Zombies have long formed their own, important sub-genre in movies. The genre started with White Zombie back in 1932, and it keeps going strong.

Today, it seems that the undead have a higher survival rate at the box office than many other genres. One of my recent favourites was the Korean master piece Train To Busan (2016).

Remove The Head, Destroy The Brain

Zombie pictures rarely cross over into mainstream territory, and this is what made Shaun Of The Dead special. It was produced in the year my son was born, and 12 years later we watched it together. We had a ball. The ultimate father/son bonding movie.

Shaun is a classic that defies pigeonholing, and it transcends style. It satisfies the staunchest fan of the genre, as well as those who have never seen any of Shaun’s zombie predecessors.

Among others, it pays homage to the movies of George A. Romero, easily the most revered zombie writer/director in cinema history.

Apparently Romero was so impressed with Shaun that he asked filmmakers Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright to appear for zombie cameos in Land of the Dead (2005), the fourth part in Romero’s Dead series.

How To Make Zombies Go Viral

For reasons other than a recent zombie outbreak, super slacker Shaun is pushed out of his comfort zone. He has to get his girlfriend back, kill his mum’s boyfriend, and make it to the pub alive. Or, as the IMDB logline states in a rare example of clarity:

A man decides to turn his moribund life around by winning back his ex-girlfriend, reconciling his relationship with his mother, and dealing with an entire community that has returned from the dead to eat the living.

It gives us the goals, the circumstances/stakes, and the theme.

When a logline works, it often promises a well-structured, easily-remembered story, and this is exactly what Shaun Of The Dead delivers.

Filmmakers tend to underestimate the value of a simple logline, reflecting a clear structure. They think it makes the film feel predictable, or it dumbs things down. You know why a short, crystal-clear logline is so important?

It makes word of mouth a piece of cake.

After seeing the movie, my 12-year old could summarise the essence of the story in once sentence. That’s how successful movie marketing works.

Don’t get me wrong: you still need to deliver a brilliant movie. But the masses will do the viral campaigning for you.

Avoiding Death By Slackers

Shaun impersonates the perfect transformational character, forced to go on a mission that would be impossible for his normal self.

Early in the story, his girlfriend Liz paints the picture of where he is going with his life: “Look, if I don’t do something, I’m gonna end up in that pub every night for the rest of my life like those other sad old fuckers, drinking myself to death wondering what the hell happened.”

Shaun needs to grow up, let go of the friend who enables his immaturity, and settle with Liz… if he doesn’t want to lose her.

In a mythological sense, he will also need to kill his father, so he can enter the realm of masculine adulthood. And all the while, he is metaphorically surrounded by the threat of death by slackers.

The first act runs for about 35 minutes, yet it doesn’t drag. The zombie outbreak gives it tension, and the Wright/Pegg dialogue and editing gives it pace. As a result, the shortish second act feels nice and tight, too.

Shaun Of The Dead – Break Into 2

In the scene/sequence that concludes Act One, Shaun gives us an exact rundown of what he needs to achieve in the movie. It could be a rehearsal for the movie’s pitch, edited in the signature snappy Edgar Wright style.

But before we get to this sequence, Ed calls into the phone: “We’re coming to get you, Barbara!”

The irony is that George A. Romero, who was given a private viewing of the film, was oblivious to the fact that this line was copied literally from his own film Night of the Living Dead (1968). He only found out later after a phone conversation with Wright.

What follows is fabulous storytelling. We first see the events as they should happen, but with each next version, Shaun shows an increasingly flawed response to the various calls to adventure.

On the last shot of the sequence, we know where the story really should not, but might well end: the Winchester.

-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!

The ice cream vendor disappeared. Not because we didn’t like ice cream any longer. No, cinemas made more money selling popcorn instead, as the markup of popcorn is 900-1200%.

Then the intermission disappeared.

Couldn’t we wait for the second half? Well, the truth is: exhibitors earned more by adding an extra session. Suddenly, movies just seemed a whole lot longer… except those with a strong mid point.

If you study that halfway point in the greatest movies, you will learn that it is almost always the most dramatic moment, second only to the story’s finale.

You will also find that the mid points from different films have a lot in common.

The Mid Point Pit Stop

Often around the halfway point, the action moves to a location that looks very different from the rest of the story. It feels refreshing, a little like an intermission.

• At the mid point of The Untouchables, we leave Chicago temporarily, and instead of the urban cityscape, we are now watching a mountainous view near the Canadian border.
• At the mid point of One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest(*), we leave the confined space of the mental asylum to go on a boat for a short fishing trip. This gives us a strong sense of freedom, an important theme in the film.
• At the mid point of The Queen, we leave London for a short stay at Balmoral in the Scottish highlands. Here, the Queen seems to enjoy her relief from the pressures that are haunting her in London.
• This one may sound a little far-fetched but I still like it… At the mid point of Die Hard, John McClane throws a body through the window, and for the first time since he entered the Nakatomi building, we are getting some fresh air through the hole in the window.

(*) During Milosz Forman’s commentary on One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, he explains that he considered cutting the fishing trip from the movie. He ended up keeping it, because the shorter version actually felt longer.

This is one of the functions of the mid point: it gives the audience a break, before venturing into what is often the darker half of the film.

This break is mostly an emotional high point. The hero achieves something important. It may even seem as if they have reached the story goal. If they haven’t, at least it seems within reach.

Then, however… the tide turns.

Reversal Of Fortune

Rapidly, the upbeat vibe changes, as the hero learns that things are not what they seemed. Instead of celebrating a victory, they realise that the target has moved. The road is still a lot longer and more dangerous than was initially hoped. The mood drops.

In many great movies, the Mid Point Reversal (MPR) consists of these two distinct beats: an upbeat moment of victory/achievement, followed by a downbeat moment of realisation/disappointment. This mood flip forms only the first aspect of the MPR: the Reversal of Fortune.

As a result of this Reversal of Fortune, the character shows a Reversal of Action/Approach. Because it is such a critical part of well-told stories, I will focus on this in a little more detail in a later article.

Meanwhile, see if you can identify this +/- reversal around the halfway point of your favourite movies.

-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!

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!

This is mostly analytical. So there’s no guarantee that you will deliver a successful story. Then again, no system does. No matter what the teachers promise you.

What this approach to the screenwriting basics does promise however, is a crystal clear grasp of what you MUST have before your story will work on a large scale. If this doesn’t seem all that new to you, I am still hoping to offer you a new perspective.

1. A Character

At the centre of every story we find (at least) one character. In film, this is mostly the ‘person’ to whom the story happens. Sometimes, it is the individual through whose eyes we experience the story.

Character also means the combined set of traits that define that particular person. This will come into play later, as we can really only see what a character is about when they act. Anyone can say anything. But will you believe them?

Before we can look at any other aspect of the story, such as its structure, we must know who this character is. For each character, there may be a different event kicking of their story. Of course each character should act in different ways.

And a great character will respond in a significant way to the Major Event.

2. A Major Event

Second step in the screenwriting basics: Something must happen to the character. A Major Event of some sort must trigger the story. Some people call this the Inciting Incident. I prefer to name it the Call To Adventure.

If the character starts pursuing the main story goal without this event, then the story will lack motivation. The audience may not even realise that the story has effectively started…

In brainstorming, this Major Event is often what you include in the ‘What If…’ statement.

Many teachers leave out this part of the story. Big mistake.

From studying story for nearly thirty years now, I am convinced that the Major Event is critical for a successful story. It is certainly indispensable in defining your story, in separating it from any other story told before you. Total screenwriting basics.

Many teachers leave out this part of the story.
Big mistake.

This is why I like to see the major event to be part of the logline.

Major events are more important than the story stakes. They often even imply the stakes, so you don’t need to mention stakes separately in a summary of the story.

This event must be ‘major’, in that it disrupts the life of the character. If it doesn’t, it is a non-event. In this case, either you don’t have a story yet, or the reader/audience won’t understand the story has started.

3. An action / Goal

Having a goal is not enough. The character must act, fight, struggle to reach that goal. A passive character, burning with desire, is a total bore. They must fight ferociously to get what they want.

Sometimes the action is directly in pursuit of the goal. In other words, the Hero chases directly what s/he wants.

Having a goal is not enough.

If you know your screenwriting basics, you will know this. In most love stories, the Heroes pursues the love interest. In most crime movies, the Hero wants to catch or kill the criminal(s).

In other cases, the goal or desire can only be fulfilled by first completing a task, or test. In Inception, Don Cobb must perform Inception (plant an idea inside a man’s dream) in order to see his kids again. In Avatar, Jake must relocate the natives in order to receive a new pair of legs.

Either way, the story goal must create change in the visible world. To try and achieve a different state of mind – through the ‘Inner Journey’ – does not typically qualify as a story goal.

Brainstorm Screenwriting Basics

When you brainstorm movie concepts, you must have all three of these screenwriting basics.

In fact, none of these can truly exist without the other two. This is why it is such a perfect system.

When you brainstorm movie concepts,
you must have all three of these story aspects.

It is something of a closed loop – or a mindf*** if you wish. You cannot really define any of these three within a story context without using the other two.

Get your head around these screenwriting basics, and you will see the beauty and the perfection of this approach.

This is the Holy Trinity of Story.

-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!

by Karel Segers

I have been wanting to analyze this film for a long time because I love it so much. I like how we care for the bad guys, sometimes more than for the hero. I love how the movie has an unbelievably powerful opening sequence and to my taste the best L.A. based shootout in terms of impact and realism. Filmed nearly twenty years ago and still razor sharp and completely up to date.

On the other hand I was somewhat intimidated to take on the analysis because the film is so long and fairly complex – and it has so many fans! What to do with the two main characters. Dual journey? I wasn’t sure…

If you would like to understand this analysis, you must watch the film first. Remember that it is impossible to perform a proper analysis the first time around. You can’t do this ‘on the fly’ unless you roughly know what is going to happen.

And finally – if you are a writer, the objective of looking at a film in this way is to learn and apply techniques to your own scripts, so you can increase the chances of success. Of course each movie is different but even experienced craftsman like Michael Mann uses principles of storytelling he has learned elsewhere – or from experience. By understanding how this film works, you may be able to solve problems in your own story.

I surely don’t claim this is the way to analyze this film. Feel free to comment as I will most likely missed a few things here and there (and sorry about using Vincent/Hanna inconsistently).

So here it is. The journey of Vincent Hanna and Neil McCauley, in one hundred and sixty-three minutes.

SPOILERS: THE ENTIRE STORY WILL BE REVEALED

ACT ONE

Sequence A: The Money Transport Score – “They’re good.” (21mins)

00.00 TITLES
02.00 Neil dressed as paramedic, leaving train station.
02.30 Goes to hospital, takes ambulance.
03.30 Chris purchases explosives.
04.30 Vincent at home, making love.
05.00 Vincent has a shower; no time for coffee. “Outa time, babe.”
06.30 Justine’s daughter Lauren freaks out: she’s late for her dad.
07.00 Wayngro joins Michael in the truck, he learns they’re a tight crew.
08.30 Neil radios the others, all are wearing paramedics uniforms now.
09.00 The men put their masks on, the truck rams a money transport.
10.00 Security men call the police. The team know they have 3 mins.
10.30 One of the guards is deaf and ignores Wayngro’s requests.
12.00 Wayngro shoots the guard, the others are shot, too.
12.30 Police arrives on the scene, they’re too late.
13.00 The ambulance explodes.
13.30 Neil, annoyed, delivers the money to Nate, who asks what happened.
14.30 Hanna is on the crime scene, he represents Robbery – Homicide.
17.30 Hanna: The M.O. is that they’re good.
18.00 Neil, Trejo, and Michael at diner. Wayngro is kicked and warned.
19.30 Wayngro escapes

Our first big question: who is the main character? We need to know because we cannot talk about structure unless we know whose journey we are following. Structure is defined by the main character(s)’s goals – and the actions to achieve these.

We could assume that HEAT has a dual-journey structure but Neil’s goal is open-ended: takes scores. Vincent’s goal in this movie is very clear: catch the guys who robbed the money truck and killed the guards. This is a clear, visible goal.

Thematically, it is clear from this first sequence that TIME is a major factor. Lauren’s dad is late to pick her up and Vincent tells Justine he can’t have coffee because he’s “outa time”. Neil’s team work towards a strict timing of 3 minutes and although the police are notified while the robbery is ongoing, they arrive too late. This theme will be confirmed at the mid point, in the dialogue.

The Inciting Incident (I think both for Neil and Vincent) is the moment when Wayngro joins the team. The phrase “tight crew” foreshadows that he is going to disturb the equilibrium.
This first sequence is all Ordinary World and for Vincent The Call to Adventure happens when he realizes that he doesn’t understand the robbers’ Modus Operandi. “The M.O. is that they’re good,” he says. This is confirmed when  he finds that the explosives cannot be traced.

The sequence is closed with Neil’s Call to Adventure, when he realizes they’ve lost Wayngro, who now is a major liability. Later we see a Call to Adventure in Neil’s love journey, when he meets Eady.

Sequence B – Neil meets Eady – Vincent’s false start. (10 mins)

21.00 Neil at home, reflecting.
21.30 Chris and Charlene argue. Chris explodes and leaves.
23.00 Hanna says explosives are too common to trace.
24.00 Hanna at home, argues with Justine over getting home late.
25.30 Neil in book shop. Eady notices him.
26.00 Neil in diner, approached by Eady. He’s rude, then makes up.
27.30 Neil moves closer to her, asks questions.
29.00 Neil and Eady watching the city view together.
30.30 They kiss.

This sequence is the Refusal of the Call sequence for both characters. Neil is reflecting on what happened and Hanna starts investigating as if the robbers were of the regular kind. When he finds that the explosives are untraceable, his hunch is confirmed that they are the best. This is where his investigation will start properly.

Later we see a Call to Adventure in Neil’s love journey, when he meets Eady. Here, too, is a ‘refusal of the call’ as we will see when he leaves her place, he is not yet committed. But HEAT is not Neil’s story because his goal(s) are open-ended. He wants to keep being a robber but he also wants to avoid being caught. It is Vincent Hanna’s story because his goal is clear: ‘to catch the criminals’.

ACT TWO

Sequence C: Hanna finds first clue – Neil vs. Van Zant (22mins)

31.00 Neil leaves Eady’s place without leaving finger prints.
32.00 Hanna visits Albert for clues. He’s to meet his brother.
35.00 Hanna warns Albert: “Be there.”
36.00 Neil is briefed on the new job: $12m.
36.30 Van Zant orders to kill the thieves.
37.00 Nate tells Neil to call Van Zant to collect the money.
38.00 Neil talks with Chris about his gambling issues.
40.00 Neil to Chris: no attachments. But Chris; “the sun rises and sets with her.”
41.00 Don’s new job, recommended by parole officer. Boss is a jerk.
42.00 Neil calls Van Zant, details for the meet. He sees Charlene with man.
43.30 Neil confronts Charlene: “give him one more chance.”
44.30 Hanna meets Albert and his brother. A clue: “Slick.”
49.00 Hanna puts surveillance on Michael Cheritto.
49.30 Van Zant has set up Neil. Van Zant’s men are killed.
52.00 Neil calls Van Zant: he’s a dead man.

The fact that Neil exits Eady’s place without leaving finger prints proves that he is still in ‘pro mode’. But will he be able to sustain his professionalism? This feeds into the main theme of the film, also reflected in the title.

When Hanna goes to see Albert, it is his first scene in Act Two; his first action in the chain of events that will lead to solving the case. As a result of this, he will receive the first clue.

The theme is stated when Neil tells Chris he should be able to leave everything behind “in 30 seconds flat” when the heat (the Police) is on him. Chris responds with a line that will become beautiful irony later in the story. He says “the sun rises and sets with her”, setting up a weakness. Ultimately, however, he will be the only one surviving the story in freedom.

When Neil goes to see Charlene to encourage her to give Chris another chance, this could be because he cares for Chris – but it may also be to make sure the wall around his team reminds water tight.

We’re early in Act Two and this is where typically new characters are introduced, about whom we wonder: ‘friend or foe’? In Vincent’s story there’s Albert; in Neil’s story there is Van Zant, Don and Nate. Note that Nate is not strictly a new character but he’s new to the audience.

The subplot around Van Zant shows Neil’s professionalism. From how he acts in this storyline, we have hope he may do the right thing when challenged later in the story.

Sequence D: Neil feels the heat – calls off the score. (22mins)

53.00 Dinner with the families. Hanna and his men are watching.
54.00 Neil calls Eady.
55.00 Hanna etc. watch the ‘convention’, wonder who Neil is.
56.00 Wayngro kills a prostitute.
57.30 Wayngro in a bar, looking for a new gig.
58.00 Hanna and his men out with their wives. Hanna is called out.
59.30 Hanna at prostitute murder scene, keeps mother away.
61.30 Justine stayed alone at the dinner. Hanna: keep my angst.
64.30 Don and Lilian
66.30 Neil and Eady dreaming of moving to New Zealand.
68.00 Hanna and his daughter Lauren. She feels alone.
69.00 Hanna and his men at stakeout in truck
70.00 Neil and his men arrive for their next job.
71.00 Swat team ready. Neil is outside, hears a noise.
72.30 Neil calls it off.
73.30 Hanna doesn’t want an arrest now: they will walk.
74.30 Hanna and his men come out of the truck

When Neil calls Eady, we know he is serious about this relationship, raising the question further: “will he be able to sustain his professionalism?” The fact that he keeps his true identity hidden from Eady adds to this tension.

From the scenes between Hanna and his wife, it is clear he is unconditional in his commitment to the job. He admits this to Justine.

The sequence closes with another indication Neil is still sharp: he decides to call off the job when he feels the heat. This is an anti-climax, but following a highly suspenseful scene, marking the culmination of this sequence. Both main characters seemingly fail in their operation but they don’t make a mistake. They do the right thing in terms of their outer goals.

Mid Sequence: Hero meets Shadow, then loses him. (21mins)

75.00 Neil warns Chris: there’s heat. Chris needs the bank job.
76.00 Michael wants in: “The action is the juice.”
77.30 Hanna has Marciano: give up Charlene and Chris’ crew.
79.30 Neil plans something, while the police are watching.
80.00 Hanna goes to the location. Makes no sense. Looking at us. Neil takes photos of them.
82.30 Nate gives Neil maps for bank job, warns him about Hanna.
84.00 Justine is going out without Vincent.
85.30 Hanna in heli, following Neil.
88.00 Hanna stops Neil, go for coffee.
89.00 I do what I do best. Regular type life… Hanna opens up.
92.00 Hanna dreams of corpses. Neil dreams of drowning – no time.
95.00 All surveillance dumped at 9pm.

The mid sequence offers the last bit of levity before the movie goes into its sensational, dark second half. When Neil tricks Hanna, he seems to have the upper hand and loving it. This will change quickly: Vincent shows how easy it is to get him by stopping him on the highway – and inviting him for coffee.

In what is a legendary movie scene (and I believe the first time ever De Niro and Pacino were in the same scene), we have a classic meet of the Hero and Shadow at the mid point. You might argue there is even a bit of love and understanding going on between the two.

An ironic aspect of this scene is that, while normally the mid point makes things personal, here it is made clear that if they’d end up killing each other, it’s NOT personal. But I guess to the audience, this diner meet inevitably does make things personal. Often the mid point is set at an unusual setting for the movie. Certainly for cop and robber to meet over coffee is highly unusual.

Not how Neil’s dream foreshadows what will happen at the end of this story: he won’t have time to do what he wants to do and the drowning is just another way of dying.

As all great mid points, this one marks the Approach to the Inmost Cave, i.e. the characters are preparing to face their worst fears, to enter the Inmost Cave. They both state that they’re ready to kill the other. From now on they’ll have to live their lives in (each their) integrity – or die.

The Mid Point Reversal has a seeming victory, followed by a major setback. The victory is Vincent meeting with Neil, showing it’s fairly easy to get to him, should he need to. Immediately thereafter, all traces have gone. Can you see how this is the equivalent of ‘boy gets girl – boy loses girl’?

Sequence E: Bank robbery and shootout. (19mins)

96.00 Neil’s team prepares for the bank job.
[?] 97.00 Van Sant with Wayngro
98.00 Neil & team at diner, phone from Trejo: cops are on him.
100.0 Neil hires Don as the driver.
101.0 Eady is packing.
101.3 Bank job: they’re going in.
102.3 Bank job in progress.
105.3 Hanna hears of bank robbery, road blocks installed.
106.0 Neil’s team are coming out, Hanna sees them.
106.3 Chase on foot.
107.0 Into the car. Chris starts shooting.
110.0 Chris is shot.
112.3 Neil and Chris get away.
113.0 Michael takes a child, is shot by Hanna.
113.3 Lilian sees the TV news about Don.

Past the Mid Point, the Hero does all the right things, yet it becomes harder to make progress. For Hanna it’s clear that he is not winning yet as he fails to prevent the bank robbery – and people get shot.

The deaths of Don and Michael have weakened Neil’s team and show that things are changing for him. Eady is packing to leave with Neil, which is a great metaphor for his ‘approach to the inmost cave’. He will have to prove that he can unconditionally stick to his mantra, now the heat is on him. Will he drop everything and get out?

Sequence F: Ticking clocks – Running out of time. (17mins)

114.3 Chris gets surgery. Neil: meet you at Nate’s.
116.3 Chris calls Charlene: see you in two hours.
117.0 Neil at Trejo’s. He’s dying, “done by Van Zant’s men”.
119.3 Neil gets Van Zant’s address, asks for a new ‘out’.
120.0 Hanna believes he has 8-10hs to catch Neil. “After that he’s gone”.
121.0 Hanna tries to get intel from Van Zant’s aide.
122.0 Neil finds Van Zant, who refuses to give up Wayngro. Neil kills him.
123.0 Charlene is in safe house with Drucker.
124.0 Drucker pressures her: “Betray Chris for Dominic” (their son).
125.3 Hanna sends men to hotel, in case Neil goes after Wayngro.
127.0 Eady knows and runs off, Neil follows her.
129.0 Neil gives Eady cash. She asks how much longer… 22 hours.
130.0 Vincent finds Justine: “to demean myself with Ralph to get closure”.

In a long movie like HEAT it is crucially important to keep things moving. The ticking clocks are countless here: Chris tells Charlene he’ll see here in two hours. Hanna believes he only hs 8-10 hours. Neil gives himself 22 hours. This could be trouble for Neil.

But things are going like clockwork for him; a typical situation for the Antagonist/Shadow at this point in the story. All this while the Hero suffers setbacks one after the other, both in the outer journey (the case) and the love journey (his marriage). The final scene of this sequence can be seen as the Ordeal in that relationship journey: Justine has betrayed him – be it reluctantly – with Ralph.

But the darkest part of the movie is yet to come…

Sequence G: Vincent’s ordeal – Neil’s failed redemption. (16mins)

132.0 Nate has organised a plane for Neil.
133.0 Neil tells Eady she needs to choose. He wants to stay with her.
135.0 Police trap set for Chris. Drucker to Charlene: Show yourself.
137.0 Charlene signals to Chris. He gets away.
140.0 Hanna believes Neil is gone. All was in vain.
141.3 Hanna finds his daughter in bathroom after suicide attempt.
143.3 Hanna reunites with Justine at the hospital. “Not going anywhere.”
145.3 Nate calls Neil, who’s driving. So long.
146.3 Neil and Eady: home free.
147.0 Neil wants to “take care of something”. “There’s time.”

Vincent experiences two ‘all is lost’ moments (or ‘Ordeals’). First he believes he lost Neil for good, which would mean the failure of his outer journey. Next he finds Justine’s daughter unconscious in the bath tub after a suicide attempt. In this metaphorical ‘Inmost Cave,’ he is facing his worst fears – and possible death (Lauren). But he does the right thing by looking after Lauren and his Reward (Seizing the Sword) is Justine’s encouragement to go and do what he needs to do.

Neil, as the antagonist, is at his ‘highest point’. Everything is on track for him to get away and he gets overly confident, believing he can make the detour to deal with Wayngro. The irony however is that the movie’s theme gives away how this will end, i.e. both characters will move to the opposite of their current situation in Act Three. Vincent, who believed he ran out of time, will be able to track Neil down and deal with him. Neil, who said “There’s time,” will experience the opposite.

In this way for both characters the plot (outer journey) pays off beautifully on the movie’s theme and the characters’ choices.

ACT THREE

Sequence H: Neil kills Wayngro – Vincent kills Neil.(17mins)

147.3 At the hotel. Neil: “Right back.” Gets room number.
149.0 Neil sees police at hotel.
150.0 Neil triggers fire alarm.
152.3 Hanna goes to the hotel.
153.0 Hotel evacuation; Neil is at Wayngro’s room. Kills him.
154.0 Neil escapes. Eady is still in the car, watching.
156.0 Hanna arrives in heli at the hotel.
157.0 Neil sees Hanna and runs. Eady watches.
158.0 Neil runs to the airport, followed by Hanna.
159.0 Hanna shoots. Neil returns fire.
160.0 Chase. Neil hides. Landing lights come up.
163.3 Hanna sees Neil’s shadow and fires three shots. Neil dies.

The third act has a unique energy. The chase is a conventional 3-act, hero’s journey story stage (The Road Back) but the elegic musical score tones it down, foreshadowing what is to come.

The movie has a traditional third act resolution, in that the characters get the payoff they deserve within their own morality. Vincent has been consistent, loyal to his beliefs – he lives. Neil has put revenge before his mantra and pays for it with his life.

No-one will be surprised to see the ending, particularly after hearing Neil’s account of his recurring dream about drowning. Still, we feel for Neil. He had an opportunity to get out and have the life we wanted him to have. The final shot with Vincent holding Neil’s hand could have been melodrama but it isn’t. It is a moving moment in which both characters achieve their ultimate humanity and a masterful coda to a terrific piece of cinema.

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!

For years, I blindly followed this dogma, as it seemed to make a lot of sense. Learn from good and bad examples. Don’t we all do that in other fields? With hundreds of screenplays readily available for download from www.script-o-rama.com, www.imsdb.com and other sources, it appeared to be a quick and easy way to study the craft of scriptwriting.

But does it?

On average, I try to watch a movie a day, either in the cinema or on DVD. With the birth of my son late 2004, that became a bit more of a challenge. I found myself falling asleep in the second act. To remedy the ‘early fatherhood syndrome’, I would make notes, forcing myself to stay awake. As long as I had the discipline, I would even type them up into structural diagrams.

Suddenly, I had a revelation: the more I liked the film, the easier it was to find the Aristotelian three act structure and the principles of dramatic tension.

Revelation? Hardly.

What was truly phenomenal was that to crack the key to the film’s story structure, it had taken me only the duration of the film plus a few minutes. If I had read the screenplay instead, I’d have spent hours reading and taking notes – and only then would I be able to start work on piecing together the structure. A finished film underscores the drama in ways that help you identify the importance of the beat, scene or sequence: through music, fades or the use of light and colour (Soderbergh’s TRAFFIC is an extreme example).

At the time of writing I was developing a story with Wojciech – “Aerosol” – Wawrzyniak, whose structure is vaguely similar to Kenneth Brannagh’s MARY SHELLEY’S FRANKENSTEIN (thank you, Chris) so we decided to read the screenplay and watch the movie.

That’s when the true value in reading screenplays became apparent: it allows you to compare script and finished film. It shows the areas where filmmakers struggled, where what was on the page didn’t translate into what was onscreen.

Comparing script and film also reveals where directors made last minute decisions because they didn’t believe the script worked (or more often, the money ran out). A great example is the Chicago Train Station climax in THE UNTOUCHABLES. Mamet’s original Third Act had Capone’s accountant going on the train, with a chase and shootout following. However, De Palma had blown the budget and was forced to improvise.

For years, De Palma had been dreaming of shooting a homage to Eisenstein ‘Odessa Steps’ sequence from THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN. A budget issue in THE UNTOUCHABLES finally threw the opportunity into his lap. In my view, reading lots of screenplays is the hard way to learning how to write good stories. However, analyzing a few classic scripts in terms of language, style and formatting may help you find the right balance to turn your final draft into a better read.

– Karel

[divider]
by Lawrence Gray

And who are your people? Are they the ones who can pay you the big bucks, or a small minority who can only afford chump change?

Your passion might demand you write something that tells “the truth”. And if your passion earns you money and doesn’t land you in jail, all the better. But “the truth” is rarely what works in anything connected to the entertainment business. As they say, when the legend and reality clash, it is usually more fun to go with the legend.

‘The truth’ is rarely what works in anything
connected to the entertainment business

On my very first brush with Hollywood I pitched a story about African woman that seemed to me interesting and “relevant”, a word much used in my circles. And I had a rather bewildered looking “Vice President” of a studio exclaiming, “Lawrence, you do realize we make movies about nothing in particular!”

I, rather idealistically, was still viewing the writers’ role as documenting “issues” and looked back at “important” British TV plays like “Cathy Come Home” and “Up The Junction.” I was, in short, the last of the “Angry Young Men” and I probably still am, though probably seen more as a Grumpy Old Man nowadays. And this essay is something of a warning to you all.

I, rather idealistically, was still viewing
the writers’ role as documenting “issues”

Art, as Orwell has it, is always propaganda. And you do not even have to think in terms of state propaganda, or political party propaganda. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. In pluralist societies this might cover a huge range of not always consistent values.

Big business will back projects that do not undermine what they consider correct values. And ditto for little business and private Indy filmmakers with different ideas on what is correct and what is not. Under states that allow such, the average artist can avoid prison and only has to wonder if they will make money?

Big business will back projects that do not
undermine what they consider correct values.

In less generous societies where the state monitors what it considers to be the morality of its citizens, the writer can easily find themselves censored or worse. The narrower the version of acceptable ideology, often the greater the rewards for conforming!

A writer in China can do very well working within the restrictions imposed upon them. They get good apartments, plenty of work with decent budgets and not everything they produce is boring the nation.

A writer in China can do very well working
within the restrictions imposed upon them.

Though presently there’s an anti-Western cultural influence movement and a policy of promoting civilized Chinese culture, which as far as us in Hong Kong are concerned seems more to do with crushing “uncivilized” Cantonese and replacing it with “civilized” Mandarin.

And far worse than that, suppressing what was the mainstay of Hong Kong’s industry, Gangster movies and Kung Fu films.
(to be continued) 

-By Lawrence Gray

In a prior life, before moving to Hong Kong in 1991, I helped found the London Screenwriters Workshop, and since coming to Hong Kong I founded the Hong Kong Writers’ Circle.

I was chairman of both august organisations and have only just stepped down from the Writers’ Circle, considering myself far too damaged to continue leading the charge for the great unknowns of Hong Kong literature. [more]

[divider]

( photo credit Construction Schedule: Eric Fischer)

With thanks to Louise Lee Mei and Niels Abercrombie.

_____________________________________

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

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!

My first viewing of Inception was at the world’s largest IMAX screen in Sydney’s Darling Harbour. The experience was sensational but not perfect, because the projection was marred by an error in the IMAX print’s aspect ratio, resulting in a picture of which the height was about 9% squeezed.

I loved the movie enough to see it again in the same week at a standard theater (where the projection was flawless).  I watched it a third time and took detailed notes with a view to publishing this breakdown.

If my life hadn’t suddenly hit the accelerator over the past few weeks, I would have easily posted a breakdown in the first week of release.  The only real problem I still have is getting the last act right. It moves so fast it is virtually impossible to get every beat down accurately. So many things are paid off, so quickly.

Have a look for yourself and see if I have left out any major moment. I’d be grateful if you could let me know in the comments. Thank you!

Now enjoy!

Karel.

spoilers galore

PROLOGUE (FLASH FORWARD)

00.00    Warner and Legendary logos.
00.30    Cobb wakes up on a beach, sees his kids, is taken away at gunpoint.
01.30    With old man (Saito), who says: “I knew a man, possessed of some radical notions.”

ACT ONE

Sequence A: Cobb at work. Extraction, dream w/in a dream. (15mins)

02.30    (Dream Level 2) Saito having dinner, Cobb explains extraction, sells services.
04.00    Arthur: He knows. The building shakes. “What’s going on up there?”
04.30    (DL1) Saito and Cobb’s team are asleep.
05.30    (DL2) Wife Mal shows up. Cobb climbs out of room, re-enters building.
07.00    (DL2) Kills a guard, goes in to take envelope out of the safe. Stopped by Saito & Mal.
08.00    (DL2) Saito knows they’re dreaming, they have Arthur, shoot his leg. Dream collapses.
09.30    (DL2) Saito has an empty envelope, Cobb has the documents from the safe.
10.00    (DL1) Cobb won’t wake up. Team decide to give him ‘the kick’ in bathtub.

11.00    (DL2) Cobb drowns in building, water shooting in through windows.

11.30    (DL1) Saito attacks Cobb, holds him at gunpoint. An audition. You failed.
12.30    (WAKE) Team sleeping in train, timer set, music plays, waking up.
13.00    (DL1) Cobb throws Saito on rug. Fake: still dreaming! I’m impressed!
14.30    (WAKE) Debrief in the train. Out in Kyoto. Every man for himself.
15.00    (WAKE) Saito wakes up and smiles.

The first sequence sets up Cobb’s thieving life (Ordinary World), as well as his character (the best dream extractor) and his flaw (Mal).

Rather than tagging an opening action sequence before the start of Cobb’s story (as we see in e.g. The Matrix), Nolan works the action hook into this story in a fascinating, intelligent and at the same time elegant way. After only fifteen minutes into the movie, we have learned a lot, without at any point having the feeling that we’re ticking off a list of expository items.

Sequence B: (all WAKE) Offered a job by Saito: Inception. (6mins)

15.30    Cobb at home, spins a top on the table. It topples. Phone call from his kids.
17.30    Arthur knocks: our ride is on the roof. Are you OK? Time we disappear. Buenos Aires.
18.30    Saito has offer: architect’s safety in return for a job.
19.00    Inception explained. Cobb: Do I have a choice? Yes. Then I choose to leave.
20.00    How would you like to go home? Can’t fix that. Just like inception.
20.30    Job brief. Arthur: we should walk away. Guarantee! Saito: Leap of faith or old man.
21.00    Assemble your team Mr. Cobb and choose your people more wisely.

This is a short Act One and some may argue that the Act doesn’t really end until the team is assembled, i.e. around 44:30, just before they actually enter the dream. Entering the dream is certainly a way of the crossing of the threshold into the ‘Special World’. However, Cobb had already mentally crossed the threshold by accepting Saito’s proposal, so the assembling of the team is part of the mission. In this respect, traveling to Paris is a first threshold scene and the ‘Ariadne’ sequence is an ‘Ally’ sequence, which typically belongs in the 2nd Act, even in the Hero’s Journey.

ACT TWO

Sequence C: Getting the architect – and losing her again.(13mins)

21.30    Cobb & Arthur on plane to Paris.
22.00    Meeting dad. Design yourself! -Mal won’t let me. Last job to get me home.
24.30    Testing Ariadne: draw maze that takes more than 2 minutes to solve.
25.30    The team briefed in workshop.
26.00    (DL1) Cobb & Ariadne: First lesson in shared dreaming: explosions.
28.00    Another 5 minutes gives you an hour in the dream.
29.00    (DL1) What happens if you start messing with physics? City folds.
31.00    Projections become aggressive – Ariadne does trick with mirror.
33.00    Mal appears. Ariadne: Wake me up! Mal attacks. She wakes up.
34.00    Cobb spins top. Ariadne: “Cobb has serious problems.” walks off.
34.30    I’m gonna go visit Eames. Mombasa! We need a forger.

Sequence D: Team complete. Ariadne learns. Gathering info. (15mins)

35.00   Briefing Eames in Mombasa.
36.00   Eames: work on the relationship with the father.
36.30   Eames recommends chemist. First getting rid of Cobb’s ‘tail’. Fight & Chase.
39.00   Saved by Saito, protecting his investment.
39.30   Arthur is showing Ariadne around. Infinite staircase. Hide from the projections.
40.30   Safer if Cobb doesn’t know the layout. Mal is dead. Just his projection.
41.30    Chemist: 3 levels is possible. Need powerful sedative. Six team members: Saito.
43.00   For the sleepers, the dream has become their reality.
44.30   Saito briefs Cobb: The world needs Robert Fisher to change his mind.
47.00   Eames gathers information on the Fishers and Browning.
48.00   Ariadne finds Cobb ‘experimenting’. Mal’s totem.

49.30   You can’t keep her out. It’s getting worse… They think I killed her.

Sequence E: Ariadne joins Cobb’s secret memory dream. (10mins)

50.00   Cobb briefs the team in the workshop. Translate business strategy into an emotion.
51.00   Three levels of deams requires an extremly powerful sedative.
51.30   Lowest level: 10 years. Kick to get out.
53.00   We need 10 hours: Sydney – LA. Saito: I bought the airline. We have our 10 hours.
54.00   Ariadne finds Cobb dreaming. Joins in: Mal & Cobb. These are my dreams.

56.00   In my dreams we’re still together. These are memories I have to change.
57.00   Mal already gone. James and Philippa. All too late.
58.00   The Hotel suite. Anniversary. Mal attacks: you said we’d grow old together.
59.30   Ariadne: do you really think that’s gonna contain her? Ariadne is going.

Sequence F (MID): Things tougher than planned. (10mins)

60.00 Maurice died. Saito promises Cobb: No trouble with immigration if successful.
62.00 Take Off. Cobb has passport. Toasting to Maurice. Sleeping. Team gets ready.
64.00 L1 – Rain. Hijack cab. Pick up Robert. Attacked – under fire.
67.00 L1 – Not normal projections: trained! Saito bleeds. Cobb to Arthur: Your job.

67.30 L1 – Saito bleeding. When we die, we end up in limbo. Stuck in Fisher’s mind.
69.00 L1 – There’s a way out: continue as fast as possible. No other choice.

---

ACT IIb

Sequence G: Level 1 – Cobb’s secret revealed to Ariadne. (14mins)

70.00 L1 – The combination: tell us what it is. You’ve got an hour.
71.00 L1 – Browning ‘tortured’ for safe code. Maurice told me you’re the only one.
72.30 L1 – Down to the lower levels: the pain will be less intense.
74.00 L1 – Eames/Browning works on Robert. Maurice’s last word: disappointment.
75.00 L1 – Ar.: When were you in limbo? Deeper into Fisher… deeper into you.
75.30 L1 – C.: We lost sight of what was real. Limbo became her reality. for 50 years.
77.00 L1 – Obsessed: our world wasn’t real. To come back home, she had to kill herself.
77.30 FLASHBACK: Our anniversary. Mal jumps to her death.
79.30 L1 – I ran. I left my children behind.
81.00 L1 – Ar.: Your guild defines her. Not responsible, forgive yourself. Confront her.
81.30 L1 – Threatening Fisher: First 6 numbers that come to your mind, right now!!
82.30 L1 – We’re going for a ride. Into the van. Attacked by projections. Shootout.
83.00 L1 – Eames to Arthur: you mustn’t be afraid to dream of something bigger, darling.

84.30 L1 – Mr. Charles. Sweet Dreams. (into Level 2)

---

Sequence H: Level 2 – Mr. Charles, preparing ‘kick’ & Level 3 (12mins)

84.30 L2 – Robert Fisher in bar, stolen wallet. Mr Charles. Cobb offers security service.
85.30 L2 – Cobb: my people are on it as we speak. Fisher trusts him.  Strange weather.
88.30 L2 – Arth. kisses Ar. (L1: Van slides / shift in gravity.) Fisher concerned, believes Cobb.
89.30 L2 – Fisher: Can you get me out of here? Cobb: Rightaway. Leaving bar under gunfire.
90.30 L2 – Fisher holds gun to his own head: kill myself to wake up. Cobb: No! Sedated. Limbo.
91.00 L2 – Ariadne & Arthur: This room should be directly below 528.
92.00 L2 – Remember: hotel rooms… what was the number. 5th floor.
92.30 L2 – Arthur sets explosives for synchronized kick: when the van hits the water.
93.30 L2 – Cobb to Fisher: they’re putting you under, a dream within a dream.
94.00 L2 – Fisher’s projection of Browning. Let’s follow him to see how he behaves.
94.30 L2 – Browning & Fisher: the will is his last insult. Build a better company than he ever did.
95.00 L2 – Cobb: he’s lying. Going into Fisher’s dream, pretending it’s Browning’s. (into L3)

---

Sequence I: Level 3 – Into the Snow Fortress, All seems lost. (18mins)

96.30 L1 – Van attacked again. Van rolling.

99.30 L2 – Fight in hotel. Rotating gravity.

100.0 L3 – Cobb briefs team. To Fisher: break into Browning’s mind on your own.

100.3 L1 – Van on bridge, chased by projections. Being shot at.

101.3 L3 – Exit music plays – too soon. Move fast. 10 secs = 3 mins = 60 mins

103.0 L1 – Gunfight on bridge

103.3 L3 – Air duct system that can cut through the maze

104.0 L1 – Van goes through railing, off the bridge. Falling.

105.0 L3 – Missed kick. Finish job before next kick – when van hits the water. 20mins.

106.3 L2 – Floating – no gravity.

107.0 L3 – Entering the duct system, projections know.

107.3 L2 – Weightless fight between Arthur and guard in rotating gravity.

108.3 L3 – Approaching the central tower

109.3 L2 – Arthur is collecting everyone, for the kick.

110.0 L3 – Entire army coming their way. Robert Fisher is in stronghold.

111.0 L3 – Mal comes in. Ar.: She is not real. Fisher is real! Mal shoots Fisher.

111.3 L2 – Arthur moving the team, preparing for the kick.

112.3 L3 – Failed. Fisher’s mind already trapped. We failed.

112.3 L3 – Ar.: There’s still another way. Follow fisher down there. Use defibrillator.

---

Sequence J: Level 4 – Cobb’s cave, resolves guilt over Mal (14mins)

114.0 L4: Ocean and dead city.
115.0 L2: Arthur places team in elevator.
115.3 L4: Ar.: You built all this? C.: We built for years. All reconstructed from memory.
118.8 L2: Arthur placing charges.
118.3 L4: C.: An idea is a virus. Mal: your world is not real. Choose me.
120.0 L4: Mal: Our children are here. C.: I want to see them up above, Mal.
120.3 L3: Saito bleeding / L1: Van falling.
121.3 L4: C.: The reason I knew Inception was possible. I did it to her first.
123.3 L4: C.: Idea grew like a cancer. Death was the only escape. FB: Mal’s suicide.
124.3 L3: Projections enter. / Saito dies.
125.0 L2: Exit music plays. Ar.: We need to get Fisher. C.: Go check he’s alive.
126.0 L3: Ar. checks if Fisher is alive. It’s time. Come now! You can’t stay.
126.3 L4: I can’t stay … she doesn’t exist. You’re just a shade. Sorry, not good enough.
127.0 L3: Mal attacks with knife. Ar. shoots.  Need to get Saito back.
127.3 L2: The elevator moves.

---

This sequence is where Cobb comes clean with himself. It is the end of his Inner Journey, his redemption. Only after this can he achieve the Outer Goal, i.e. the successful inception, which happens in the next sequence.

The end of Act Two is a Crisis or Ordeal in the traditional sense as we see Saito killed  (a character who has both Mentor and Herald qualities), as well as Mal (representing Cobb’s flaw or Inner Conflict). It is interesting that it is not Cobb,  but Ariadne who shoots Mal. Would this be because otherwise the scene would have felt too much like a Climax? I wonder.

---

ACT THREE

Sequence K: Mission accomplished. All levels kick back. (8mins)

128.0 L3: Fisher with his father. Maurice: I was disappointed that you tried.
129.0 L2: Elevator drops.
129.3 L3: Robert finds paper windmill in safe.
130.0 L3: Eames blows up building.
131.0 L4: Ar. jumps: find Saito. / L3: All destroyed. / L2: Elevator kick / L1: Water kick.
130.3 L4: Ar.: Don’t lose yourself. Find Saito and bring him back.
131.0 L4: FLASHBACK (Limbo) We did grow old. I have to let you go.
133.0 L1: Van sinking
134.0 L4: Saito: Have you come to kill me? C.: Come back with me.

---

Although the sequence of ‘kicks’ is a perfect example of a sequence crossing multiple thresholds back into the Ordinary World, In Hero’s Journey terms, Inception has a problem. Typically, this precedes the climax (or Resurrection) but obviously Cobb’s mission must be complete before he can return to the Ordinary World. This may explain why although intellectually satisfying, there is something oddly wrong with the way this climax feels intuitively.

Now looking at this structure, I realize that the climax is possibly the weakest part of the movie because Cobb is not active in it. It is Robert Fisher who plays out the climax and the only notable climax for Cobb is the resolution of the Inner Conflict at the end of Act Two.

---

Sequence L: Waking up. Aftermath. Will the totem topple? (3mins)

136.0 In plane: We’ll be landing in about 20mins. All waking up. Cobb is wondering.
136.3 Saito wakes up and makes a phone call.
137.0 Immigration: Welcome home, Mr. Cobb. Father waiting at the exit.
138.3 At home: father. Look who’s here! Kids.
138.3 Totem spinning. Doesn’t topple.
139.0 The End.

---

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!

Hauge claims the Inner and Outer Journey run in parallel. I think he’s right, with one small caveat.

A gorgeous Sunday morning in a Manly cafe with a view on the ocean. Perfect circumstances to switch off.

Not if you’re me. I was pondering story structure. And suddenly I had this thought.

Think of a character’s journey as a journey of change. Nothing new so far.

If you look at both the Inner and Outer Journey of a film story as defined in terms of  ‘change’, you’ll see they are structured identically.

I remembered this review of HANCOCK, where the critic pointed out that early in the movie we realise Hancock is a character who needs redemption. He needs to change. Like Bill Murray’s character in GROUNDHOG DAY, Robert Downey Junior’s character in IRON MAN, Bob in THE INCREDIBLES or THELMA AND LOUISE. Or pretty much any hero in any successful movie. They’re all transformational.

In every movie with a character arc, first there is a more or less visible ‘need for change’.

In this first sequence of many successful films, we see the hero’s flawed behaviour. We understand: this character needs to change in order to find happiness, an emotional or psychological balance, to realise a full life.

Then the Inciting Incident happens. Almost always AFTER we understand the character’s inner problem, that ‘need for change’.

Pondering over this, I started mapping it out over the 3-Act time line and I came to an interesting conclusion: the character journey, whether it is Inner or Outer, has three stages:

1. the need for change (a situation of conflict)
2. the journey of change (obstacles and increased conflict)
3. the result of change (conflict resolved, new situation)

Let’s look how these three stages play out over the inner and outer journey:

INNER JOURNEY (that which brings change to the character’s behaviour)

1. the need for change: opening until inciting incident (halfway Act One)
2. the journey of change: from inciting incident until crisis (end Act Two)
3. the result of change: conflict resolved, new situation (halfway to end of Act Three)

OUTER JOURNEY (that which brings change to the world)

1. the need for change: inciting incident until end of Act One
2. the journey of change: from beginning of Act Two until Resolution
3. the result of change: from Resolution to end of movie

Stages 1. and 3. are much clearer in terms of their visible clues about the change. The second stage (mostly Act Two) is murkier. It is a gradual change, which is a matter of ups and downs, victories and defeats.

The 2nd act Inner Journey is largely defined by the mid point.

Because the Inner Journey is weaker in this act, the mid point (the “S” in the middle on the pic.) keeps the story in balance.

Let’s have a look what this would look like on the 3-Act time line:

The vertical lines are the act breaks, the crosses are Inciting Incident and Climax/Resolution.

So we can conclude the following:

Inner & Outer Journey are identical, only shifted in time.

The meaning of this timeshift is simply the following:

In order to get what s/he wants, the Hero must first transform.

It may not be a new view at story structure, but I haven’t seen this approach anywhere else.
Try it, it may work for you.

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!