This week Sam Worthington mentioned our project in an interview to the press in the US as he is first in line to play the lead. Sam voiced the narration for the documentary from the same producer Martin Walsh and this documentary is now available for the first time at no cost, in HD video. I have embedded it on this web page.

This is a fascinating story and when you watch it, you’ll understand what an amazing opportunity it is to work on the movie, with my three co-writers James Nicholas, Paul Sullivan and Jack Brislee.

From the Long Tan web site:

A true story of 108 ordinary young Australian and New Zealand soldiers and their extraordinary courage, heroism and triumph against an overwhelming enemy force of 2,500 soldiers.

With a large budget, an internationally appealing ensemble cast featuring three generations of Australia’s best onscreen talent and the best creative team offscreen, Long Tan will be remembered for its visceral scenes of combat, its deep and broad range of characters, and the extraordinary drama of a true story.

Happy Australia Day!

If you liked this, check out more videos about screenwriting or filmmaking. And if you know of a great video on Screenwriting, let us know in the comments. 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!

_______________________________

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!

The movie pays off on every possible level. It’s fun, emotional and has tremendous depth.

I have seen it three times, each in a different format, and the story easily withstands multiple viewings.  A few days ago I shared my views on the various technical formats. In short: I’m not overly excited about the whole 3D thing still. It’s just delivered very poorly.

But rejoice! Today we’re talking STORY!!

Yes, friends, Toy Story 3 is formulaic. Much like Toy Story 1 (See Paul Gulino’s excellent analysis in Screenwriting: The Sequence Approach), it follows an 8-Sequence Hero’s Journey structure with a powerful Mid Point Reversal. Still, it is delightfully complex as you can peel layer after layer from a wonderfully crafted script.

Trust me, this level of supremely high quality screenwriting you don’t get very often in cinemas. A team of the best story brains in the world labored over it for years, including one of the finest screenplayers of our generation. The result: the winner of the 2010 Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. I’ll be damned if they don’t win.

I love doing these structural analyses and unfortunately I can’t always justify the time to write my notes with the breakdown. (At the time of this writing, I must apologize for still not having done this for the Gladiator breakdown)

This time, however, I found I had to give you at least something. Toy Story 3 is such an amazing example of successful sequential writing, as well as the pinnacle of Hero’s Journey structure. I know there are a few people out there still resisting the call from this type of structural approach but that’s fine. There’s two kinds of people in this world — Winners…and Losers. (LOL)

— massive spoilers ahead —

W.: Woody
B.: Buzz
MPH.: Mr. Potato Head
J.: Jessie
L.: Lotso
BB: Big Baby

ACT ONE

Sequence A: “Andy is gonna take care of us. I guarantee it.” (15mins)

00.00    Pixar leaders + Title
01.00    W. vs. One-Eyed Bart & Betty (Mr. & Mrs. PH), aliens & Evil Dr. Pork Chop (Hamm)
05.00    Montage of video: Andy plays with toys as he grows up. “Our frienship will never die…”

06.15    A. about to leave for college.  Toys in chest, executing plan to get A.’s attention.
07.30    Calling Andy’s mobile – plan fails as he ignores the toys.
08.00    Staff meeting. Woody: “Andy is gonna put us in the attic.” Toy soldiers give up & leave.
10.00    Woody: “Andy is gonna take care of us. I guarantee it.” Looks at old photo.
11.00    Buzz: “Guarantee it? … At least we’ll all be together.”
13.00    Andy opens chest, looks at toys, puts them in garbage bag. Woody & Buzz separated.

14.00    Andy goes to attic, Molly interrupts. Attic closes. Mom takes bag for garbage.

This is the movie’s first sequence climax. It holds both the Inciting Incident (toys to garbage) and Woody’s Call to Adventure (he witnesses the I.I.). He must act. Note that the ensuing action is not about staying together (a Call he is refusing as he’s accepted Andy’s choice to take Woody with him to college), but rather about saving his friends from the garbage truck, so they can go to the attic.

Sequence B: Woody saving friends, caught in car to daycare. (14mins)

15.00    Think, think, think! Dog Buster is no help: fat & old. Garbage truck getting closer.
16.30    Toys escape under. box J.: “I know what to do!” All in car in box to Sunnyside.
17.30    Woody: Mistake! Car door closes, drives off. W.: “You’ll be begging to go home!”
19.00    Looking through handle hole: Butterfly room. Kids playing peacefully with toys.

20.30    Warmly welcomed by other toys. Lotso: Playing all day. No owners, no heartbreak.
22.30    Ken’s Dreamhouse: Barbie in love with Ken. Lotso gives the toys a tour.
26.00    W.: “We need to go home.!” Toys try to convince him, unsuccessfully.
27.30    Buzz: “This is it? After all we’ve been through?” Extends hand to Woody. Woody refuses.

Woody’s final decision to pursue his overall goal (and initial plan) for this movie isn’t formulated until here: to return to Andy and be there for him when he goes to college. His refusal to accept Buzz’ hand is the movie’s second sequence climax and a reminder of the Inner Journey: he must learn to let go of the past and keep his loyalty to his friends, i.e. Stay Together.

Ironically, after Andy’s decision to separate Woody from his friends (in Sequence A) has been overturned, now the choice is put to Woody. He can stay together with them if he wants, but he chooses not to.

You might want to see the closing of the car door as the end of Act One, as that’s where the toys are leaving their Ordinary World. This is not a deliberate action by Woody, though.

He doesn’t voluntarily enter Sunnyside and the toys being together at that point is still too much of an Ordinary World, offering our hero a sense of comfort. The real separation only happens when Woody deliberately chooses to leave. It feels consistent with the way the sequence is built dramatically. Woody refusing Buzz’ extended hand is a tremendously powerful setup for the heart-wrenching Crisis scene, in which he will accept Buzz’ hand.

ACT TWO

Sequence C: Woody escapes. Toys see the less sunny side. (12mins)

28.30    Woody escapes: Corridor – Bathroom – Roof – Glider – Tree. Bonnie finds him.
31.00    Rough playtime. Buzz sees the Butterfly Room – contrast of peace.
33.00    Meeting Bonnie’s toys: heaven for Andy. Being played with & being loved.
35.00    Aftermath. Toys in Caterpillar Room lick their wounds. Moving to Butterfly Room!

36.00    We’re trapped! Open door.  Buzz follows Twitch and Chunk into candy dispenser.
38.30    Buzz overhears gamblers: “Lucky if they last a week.” B. Caught by Big Baby. To library!

Woody’s escape from Sunnyside is a fun ‘threshold sequence’, in which he travels and overcomes barriers to leave the world of Sunnyside.

If you want, you can see Toy Story 3 as a metaphorical tale about the end of (a toy’s) life.

Throughout the film you may recognize symbols of life and death, echoing religious notions of heaven, hell and purgatory. When Bonnie plays with Woody and throws him gently in the air, the image goes in slow motion, showing an ecstatic Woody. This is clearly heaven to him: being played with and being loved. It is no coincidence that this is where Woody will return after he narrowly escapes a burning hell by taking Buzz’ hand, a symbolic repentance.

The sequence ends on a strong climax with Buzz being in jeopardy.

Sequence D: Mid Point Reversal: Truth behind Sunnyside. (12mins)

40.00    Woody tries to leave Bonnie’s place. Toys protest.
40.30    Buzz questioned, Lotso: “We got a keeper!” Buzz reset to Demo mode.
43.00    Mrs. PH’s ‘other eye’ sees A. & Mom. “Woody was telling the truth! We gotta go home!”
44.00    Lotso: “You’re Not Going Anywhere. Lock ’em up!” Buzz ‘disables’ them.
47.30    W. hears Story of Daisy, Chuckles, Lotso and Big Baby.  W: “But… my friends are there!”

Like clockwork, after four of the eight sequences and halfway the movie, the tables are turned.

The Mid Sequence is only the second sequence of Act Two but it falls right in the middle of the story (40mins preceding it, 40mins following it), because Act One is significantly longer than Act Three.

Reversal #1: We have learned that Sunnyside is a very dark place to be, contrary to the first impression the toys had upon arrival.
Reversal #2: As a result of #1, Woody has changed his beliefs about staying with Andy vs. staying together with his friends. (Inner Journey)
Reversal #3: Consistent with the progress in his Inner Journey, Woody changes his Outer Journey approach and in stead of returning to Andy’s place, he will return to Sunnyside and help his friends.

ACT TWO-b

Sequence E: Woody back. Getting out tonight! (16mins)

52.00    Lotso: “Rise and shine, campers! Playdate with destiny.” More rough playtime.
53.30    Woody goes back in. Phone gives W. a 4-pronged strategy: “Get rid of that monkey.”

56.30    W. back with toys: “We’re busting out of here. Tonight!” Explains plan to toys.
58.00    Executing the plan: MPH gone – distraction manoeuvre. Woody & Slinky get out.
59.00    MPH escapes from the Box w/ Tortilla. / Woody immobilizes monkey.
60.30    Barbie: “Ken, would you model a few outfits for me?”
61.00    Monkey mummified – Woody finds the key. / Hamm and Rex catch Buzz under box.
63.00    Barbie: no more games, Ken. / Mr. Potato Head: coast clear, toys come out.
64.30    Barbie gets Ken to speak, then gets manual from library, in space suit.
65.30    MPH (tortilla version) vs. Bird / Toys ‘fix’ Buzz but he goes in Spanish Mode.

Act IIb shows a new direction, a clear plan is laid out and a ticking clock speeds up the action. This sequence has a great energy, quite positive for an Act IIb sequence. But this is done deliberately in order to create a stark contrast with the sequence that follows.

Sequence F: Escaping + Woody’s Ordeal & Transformation (15mins)

68.00    MPH (cucumber version) returns. All leave, outsmart Big Baby, who’s on guard.
69.30    Buzz courting Jessie with dance. She is happy to see Woody again.
70.30    Buzz opens the shute. On the other side: Lotso & Co. Phone: “They broke me”.
72.30   L.: “You need to avoid that truck. Join our family again.”
73.30    Woody: what about Daisy? She loved you. Big Baby: “Mama!”
74.00    BB pushes Lotso into garbage container. Alien stuck, Woody helps, is pulled in.
75.00    Too late: toys  in garbage truck. Buzz saves Jessie and is returned to normal.
77.00    Arrival at the dump. Aliens run towards claw but are caught by passing truck.
78.00    Conveyor belt. W.: “Stay together.” Woody and Buzz save Lotso.
79.00    We’re all in this together! Daylight! Not daylight but oven.
79.30    Lotso betrays them. “Where’s your kid now!” All going down.
81.00    All toys holding hands, ready for the end. Woody takes Buzz’ extended hand.
82.00    Light from above. The Claw! Aliens are in control.

This sequence creates instant cinema history. At the Mid Point, Woody chose to stay with his friends. In this Approaching the Inmost Cave stage, the hero’s new belief is tested.

The sequence opens light-heartedly, with Mr Potato Head having changed his disguise from a tortilla to a cucumber. Soon the tone changes, with Big Baby’s creepy reference to The Exorcist and before we know the toys are in the garbage truck with a scene that could be a reference to Star Wars‘ trash compactor scene. This could be mistaken for the story’s Crisis but not for long.

Woody and his friends have lived through all the stages of a toy’s life and they’ve arrived at the dump, where the hero will face the Ordeal, in the Inmost Cave. It will be the story’s lowest point, both literally and figuratively. Woody is on his way to hell (the oven) and before he deserves heaven (Bonnie’s room) he will need to redeem himself.

The moment when the toys are all holding hands, facing death, is hands-down the greatest cinematic moment I have seen in a long time. Woody passes the test glowingly as a transformational hero when he redeems himself for rejecting Buzz at the end of Act One.
The tightness of the screenplay is just astounding at this point. The religious reference is obvious when suddenly the light shines from above, but another layer is added in by the fact that The Claw had always represented the little aliens’ God.

ACT THREE

Sequence G: Road Back + Climax. Woody does the right thing (10mins)

83.00    MPH “Eternally grateful.” Lotso onto front of truck. Keep mouth shut!
84.00    W.: “Maybe attic not great idea.” Andy still packing. On garbage truck (with Sid).
85.00    Home, go back in box ‘Attic’. Toys say goodbye to Woody. “Take care of Andy.”
86.00    Andy back in box ‘College’. Mom emotional. “I wish I could always be with you.”
87.00    Woody writes a note. Andy: “Donate?” Mom: “Whatever you wanna do.”
88.00    Andy drives to Bonnie’s place, introduces toys to Bonnie. “Take good care.”
90.30    Bonnie finds Woody: “My cowboy”. Andy confused & conflicted. (Climax)
91.30    Andy’s decision: “You think you can take care of him for me?”

With a Crisis of the magnitude as we’ve seen here, the movie can’t go wrong anymore. Still, surprises keep piling up.

This final installment in the Toy Story saga is different from the others in that Woody interferes with the world of the humans – with lasting impact – more than once. It works perfectly for a number of reasons. I can think of two:

1. If you see the three movies as three acts in the overall arc, it is normal that the hero is more active in the final act. Having Woody change the world of the humans is a fabulous way of making this happen.

2. The toys’ license to interfere with the world of the humans is set up in the very early scene when they call Andy’s mobile phone.

1. Woody’s final action causes a moment of choice for Andy, similar to Woody’s own journey climax.

Sequence H: A new life for Andy and for the toys.

92.30    Andy: Thanks guys. So long, partner.

93.00    The End.

To conclude, I would like to point out that it is so much easier to analyze a great story – and this is not even a proper analysis, just a rough outline – than it is to write one. The first you can do in a few hours; the last takes a few years. That said, I hope that this analysis helps some people to see the difference between following good writing principles and lazily copying a formula.

Toy Story 3 ticks more boxes than any movie I have seen in recent times, yet it does it in a refreshing way. It also shows that even if you know all the principles, it will still take you years to come up with a story that is worth telling on the big screen.

If you are willing to put in the hard work and understand how an audience’s perception of story works, you can learn how to make your stories work. Just don’t expect to find any shortcuts, anywhere.

Now it’s time to add your comments below!

– Karel Segers

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!

In an average life, most people have a very constricted time. Rarely is a person satisfied with as much sex, food, money and fun as he/she desires. Mostly, society (and health issues) enforce humans to lead somewhat disgruntled lives. Because the alternative, if everyone did exactly what their hearts desired and damn the consequences, would be anarchy and chaos. Plus obesity and death.

The thing inside us all, in our unconscious, that wants to be free, regardless of outcome, is what Freud named the id.

And it wants to play.

Seemingly, scriptwriters have discovered a method to let their id run free. In a script, they can allow their characters to indulge in any taboo behaviour. And with impunity to boot!

Freud said that every person in your dreams is you. And so logically, every character in a script is thus a facet of the scriptwriter. And when characters have sex, kill, and generally do whatever they want, it’s the scriptwriter’s id at work.

Often you’ll meet a scriptwriter and he/she will be bespeckled and timid. And then you’ll read their script and be astonished at what the scriptwriter has written.

You’ve probably heard these comments said about certain scripts…

“I couldn’t continue reading it after he ate his cat.”

“The fact your protagonist does that with his mother makes him unlikeable.”

“I had to look up coprophilia in the dictionary”

Unchecked by the Super Ego ( the disciplinarian part of the unconscious) the id can truly run free. And occasionally some scriptwriters fall prey to their unencumbered id ruining their script. A good example of this is Joe Eszterhas, the writer of BASIC INSTINCT. By the time Eszterhas wrote SHOWGIRLS, a famously bad film, his id had truly and uncontrollably run amok.

Jack Feldstein.

Previously:
PART 1 – THE AUTISTIC FANTASY THEORY
PART 2 – THE NARCISSISTIC THEORY
Next: PART 4 – THE EMPOWERMENT THEORY

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!

Steven Spielberg first drew me into movies with Close Encounters of the Third Kind, back in 1977.

Because I was too young for Jaws in 1975, it wasn’t until later when I discovered the movie that really made Spielberg.

Jaws literally changed the movie industry as its tremendous success not only started the ‘wide opening’ with over 500 theatres, it also launched the summer season as the most profitable movie season in the US.

The structure below is an attempt to break the film down into its acts and sequences. I would welcome comments as you may or may not agree with this breakdown.

Some turning points are more obvious than others. The films Mid Point (of No Return) is beautifully emphasised with a long shot zooming into the ocean. The end of Act One and Two, however, are less obvious and you may have good reasons to see them differently. Please let me know.

Finally, like any other structural breakdown on this site, it is absolutely essential to view the film as the summaries below won’t make much sense without the context of the actual movie scene.

ACT ONE

Sequence A

00.00 Titles
01.00 Night beach party by campfire
03.00 Girl skinnydipping, boy is too drunk
03.30 POV shark
04.00 Girl taken

05.00 Breakfast, Brodys are strangers in town: concerned for kids.
06.00 Phone call. Wife: Be careful. Brody: In this town??
07.00 Brody with boy on beach: they find girl, is crab meat (I.I.)

Sequence B

08.30 Brody types report, minor office stuff
10.00 Buys sign, paint, orders to paint signs to close beach.
11.30 Mayor protests on ferry, your 1st summer, need summer dollars!
13.00 Watching the beach. “not an islander”
16.00 Dog taken, blood, everybody out. Alex Kintner is gone.
17.30 Town meeting, close beaches for 24hs. Brody: didn’t agree.
20.00 Quint’s proposal: $10,000 to bring it in.

ACT TWO A

Sequence C

21.30 Brody reads on sharks. Sees Mikey in boat, parents fight.
23.30 Quint throwing bait.
24.30 Broday reading: images of sharks & victims
25.30 Charlie falls in, almost taken
26.30 Matt Hooper arrives, wants to see girl’s remains first.
29.00 Ocean posse, everybody out in their boats for bounty.
30.00 post-mortem: no boating accident, was a shark.
31.30 Tiger shark caught. Hooper wants to cut open. Mayor: No.
34.30 Mrs Kintner hits Brody: you knew about girl, about shark.

Sequence D

36.30 Home, Mikey copies Brody. Give us a kiss. I need it.
37.30 Dinner stories. Hooper LOVES sharks. Brody HATES water.
41.30 Cut open shark. Nothing. Go see it in the ocean.
43.30 Boat, Brody about NY & Amity: one man can make difference.
45.00 Fish finder equipment, they find Ben Gardner’s boat.
47.00 Matt dives in, finds tooth and head.
48.30 Great white, no tooth. Mayor: beaches stay open for WE.

Sequence E

51.30 Tourists pour in, boats are patrolling.
54.00 Mayor tells people to go in the water, helicopter (DI)
55.00 Brody tells Mikey to go in the pond
56.00 Mayor lies in interview: all fine
57.00 Shark alert: false alarm, boys prank.
59.00 Shark going into the pond, grabs man
60.30 Mikey dragged out, dead? In shock. Zoom on ocean. (MPNR)

MID SEQUENCE

61.30 Hospital: take him home. Wife: to NY?
62.30 Mayor says sorry, signs voucher for Quint.
63.30 Quint vs. Hooper. Q. wants to go alone.
66.30 Goodbye to wife, getting ready. “Gone fishing.”

ACT TWO B

Sequence F

69.30 On ocean, near accident and warning about compressed air.
71.30 Fishing reel moves, pulling. Q.: very big. Hooper: no shark.
76.00 Quint bossing. Hooper hates it. Don’t have to take abuse.
77.30 Chief throws bait, head of shark appears.
78.00 25-footer. 3 tons, is circling boat.
80.00 Q. is radio’ed by Brody’s wife, tells her all is fine.
80.30 Shark harpooned, takes barrel, disappears.
82.30 Chief wants to quit, get bigger boat. Sunset.

Sequence G

83.00 Q. & Hooper compare scars, drink.
86.00 Quint’s shark story of the Indianapolis, ’45.
89.30 Whale song, singing together, bonding.
90.30 Boat under attack, start engines, shark leaves.

Sequence H

92.30 Barrel back, they rope it in, shark appears.
94.00 Brody: Mayday. Quint kills radio.
95.00 Hook up another barrel, harpooned & taken by shark.
96.00 Shark is chasing boat, harpooned, 2 barrels & shooting.
97.30 Shark attack

99.30 Shark eats rope, coming closer, more shooting, 3 barrels.
100.0 Shark tows boat, Quint cuts rope
102.3 Decision to head in towards shallow waters.
104.0 Quint at full power, bearings burned, stopped & fire.
105.0 Stuck, sinking & waiting

ACT THREE

Sequence I

106.0 Hooper’s plan: goes into cage with poison.
108.0 shark attacks & fight with Hooper.
111.0 Pull him up! The winch breaks, the cage stays down
112.0 Shark attacks boat, it starts sinking, Quint is taken.
113.0 Brody alone, bull fight, throws tank into shark’s mouth.
114.0 Brody shoots the tank, shark explodes
115.0 Shark sinks to the sea bed.

116.0 Hooper resurfaces.
117.0 Two men swimming to land with the two barrels.
115.3 Shark dies.

Sequence J

116.0 Hooper returns
117.0 Swimming with barrels

Under the surface of this suspenseful monster movie there is a powerful character journey. I once believed this movie is simply about Brody overcoming his fear of water. It is about much more than that.

Brody escaped the hazards of hardcore NY police work to find peace in Amity, where “one man can make a difference”.

But is he ready to make a difference?

When his wife tells him to be careful, he replies: “on this island?”. He is minimising any dangers before they even occur.

Brody is also dealing with symptoms rather than tackle the causes head-on. He tells his son not to play on the swings rather than reparing them. In the same way he tells his wife not to use the fireplace in the den before he goes out on the sea.

In the course of the story, Brody will learn to dig to the heart of the problem and resolve it at the root.

– Read the part about Jaws in this blog post for a brief introduction to the difference between a character’s WANT, NEED and LONGING.
– Read this blog post about what Jaws would look like if it were made today. Warning: not serious.
– ‘Jaws’ took a bite out of movie history 35 years ago this week.

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!

When I watched the film during its theatrical release, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Because of the relatively low budget (an estimated USD$25m) for its production values, Tony Gilroy was able to make some brave non-commercial decisions with his screen story.

This didn’t go entirely unpunished, as the Variety review points out:

Gilroy’s fidelity to his script comes at the expense of the pacing, which initially lumbers forward so assiduously as to feel like a throwback to an earlier era.

and:

Some of the peripheral threads — especially Michael’s relationship with his family, both as an irritated brother and a single dad — occupy time at the outset but really don’t lead anywhere.

-Brian Lowry

Looking at the story structure in the first act, we’ll find some obvious causes for the problems addressed above.

The Inciting Incident doesn’t happen until 25mins into the film and I yet have to find a clear 1st Act Turning Point. The scene with Marty (Sydney Pollack) at 51mins feels like one but at that stage Michael is already on his journey. The monumental 25mins of ‘Ordinary World’ make the story drag on to a point the audience will get very fidgety.

Then, in sequence two – and even before the end of the act – we find an abundance of scenes and characters that are not dealing with the main plot: Michael’s son, his debt, the merger and the scenes from Karen’s POV. These are simply things you cannot do without having clearly set up the main story.

I won’t go into any further story issues, but here is how I would structure the film in terms of plot points and sequences:

ACT ONE

SEQUENCE A: Prologue, Ordinary World

00.00 Arthur’s VO: This is not a relapse.
03.00 POV(*) Bach is settling, at office late at night
04.30 POV Karen in bathroom, tormented
05.00 Michael is gambling, phone rings
07.00 Urgent job: accident, go see client at home
08.30 At client’s: What are you? Miracle worker?
12.00 Phone rings: Michael gives details to referee.
12.30 Driving, GPS flickers.
13.30 Gets out at field with horses
15.00 Car explodes

SEQUENCE B: Subplot and Call to Adventure

15.30 – 4 DAYS EARLIER
16.00 Subplot: Michael drives son Henry to school
18.30 Subplot: Michael needs $75k to repay debts
20.30 At work, assistant asks: Are we merging?
23.00 POV Karen (intercut) rehearsing + interview
25.30 I.I.: Arthur stripped in deposition room
26.00 Arthur’s VO (cont.). Did you meet Anna?
29.00 Arthur: I have blood on my hands.

ACT TWO

SEQUENCE C: To get Arthur back on the case

29.30 POV Arthur tape, U-North people learn about Michael
32.30 Michael will get Arthur back in 3-4 days; find briefcase
33.30 POV Arthur calls Henry: Realm & Conquest.
35.30 Michael & Karen: defends Arthur. She’ll call Marty
37.30 Michael & Arthur as Mentor: “We’ve been summoned.”
39.30 POV Karen calls Mr. Verne
41.00 Arthur has escaped

SEQUENCE D: Allies and Enemies, Midpoint

43.00 POV Karen shows Marty the memo.
43.30 Searching Arthur’s office; psychiatric commitment?
45.00 Arthur followed, Michael leaves msg: janitor to janitor
48.00 POV Arthur calls Anna, call bugged.
50.00 With creditor: one week
51.00 Marty: He’s calling the plaintiffs; Michael asks loan
54.00 Looking for Arthur; with son, sees him
56.00 Mid: Arthur changed. Not the enemy.”Then who?”

SEQUENCE E: Subplot and Ordeal Plot Point

59.30 POV Arthur reads report on voicemail
63.30 POV Karen orders murder
65.00 Asks brother for support; hang for an hour.
67.30 POV Arthur killed
69.30 Brother shows up, off alcohol, in front of Henry
71.00 To son: you’re not like this. You’ve got it.
72.30 Ordeal: phone call, Arthur’s dead
75.00 In pub w/ Marty. Why?? No note. U-North settling.

SEQUENCE F: Ordeal Sequence Approach / and Reward

77.30 Calls Anna, in NY right now.
78.30 Goes to see Anna in motel, being watched
79.00 Anna: “something that would win the case”
81.00 Approach: Gets seal, to Arthur’s place
82.00 Followed, watched; searches flat
83.00 Finds Realm & Conquest; Police come in
84.00 Released from cell, “Who called 911?”
87.30 Reward: 3,000 copies of memo
88.00 POV Karen finds out about memo: ‘situation’.
88.30 Marty ready for announcement;
89.00 Subplot Reward: cheque $80k
91.00 Pays off debt.

ACT THREE

SEQUENCE G: To get out, by bringing U-North down

92.30 Gambling // car bomb planted // phone rings, leaves.
95.30 Driving, miracle worker, fixer
96.00 Driving
99.00 Horses // Gimme cell // Explosion
99.30 Throws valuables in, runs off
100.0 Brother picks him up
101.0 POV Karen addressing board w/ settlement proposal
103.3 Climax: Confronts Karen: $10m
106.0 Resolution: Everything on record: NYPD

SEQUENCE H: Return with the Elixir – Finally Out

107.0 Taxi

(*): Scenes marked “POV” are not from the protagonist’s POV.

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!

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

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

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

The answer is baffling.

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

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

Story rule or rubbish?

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

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

Here we go:

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

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

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

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

Thank you all! It was a great exercise.


WHERE TO START

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

How do you choose who to listen to?

Do you take the word of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, you are on your own, confidently.

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

CONFIDENTIALITY KILLED THE CAT

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

WHERE ARE YOU GOING? YOU AND YOUR HERO?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO POV, NO PLAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Brad Bird

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

Movies are inherently about empathising, even identifying with characters.

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

Omniscient POV is devoid of emotion.

Read some more about Point of View here.

Karel FG Segers

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

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

Karel FG Segers

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

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

Otherwise, here are some tips to save you the money and frustration I sacrificed on my way to stardom.

Being a decent citizen, I buy after I try. So I replaced my “trial” version of Final Draft with a legit copy, hoping the bugs would go. It turned out to be the equivalent of going to see THE DA VINCI CODE in the cinema. I felt I had been caught in the trap of some excellent marketing. But what should you expect from a screenwriting package? Let’s put things in perspective.

The last time I checked, Final Draft cost AUD$569, or roughly the same as the entire Microsoft Office Suite. All that, while some simple MS Word macros or style sheets can achieve what Final Draft does? Plus: you have the wildest flexibility in terms of backups, tracking changes, spell-checking, saving online etc. If you don’t have MS Office or you hate Bill G.: OpenOffice. Free.

If you’re really dying to part with your money on a script package, explore Movie Magic Screenwriter (formerly: Screenwriter 2000). Cheaper than Final Draft and better value for money in my view.

But why pay if your writing isn’t earning you any money (yet)? No, I’m not referring to BitTorrent here. A new, totaly FREE piece of software is called Celtx. Still in its infancy but growing rapidly, with a smart development team behind it and community-oriented.

Celtx intends to go a lot further than just the screenwriting bits: it aims at becoming the central command post for your film’s entire project management. If they manage to stay afloat, it may well become a filmmakers’ software of choice.

Now, if you believe that any of the above will help you writing better scripts, you have fallen prey to the Film Industry’s Greatest Con. These are all just word processors with serious formatting limitations. Jazzed-down versions of MS Word if you wish.

Here is my advice for the cash-poor: don’t spend a cent on script formatting and save your money for software that helps you with the hard work. Instead labour on the story using Dramatica Pro, John Truby’s Blockbuster, Movie Outline or Powerstructure.

I used to use the last one, as it distinguishes itself from the others in pretty much the same way MM Screenwriter does among the script software. Powerstructure has immense flexibility, allows you to write full scenes, just one liners, or whatever in between you feel comfortable with.

You can customise it to your own favourite structure, be it three acts, sequences or Vogler’s THE HERO’S JOURNEY, then export directly to a text file or into whatever script software you use. If you’re a member of that circle of writers who first write their entire first draft before starting to outline, you can import your existing script to reshape its structure. Admitted, I’ve had a few quirks doing that but the PS support team helped me out.

Powerstructure makes a lot of sense, as it works in the way most movie decision makers think. It is being distributed by the wonderful guys at WriteBrain, where you can download a trial version.

Even better than burning your money on software: give it to a human story/script editor who could really make a difference for you. ;-)

DVD COMMENTARY: McCABE AND MRS MILLER

I found a downright great commentary on this unsung masterpiece by writer/director Robert Altman, in which Warren Beatty opens a whorehouse in the Old West.

Although thirty-five years old, this movie could be seen today alongside the razorsharp doco THE CORPORATION and – to a lesser extent – AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. It ultimately tackles corporatisation and if you wish globalisation within the genre of the western. And as the commentary puts it: Altman won’t give you a John Wayne type of Western hero. No. Warren Beatty’s protagonist will shoot you in the back if his life depends on it.

The voice recording of this commentary track is so crystal clear you can literally hear producer David Foster’s watch ticking in the background as he explains why every man and his dog in Hollywood wants to work with this director. I agree: Altman has a vision and integrity that is so rare you won’t even find it with masters like Scorsese. Unlike the latter, Altman will NEVER make ‘one for the Studio’.

My favourite bits are the account of Leonard Cohen’s musical collaboration, Altman’s hilarious tirade about western’s big hats and the master’s view on dialogue:

“The dialogue in these kinds of films […] is part of the character […]. It is not the words that are important. […] That’s too related to theater, where you […] advance plot with the words. When you have close-ups of people and faces […], it’s just better that the words come from the moment or from the actors themselves.”

Altman makes this statement in the context of Beatty’s soliloquies in the film. He asked Beatty to mumble to himself inaudibly before actually delivering the crucial lines in soliloquy. As a result, the audience is used to the character talking to himself in a more or less natural way. And here is the mark of a good commentary: the director sharing with us his struggles to make the movie work.

DVD COMMENTARY: ANTZ

Recently I consulted to a team of comedy writers, which was a completely new and refreshing experience to me. As I’m not a comedy expert, I focused on the (lack of) drama in the script and afterwards the writers were happy enough about the outcome to hire me again for a look at the next stage.

Comedies that don’t work often still work on the scene level but they have issues with the overall story arc. Situations and dialogue may be absolutely hilarious. If there’s no dramatic undercurrent, the audience WILL switch off.

I found a quote on the commentary of ANTZ that makes the exact same point about the input from Jeffrey Katzenberg (photo), who was uncredited producer (and the “K” in Dreamworks SKG):

“We added a lot of comedy kind of after the fact. It’s one of the things that Jeffrey Katzenberg really pushes hard: get the drama to work because if you’re rely on the comedy, you’re gonna loose the audience’s interest in the characters. So sure enough we really focused on the drama and afterwards we […] ended up upping just the silliness of it, the humor of it.”

This charming animation, in which Woody Allen voices the neuroses of the ant “Z”, dates from the turbulent days when Dreamworks went head to head with Disney’s A BUG’S LIFE. Ironically it was Katzenberg who had sealed the deal between Pixar and Disney.

Directors Johnson and Darnell don’t deliver by far the cutthroat commentary we’re used to hear from the Pixar guys, but they do give some insight in their struggles during the development. Notably their work on the character of Princess Bala (Sharon Stone) and her relationship with the protagonist are interesting from a story point of view.

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!