_______________________________

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!

_______________________________

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!

_______________________________

With thanks to Sol.

Feel free to give your feedback in the Questions and Comments below.

Enjoy!

Karel

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!

From the answers I have compiled the list below, together with ten common problems from my own experience. These are not just issues with scripts of my clients, but problems occurring in many – if not most – screenplays sent to me for financing and/or production.

Script Editors’ Top Ten:

– long descriptions
– lack of practical insight
– too many characters
– too many subplots
– over-writing
– passive protagonist
– weak antagonist
– not enough obstacles
– absence of logic
– breach of genre rules

Karel’s Top Ten:

– weak protagonist
– lack of conflict
– lack of subtext
– lack of turning points
– shifting point of view
– on-the-nose dialogue
– too clever dialogue
– direction from the page
– lengthy scenes
– bad use of parentheses

Half of my list I consider structural problems. They are issues to be addressed during the story development, i.e. before you even write your screenplay draft.

If you are about to write a draft or have just written one, you might want to have a look at the screenplay checklist (Premium only) in which I focus on a number of problems that may occur in the writing of the draft.

Screenplay Checklist (Premium) >>

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!

Still you will need to get through the hurdle of the paperwork. Before getting access to tax payer’s money, a rather large amount of boxes needs to be ticked. Still, these application forms are usually not as daunting as they look.

If you have studied the questions in the application and there are still questions left, it often pays to pick up the phone and ask the people in the development department directly.

However, the most important elements of any application package for a new screenplay are the following:

– the screenplay
– the logline and/or one-paragraph synopsis
– the synopsis
– the three-page outline
– the development notes

If you are confident that you have a good story, it is paramount to make sure each of these four is in prime shape. Let’s look at them in further detail.

SCREENPLAY

ALL scripts are read. To my knowledge, this is where the first selection occurs.
This means you the screenplay’s presentation is extremely important. To improve a reader’s experience and keep the focus on the story, your script needs to be as perfect as you can get it. Proper format, no typos, ‘lots of white’ etc.

It is true that if you have a formally deficient screenplay but a rock solid story, you will ultimately find the money. If you have a dead-boring story written in a perfect, super polished screenplay, no-one will care. Still, your script may be eliminated from a funding round just because it looks un-professional.

The external reader in charge of making the first selection may decide that if you are not disciplined to even get something as simple as the format right, you are not serious about screenwriting in the first place.

LOGLINE

It tells in only a few words what your story is about. Twenty-five-words-or-less, ideally. If you can’t do this, most likely any future sales people will have trouble pitching your story.

The logline is a one sentence or one paragraph summary of your story, sometimes called the elevator pitch. Clever writers have used this tool during development and now is the time for the world to admire the brilliant gem.

The logline is so powerful, it doesn’t just tell us what the story is about, it also demonstrates your clarity in terms of vision and plot.

Think of it like this: if you give the people deciding on development or production investment the most powerful, exciting line summarising your story, you can almost be sure your story will pop in their minds before any others. You have already half won the money.

SYNOPSIS

Even if the synopsis is not used for the first elimination, a badly written synopsis will most likely throw you out of the race at some point. Once a first selection is made, readers will need to refresh their minds and in stead of re-reading the entire script, they may look at the synopsis in stead. If yours is sloppy and uninspiring, this may reflect on the discussions about the script in the shortlisting stage.

I am of the opinion that significant tax money could be saved if funding agencies would behave like the rest of the film industry and make a selection based on the synopsis first. It is a time-efficient and highly reliable tool to assess the story in a reasonable level of detail without the need to read for hours. A badly constructed story can be a good read but ultimately it may waste everyone’s time.

Finally, one page is one page. Don’t cheat. If necessary, cut out all subplots and focus purely on the protagonist’s journey.

THREE PAGE OUTLINE

Here you can go into more detail about any side-characters and their journeys. If the synopsis suffered in terms of its style because of the struggle to get the essential plot points in, here you can be more evocative. Give us a flavour of the genre of the film by using expressive language. However, this is still not a treatment: no dialogue or detailed description.

DEVELOPMENT NOTES

Honesty first. Know your strengths and weaknesses. Don’t over-sell. Be clear about what you want to achieve in the next draft. The development notes are hugely important and in all fairness, it is not really an area where you can be on your own. It always pays to hire a professional to look over the application materials as the competition is fierce and many of your competitors will have worked through their submission with the help of a script consultant.

These notes should provide the SWOT Analysis of your work. Why do you believe it will attract millions of viewers? Why is it worth spending money on further development? And most importantly: what are you intending to do next? For a writer, it is hard to judge the merits of your own work. Here you will need help from an experienced reader, another writer or a script editor.

One more piece of advice: start writing these documents EARLY. Don’t wait until the last days before the deadline. Not only will you save yourself the stress and the danger of having documents riddled with typos. When you have the time to let your application materials rest for a week, two, three, you will have time to write another seriously improved draft. You will pick up on weaknesses you didn’t see in the first place. The final result will be 200% better.

Back to work. Good luck!

Screenplay Checklist (Premium) >>

Learn From Other People’s Mistakes >>

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!

People who, like me, get to read a great number of Australian screenplays are astounded how poorly developed most of these works are. The ones that stand out are often the ones that have had and taken on board professional feedback.

Great traditional narrative. When Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) finds out somebody is controlling his life, he wants to stop her from killing him. The conflict: antagonist Kay Eiffel (Emma Thompson) needs to finish her book and can’t without doing exactly that. A beautiful example of a strong inner and outer journey for protagonist Crick plus an exemplary ‘relationship line’ around the Ana Pascal character (Maggie Gyllenhaal). As Michael Hague puts it: the hero needs to complete his arc in order to get the girl.

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With this subject matter I initially didn”t believe Greengrass really HAD to be this rigorous in his structuring for the movie to have an adequate effect. Still he did. Why? To create maximum empathy with the protagonists. And boy it pays off!

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!

Rather than opening a dialogue about why THE INSIDER works for some people and not for others, Linda treated it as an example of a failed script. To her defense: it was only part of that night’s workshop and time constraints didn’t allow her to divert.

THE INSIDER not only put Russell Crowe on the celebrity map with a Best Actor Nomination, the movie was also nominated for another six awards including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay. That’s a pretty good result for a ‘failed script’. As a matter of fact, it smells a bit like my not so smart move to call WOLF CREEK a ‘missed opportunity’ in terms of screenwriting at the offices of Australia’s Film Financing Corporation.

Linda Aronson’s workshops got me thinking and inspired me to the idea of an online forum about issues like this and about story structure in general. Australia doesn’t have a screenwriting culture which recognises the importance of story development as opposed to script development.

We have an abundance of script assessment services happily charging writers hundreds of dollars for a full screenplay assessment without assessing the story’s overall dramatic structure first. Does any established producer / government funding body / Hollywood Studio read a full-length spec script without judging the story outline first? Right.

But enough of this sub plot for now. Back to the main story.

THE INSIDER – SCHINDLER’S LIST

I don’t recall Linda’s argument about THE INSIDER in detail as I have the arrogant habit to shut down when I am not allowed to argue my point. In essence, I believe the bottom line was: the casting of Al Pacino shows that the filmmakers considered his character the protagonist (Russell Crowe was pretty much a nobody on the international scene until that movie) but Pacino’s character is too weak and underdeveloped to carry the movie for its runtime of over two and a half hours.

A lot of movie buffs (including members of the Academy) will agree that THE INSIDER worked, despite its slightly unconventional structure. Linda is right: the script does not follow a straightforward three act plot.

Instead I believe here are two main stories with three acts each, hooked into each other very much like SCHINDLER’S LIST in which we first follow Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley) who’s objective it is to get as many Jews into the factory as possible. Once we are well into his journey’s second act and over an hour into the film, Schindler (Liam Neeson) witnesses the clearing of the Krakow ghetto which demarcates his first act’s turning point. Now his objective is to get the workers out of the factory and into safety. Think about it: the Schindler character doesn’t really have a strong enough dramatic objective to get the story to that point. But Stern does.

Similarly, in THE INSIDER it is Wigand’s (Russell Crowe) Second Act objective to get his inside information safely to Bergman (Al Pacino), at which point we’re already into Bergman’s Second Act, which is all about getting the information to the public through his television show. Obviously we are now only talking about what Vogler would call the Hero’s Outer Journey, i.e. the ‘visible desire’. But I believe the Inner Journeys of these characters very much follow the same structure.

I would love to hear your view on these (admittedly rudimentary) story analyses. To me these two movies illustrate that:

– it is a myth that a movie should have three acts.
– it is a must that major characters have three acts.

However…

SYRIANA recently scratched a thin layer off my confidence in the traditional three act story structure. For a short while at least. To say that writer/director Stephen Gaghan is not really a slavish follower of the Syd Fields and Robert McKee’s of this world, is a bit of an understatement. Instead he learned from reading Tolstoy’s diaries in which the novelist explains his four main driving principles, the first of which is NOT “story”. Instead, in order of priority Tolstoy lists: Transition, Context, Story and Character.

McKEE vs. TOLSTOY

Clearly, this approach to screenwriting works for Gaghan who won earlier accolades with his script for Soderbergh’s TRAFFIC. Showing structural similarities with the latter film, SYRIANA paints a multi-textured, multi-protagonist tapestry giving us a hint of an insight in the complex issues that govern the world of the oil trade and middle-eastern politics. If you dig it, it’s riveting cinema and you’ll want to watch it again. If you don’t, you certainly have a valid reason for that.

SYRIANA is a brilliant piece of screenwriting but it appeals to the mind rather than the heart. Because of that, I don’t believe this type of political manifesto will mobilise the masses any time soon. Audiences today firstly want to be emotionally moved rather than intellectually engaged.

The above consideration is only an introduction to what I find one of the most entertaining discourses on screenwriting I have recently heard. In a podcast of nearly 90mins, Gaghan talks to CREATIVE SCREENWRITING MAGAZINE about his journey to screenwriting stardom, about his writing process and of course: SYRIANA.

Go to CREATIVE SCREENWRITING to find out how to download this podcast as well as other Q&A’s with the writers of CAPOTE, THE SQUID AND THE WHALE, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE etc. If you can’t find it, send me an email and I might point you to it.

DVD COMMENTARIES

Not a lot of DVD’s come with a commentary that is useful from a story or screenwriting perspective. Hence the excitement when we do find one that sheds a good light on the movie from the writer’s pov.

Hitchcock’s NORTH BY NORTHWEST comes with a commentary track by Hollywood legend Ernest Lehman. And although he doesn’t go into a lot of detail about the actual writing process, he reveals a goldmine of facts and anecdotes about his working relationship with Hitch. Ironically, it’s another movie that wasn’t written following the screenwriting text books.

Speaking of which: a great analysis of NORTH BY NORTHWEST can be found in a work that I have been recommending a lot lately: Paul Gulino’s SCREENWRITING – THE SEQUENCE APPROACH. This book offers only about twenty pages of theory, followed by a thorough dramatic analysis of such great and diverse works as LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, DINER, ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST and TOY STORY. The basis is the Aristotelian Three Act model, the principles of drama and anticipation as taught by the late Frank Daniel.

LOOSE ENDS (potential spoilers warning)

THE WORLD’S FASTEST INDIAN: Wonderfully crafted feel-gooder. The only problem with this movie is its title. A more appealing label would have drawn even more people to the Box Office and made word of mouth easier. Hopkins is sensational and most side characters go beautifully against cliche. Somebody on IMDb calls it “A Chick Flick for Guys”. So true.

V FOR VENDETTA: When your name is Wachowsky, you don’t have to worry about story structure or character development. As long as you have a strong concept, the fans will queue. I applaude the subversive concept of portraying Guy Fawks as a hero but I wish I could have loved this movie more. The story would have been helped with a more rigorous development of the V / Evey relationship. Also, the Wachowsky’s have the bad habit of leaving their heroes for too long, one of the problems I seem to remember sunk Matrix III.

THE PROPOSITION (DVD): Have a look at it from a story structure point of view. I sincerely enjoyed it until the scene when Captain Stanley (Ray Winstone) throws the keys to the jail in the sand. To me this marks the end of the second act, which comes way too early in the movie. It also takes the wind out of the sails of the Stanley / Martha subplot which up until that point had been really nicely developed.

KING KONG (DVD): If you don’t like the 1933 original, you probably won’t like this one either. After all you’re expected to empathise with an ape and his consenting playmate. Despite the groundbreaking and breathtaking visuals in Jackson’s KONG, the real action after The Longest First Act in Human History (that is not counting SCHINDLER’S LIST) starts with a dino stampede which just briefly looks downright clumsy. But I didn’t mind it and the FX only get better towards the movie’s phenomenal finale on top of the Empire State.

In terms of Jackson’s (or rather: Fran Walsh’s) structure and drama skills, I’d like to refer again to a great article in Paul Gulino’s SCREENWRITING – THE SEQUENCE APPROACH in which the author makes a razorsharp analysis of THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. It shows weaknesses that have been largely ironed out in the later installments of the trilogy and now also his version of KING KONG.

But I think I love this movie for a different reason. Peter Jackson is one of the very few living directors who can handle a colossal production like this and still retain a fresh, innocent and boyish feel. You forget the years of preparation and the sheer unmanageable machinery involved in getting this on the screen. It’s the type of magic which George Lucas has long lost.

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!