thus thinking in terms of pictures. As it is a visual media up with which we end, we must keep in mind into what it is that a visual story latches in the minds of the audience – for example, that of ‘Desire’! The question that ought to be at the centre of your script should focus on the desires and objectives of your characters because film ‘hangs together’ with the emotions of “Desire”.

A frequent criticism of Australian films is that they have weak protagonists, (i.e. those without will power). If you give your protagonist a visible goal with a desire and will to get there, then you are more likely to engage your audience. The essence of Michael Hauge’s proposition is that you need a character who has a visible goal with a clearly defined end-point.

Karel recalled the Columbia University educator, Frank Daniel, who was noted for his development of the sequence paradigm of Screenwriting. Frank’s conception of a good protagonist was ‘somebody who wants something badly and has difficulty getting it.”

Karel turned to the audience to ask, ‘As a screen writer what is your primary goal?’ After a few financial and entertaining replies, someone suggested ‘to tell a story’. Karel then asked, ‘Why are you telling that story?’ Quoting Michael Hauge, his answer was two words, ‘elicit emotion’. In order to do this, there are three things with which a screen writer can play. 1. Character, 2. Desire, 3. Conflict.

The best way Karel can find to illustrate this is simply through the examples of successful films, which is what he uses when he runs his workshops. Irrespective of whether it is a Mainline or Arthouse movie, they all follow the same structure. The film ‘Die Hard’ deals with a man seeking to stop the criminals. ‘Jaws’ relates to a man’s desire to stop the Shark. Consider an Oscar winning Arthouse movie: “The Lives of Others’ where in the first half, the protagonist desires to expose the director while in the second half, he wishes to protect him.

As a screenwriter, you need to structure the desire. (Characters need structure in their desire). Your audience needs to know in the first act what that desire is. Your character also needs to resonate with the audience, exhibiting his or her human flaws. It is the flaw that holds the need of the protagonist. In ‘Die Hard, while desiring to stop the criminals, his flaw was that he was afraid to tackle the criminals who held his wife hostage. In the “The Lives of Others”, the protagonist changes his mind mid way. Audiences expect to perceive this desire, even if it is not spelled out.

As Aristotle distinguishes: a whole is that which has a beginning, a middle, and an end. In the beginning, the audience is introduced to the setting, the characters, their situation,/conflict and the goal they desire. In short, something happens, unexpectedly, which defines the story to come. To paraphrase Aristotle, ‘A beginning is that which does not itself follow anything by causal necessity, but after which something naturally is or comes to be’.

In ‘Die Hard’ the building is stopped while John McClane goes up to the highest floor to get a bird’s eye perspective and think through his options. He says to himself, ‘Think, think, think’. [KS: The exact same words are used by Woody in Toy Story 2 after Wheezy is taken away.] The initial plot point of confusion [KS: In the Hero’s Journey the ‘Mentor’ stage, ‘Refusing the Call’] shifts to the derivation of a plan and new plot point – an event followed by a reaction. Something happens, a plan evolves and the pursuit of activity begins and continues all the way to a resolution.

Karel advised that as a Script writer you should ask yourself, ‘What is the reason this story is being told?’. As for Karel himself, he was sitting here talking to us because he was strongly motivated by the desire to see a revolution in the way Australian Script writers create stories. He proclaimed, ‘Make sure there is a connection between yourself and the story you are telling. There is a requirement to want to connect to an audience.’

It is in the tribal ethos of ancient days that the storyteller tells stories relevant to their tribes. They are told not only to get the message across, but also to create such impact that the stories are repeatedly retold to subsequent generations of that tribe. It is important whether you be scriptwriters or producers or directors, that you choose the scripts that can best tell the story.

Be aware that the contemporary tribe of humanity is being conditioned by the way a story is being told in film and theatre. Be conscious of writing structure as it is entering an arena, a tribe, a society that is accustomed to perceive in a specific manner. Don’t be dismissive of the formula for telling the story in film just because you want to be ‘different’, or because your audience has been conditionally seasoned, even if they are not consciously aware of being told a story with a definite style.

Karel moved on to seek to discredit a few commonly held myths. The first one is that writers should rush out and buy specific Screen Writing Software such as ‘Final Draft’. In the first place, there are plenty of free alternatives out there for Microsoft word templates, [KS: Celtx] etc. Primarily, it initially tempts you to write in scenes, when it is the story you first need to relate. Reading scripts to get the format right as a pre-requisite encourages the visualisation of scenes when first, you should be concentrating on the story. Try watching a movie, break it down and decode it yourself rather than reading or writing a script (story first, script last).

The next myth concerns language. Some writers love flowery prose. Question yourself as to whether your objective is to write something that only reads well, or do you wish to write a story of substance? Identify: where is the story? Do you have a character with a desire? Where is the conflict in the story? This, as your primary guideline becomes the focus of the storyline.

The next myth concerns Log Lines. (A Log Line is a brief summary of the film, often providing both a synopsis of the program’s plot, and an emotional “hook” to stimulate interest). Karel confessed for a long time that he believed that the Log Line was the last thing you wrote after the script and synopsis. He is now firmly convinced the opposite is true.

If you want to know more about the importance of Log Lines go to ‘The Unknown Screen Writer’ and ‘Mystery Man on Film‘. These will help you to use correctly the Log Lines – a procedure the importance of which cannot be overestimated. These are the selling lines of your film which you must know before you start writing. Formulate a Log Line of: who is your character? What does the character want?- and- What is the obstacle(s) in his way? Try to compose your log line by writing it down as soon as possible as this keeps you in focus. That great idea that pops into your head during the writing! Does it fit into your Log Line? If not, put it aside because it has no place in your story. Keep it for your next script.

Karel then suggested that the biggest mistake people make in the attempt to sell their scripts is to dispatch them too early. Sending and then resending draft versions is the quickest way to ensure that the people reading the dispatched articles lose interest. By resending a newer, updated version of the script, you are admitting to the producer or director that you sent them a previous script that you well knew wasn’t ready.

Following on from that theme, Karel pointed out that formatting the script is not important until you have the story written. As Art Arthur said: ‘Don’t get it right, get it written!’ Once it is written in the final draft, THEN there are formatting rules to which you need to comply. It is then that those slug lines, script punctation and the absence of typos needs to be scrupulously addressed.

Karel noted that studies of the Australian Government Feature Film Funding have shown that only about 19 out of some 419 films actually made money. He impressively expressed the point that our essential requirement was to think about the market. Again, he reiterated the need for writers to understand and act on the principles espoused in “The Hero’s Journey”.

Despite the perception that both Germans and Australians possess an inherent hero phobia, explore the successful films in our own industry, and that, in itself, will disabuse any such notion.

At this point, Jeanie opened the floor to questions. These included ones concerning the cultural differences between countries when it came to making films. This, in turn, raised the topic of our anxiety of being commercially successful. Questions about breaking the rules for film structure returned a reply of: ‘how about mastering the ‘Rules‘ first BEFORE contemplating breaking them- not the other way around.

Tony concluded the evening by thanking Karel for his contribution. Karel spoke privately to people as they approached him and eventually the evening broke up, as actors, producers and director’s networks chatted on before being kindly ejected by the Bar Staff wishing to close. Some of us spilled out onto the sidewalks to continue our conversations till the passing night drew us to the consideration that we should be homeward bound.

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!

Australia is a hands-on type of nation. When I arrived in 2001, it didn’t take me long to get my first short film off the ground. So many wonderful people, eager to get their hands dirty and help me out. After all, filmmaking doesn’t have to be the cumbersome, expensive art it used to be. In a way it is still cumbersome but the essentials to capture and reproduce images have become so cheap they are now within reach of anyone with a job or a credit card.

The largest short film festival in the world started in Sydney. Meanwhile Tropfest has spilled out to all major Australian cities and even the rest of the world . The fact it started here in Australia is no coincidence. When an Australian wants to do something, he doesn’t first sit down to ponder about how it is usually done and then wait for an opportunity to arise so the job gets a bit easier. The Australian goes for it. ASAP.

You can hear me coming: despite all the good intentions there is a downside to this “let’s just do it” attitude. In the case of filmmaking, I cannot shed the impression the Australian believes there are shortcuts. What is the easiest way to get your idea on the screen? You hire or buy a video camera, get some mates to stand in front of it and “just do it”. We are all made to believe this is how it works. Practical guides to the use of digital equipment make it seem like child’s play.

It is an illusion that has cost us dearly in recent years. I have seen a fair few movies lately that were all made with lots of enthusiasm but not a lot of thought gone into the screenplay. What is it with movies that people just cannot stop believing the illusion? At this point I must add that what sets my friend with the HD camera apart from the crowd, is this: he had first invested a significant amount of money in learning the craft of screenwriting.

FINAL GOODBYE FINAL DRAFT?

Only yesterday I received an email from which I quote:

“I have about 3 ideas for scripts, they would be produced entirely by my friends and I. I need to put the first drafts down I am trying to round up a script writing program to make it easier.”

There is the other myth: Final Draft will help you write your script. (On a separate note: soon that myth may be forever buried, when Celtx takes over. They have just released version 0.995 and it is starting to look better than anything on the market. Interesting detail: Celtx is free. At least no money will be wasted on the illusion that software could spit out a story.)

In his book STORY, Robert McKee makes the point:

“If your dream were to compose music, would you say to yourself: “I’ve heard a lot of symphonies… I can also play the piano… I think I’ll knock one out this weekend? No. But that’s exactly how many screenwriters begin: “I’ve seen a lot of flicks, some good and some bad… I got A’s in English… vacation time ‘s coming…”

The essence of story is not rocket science. I keep repeating: it is a learnable skill. But a skill that must be learned nonetheless. What you cannot learn is the inspiration, the need to tell a specific story. Yet so many people with the desire to tell that story believe they can get away without properly mastering the craft. They want to build the house without a notion of engineering. They want to compose a symphony without knowing a C from a Cis. They want to serve a bouillabaisse but can’t even cook a ratatouille.

If you were hoping there might be a new generation waiting to jump in and rejuvenate this general malaise, the following might put a stop to your optimism. At a networking event earlier this year, I spoke with a university student who had taken a screenwriting class the previous year. Asked about the one thing she took away from that class, she answered:

“I guess, that you can break the rules and still get away with it.”

THE OMNIPOTENT FUNDING AGENCIES

Having recently caught up on some Australian films of the past few years (see my previous post) and listening to feedback from others on more recent films (Clubland, West, Suburban Mayhem etc.) it seems these pictures are unable to connect with a mainstream audience. Or any audience, for that matter. It’s no longer an issue of getting the audience into the theater, if those who saw the films are not entertained. There are strong indications the problems don’t lie in the execution but in the bare essentials of story. Yep, they are breaking the rules.

But where did things start to go wrong? I believe the lack of understanding of the principles of story has become endemic for our entire industry. Not only do writers lack the skills: producers and funding decision makers fail to see the flaws in screenplays. As long as the ‘elements’ are in place, the film will get made. The ‘elements’ being: cast, technically experienced crew, government funding etc.

On the government’s role: while preparing development notes for a government funding application, a particular paragraph in the guidelines struck me.

“What is the point of view (POV) of the script? That is, where is the audience positioned in relation to the script? Are they close to one central character? Is it an omnipotent POV?”

An “omnipotent POV”?? Somebody has lost the plot here. Point of view is crucially important in a story. The terminology should be second nature to anyone even remotely involved in screenwriting, let alone the funding of it. If even the funding agencies cannot get their act together, why would anyone expect the writers would? Interesting to note that the same funding agency has been reported to have feature drama screenplays assessed by documentary film makers. Go figure.

Recently a young filmmaker submitted a rough cut on DVD with an application for post-production funding. The application was rejected. The assessor didn’t like the film? Correction: the assessor didn’t like the screenplay. The rejection was justified in a multi-page assessment of the screenplay. The assessor did reference the DVD but the brunt of his tirade was directed at the script.

Why am I concerned… Very concerned…

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!

Jim Mercurio makes the following point about Gaghan’s comments in the notorious CS podcast: “Gaghan’s comments are showing that he is evolving from a screenwriter into a filmmaker. “

With ‘filmmaker’, he undoubtedly means ‘director’ and with his quote he hits the nail on the head. However, Mercurio makes it sound as if this is a natural evolution, when he goes on to explain how his own latest script too is told with transitions. All of a sudden Gaghan is fashionable, and screenwriters are re-inventing Tolstoy. Now let’s not forget the following facts:

1. Tolstoy was a novelist
2. Gaghan is NOT a meanstream screenwriter
3. Transitions do not stand in the way of proper story structuring

What everybody seems to be missing in this discussion is that transitions play on a shot level, or at best on a scene level. Story structure goes way beyond that. Whatever Mercurio may think, a screenplay written solely from transitions will most likely end up in the same tiny niche market as KOYAANISQATSI.

DVD: THE MANN SPEAKS

The same day I stumbled on the discussion above, I heard writer/director Michael Mann’s commentary on the Restored Director’s Cut of MANHUNTER.

Mann’s comments focus mainly on the parallel psychology of the serial murderer and the cop, besides a few killer anecdotes about production nightmares. My favourite: the airplane scene with the little girl freaking out over Will Graham’s bloody crime scene photos. The only way to shoot this was to book the entire film crew on a United Airlines flight from Chicago to Orlando without informing the airline of their plans, keeping all equipment as hand luggage. Mid flight suddenly these hundred or so people got out of their seats and started filming. No need to say that Mann could kiss his United air miles goodbye.

But let’s skip to the last few minutes of the commentary in which Michael Mann summarises his approach to filmmaking. “Film is made in the editing room. In the writing and in the director’s preparation you’re planning what you’re gonna do in the editing room.” He then refers to the Russian theory of montage from the 1920’s, which was followed by the Brits in the next decade (and used later to great commercial success by Alfred Hitchcock a.o.).

I don’t want to get too theoretical here, but anybody with a real interest in the effect of montage, should really do some reading on Lev Kuleshov and what is still known as the Kuleshov Effect. Using this, I could easily build a case to prove that transitions are structure. I’ll spare you that one for now. But isn’t it remarkable that seventy years apart, two Russians were telling the world about transitions in their respective art forms?

To conclude: Mercurio is right when he says that Gaghan writes like a filmmaker. Like Michael Mann, he is already thinking of what he will do in the editing room and therefore writes his story from scene transitions rather than starting from an overall dramatic arc. This approach to script writing is indeed in many ways similar to that of Hitchcock or Mann but I am sure those last two went through far less drafts than Gaghan.

BTW: Don’t rush out to get Manhunter from HMV or Amazon.com: unfortunately Mann’s commentary only features on a rare DVD which has been out of print for a while, which limits your options largely to eBay. But as a bonus from OZZYWOOD, you can download the last four minutes of Michael Mann’s director’s commentary here.

LOOSE ENDS: The First Act Monolith

Recently I watched BRUBAKER, not knowing anything about this 1980 drama directed by Stuart Rosenberg. If you haven’t seen the film but are planning to do so in the near future, don’t read on as I will spoil the pleasure (and surprise).

The film strays from the traditional structure mainly because of its offbeat First Act. For the life of me, I could not detect an Inciting Incident, nor any significant protagonist characterisation. Instead we witness from Robert Redford’s detainee character’s POV how the most appalling injustice and brutality is inflicted relentlessly upon the inmates.

Over thirty minutes into the movie, Redford’s character identifies himself as the new warden and announces in the same scene that he wants to force through some serious reform. Finally we have our 1st Act Turning Point. I am still trying to understand why the warden’s identity was kept hidden from the audience all along. Apart from a sudden surprise, it doesn’t add a thing. The use of dramatic irony (i.e.: the audience knows, but the other characters don’t) would have been much more powerful and it would have allowed for the badly needed character development.

Leading US critic Roger Ebert wrote about this film: “There’s no room for the spontaneity of real human personalities caught in real situations. That’s especially annoying with the character of Brubaker himself, played well but within a frustratingly narrow range by Robert Redford. “

Redford’s performance is rock solid given the material. BRUBAKER’s real problem is its flawed structure: half an hour into the movie, we have run out of screentime to sufficiently set up the protagonist’s character and potential internal conflicts. Redford didn’t have anything to work with, which makes Ebert’s comment rather unfair.

What the screenwriters did achieve quite well though, is the setup of antagonists and external obstacles in the way of the protagonist’s objective. Perhaps this explains why the film did work for me.

It still beats me though why BRUBAKER was nominated for Best Screenplay back in 1980. Perhaps it was a fluke. In my view, this theory gains strength when we look at co-writer W.D. Richter’s latest work: STEALTH…

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!