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!

:: Improve Plot and Character Fast
:: Building Original Stories
:: “What is the Conflict in the Scene?”
:: Screenplay Review – 47 Ronin
:: TV Pilot – The Leftovers

Script Perfection

:: 10 Screenwriting Tips From E.T.!!!
:: Nerdist Writers Panel #30: Vince Gilligan
:: Nerdist Writers Panel #32: Damon Lindelof
:: Being a Real Writer Means…
:: The Best Revenge

Pitching & Selling

:: An Interview With a Black List 3.0 Success Story

Best of the Rest

:: Ryan Coogler Talks with Ava DuVernay about Fruitvale Station
:: TV’s Top Showrunners Talk Deleted Scenes, Network Censorship, More
:: Actually, There’s a Difference Between “Binge Watchers” and “Couch Potatoes”
:: 2013 Nicholl Screenwriting Fellowship Award Speeches
:: ‘Gravity’ Spinoff
:: Honoring Syd Field: The Master of Screenplay
_______________________________

With thanks to Jamie Campbell.

Enjoy!

Karel

Jamie Campbell

Jamie Campbell is an author, screenwriter, and television addict.

Jamie is proud to be an Editor for The Story Department.

Her latest series Project Integrate is out now.

jamiecampbell.com.au

Over the past decades, screenwriting education has developed into a multi-million dollar industry with rockstar size gurus such as Robert McKee and the late Blake Snyder. All this really started with one book, published in 1979: “Screenplay – The Foundations of Screenwriting“, written by Syd Field.

Syd Field was the first true screenwriting guru and to many his book is still a standard, more than thirty years after its initial publication. Syd visited Sydney only once in his life and during that occasion, he was very generous with his time and we interviewed him at the offices of Screen Australia. This interview was published in three parts, which we will republish this week.

Interview: Karel Segers, David Trendall and Niels Abercrombie

With thanks to Screen Australia

Karel: I’m excited to have with us today the godfather of screenwriting theory: Syd Field.

Syd Field: Thank you, thank you so much. The godfather, it’s a little odd sounding but I will accept that with gratitude.

Karel: You started long before Robert McKee…

Syd Field: Of course, many many years before. I started teaching in ’75 and wrote the book in ’79, I started doing workshops in ’80 at the weekend and I really designed the weekend form which McKee took and borrowed freely from. I think I was about 3 to 4 years ahead of him and I was travelling as he was just starting out in LA.

I really designed the weekend form
which McKee took and borrowed freely from.

Karel: How did you get inspired to write Screenplay and develop “the paradigm”?

Syd Field: I was a documentary filmmaker in the beginning for four years, then I became a freelance screenwriter for 7 years, I wrote 9 original screenplays, 2 were produced, 4 optioned, and 3 nothing ever happened to. And then out of work, broke, trying to be a single parent, I got a job as the head of the story department at a place called Cine Mobile. So as a writer taking a break from writing I started reading screenplays to sharpen the skills of my craft.

As a writer taking a break from writing
I started reading screenplays
to sharpen the skills of my craft.

Karel: How many scripts did you read?

Syd Field: In 2 years I read more than 2000 screenplays and more than a hundred novels and I only found 40 to submit to our financial partners, so my question to me, Sydney, what made these 40 better than the other 1960?

Karel: What did?

Syd Field: I had no answer whatsoever but I kept reading and I took apart those 40 screenplays, because I love to analyze, and I began to see those screenplays started on page 1 word 1.

In 2 years I read more than 2000 screenplays
and more than a hundred novels

And there was an incident that grabbed everybody’s attention and the writing was so stylized and so active, all present tense, that I immediately became hooked so when I had the opportunity to teach a course at Sherwood Oaks Experimental College I went in there as a writer and a reader.

Karel: That’s how you started teaching.

Syd Field: I started teaching a class and I assumed an incorrect position teaching that class, which was a great lesson for me. Since I was there at the head of the class and everybody was there coming to hear me talk, I assumed I knew something they didn’t. What a mistake that was, I was the most terrible teacher because I had this opinion about… because I was there I had to know something.

I assumed I knew something they didn’t.
What a mistake that was.

After a year I had no students left and all left and all walked out.

Karel: How did you deal with that?

Syd Field: I began teaching from a different perspective, I became the student and my students became the teacher. They wanted answers to questions about writing, how do you develop character, how do you write a story, what makes good dialogue, how do you structure a story. So I answered their questions, and out of answering their questions I began to realize everybody has the same questions, how do you prepare your material, how do you execute your material. How do you write great character, how do you write great dialogue.

After a year I had no students left and all left.

I began to go into my experience as a reader and a writer and answer those questions and that’s how the whole thing started. Pretty soon those classes became pretty full and popular and when I wanted to go back to writing and about another year or so after teaching, the urge to write again came back.

I said why don’t I write what I’m doing right now, why not write from my experience. So I wrote a 67 page book presentation, sent it to an agent in New York and she called me 3 days later and she said we’ve got a deal. And I was just astonished.

Karel: But didn’t you want to write screenplays?

Syd Field: I believe in a very simple philosophy: when you’re riding a horse you don’t ride a horse backwards. You go in the direction the horse is going in. So I’m going to put screenwriting aside right now and I’m going to write books.

Random House and Bantom Dell were just astonished. They had no idea that this book would take off like this, they published the book on a flier: “Here’s a little money for you kid, go and write and see what you can do,” that was their attitude.

Here’s a little money for you kid,
go and write and see what you can do.

The first printings were 5,000, second was 8,000, the next was 15,000. The president of the company came to me and pushed me in a corner, he’d been drinking: “What is it you’ve got in your book here?” and “I want another one!” so I said whatever is working, works.

Karel: So why don’t we know you today as Syd Field, the bestselling prose writer?

Syd Field: I wanted to write a book but not the same thing I’d already done. So many times people are writing books and writing the same thing all over again and I said forget it, and I started with Screenplay which is now published by the way in 28 languages and sold more than a million copies. Used in 500 Universities across the US and abroad.

So that’s how the things started

Karel: Since then you’ve been teaching people how to write.

Syd Field: I started traveling and teach the professionals… not how to write, nobody can teach anybody how to write… but what you can do is help the professionals sharpen their skills, go into the dynamics of story and evolution of story and find out ways to make your characters deeper, more dimensional and more interesting.

Nobody can teach anybody how to write.

Find ways to grab your readers attention more quickly and to keep the reader, and the viewer hopefully, perched on the edge of their seat, that’s my whole intention. My intention in writing all these books, I want to see better movies.

Next: What is a great Screenplay?

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 Syd Field

Well, there are many of course: lack of the main character’s dramatic need; structural weakness in the second act, lack of a strong ending, etc, etc.? But the main problem I find is usually the same: most screenwriters tell their story in dialogue, in words, constantly explaining the thoughts, feelings and emotions of the characters.

In and by itself, that’s not necessarily a fault. It really depends on what kind of story you’re writing. If it’s a romantic comedy like (500) Days of Summer, the action moves forward by dialogue, no matter how non-linear the story happens to be. In the case of Summer, the strong emotional through-line of the relationship anchors the story. The story of the relationship is a linear story line, and it is simply told in a non-linear way. It works. Beautifully.

Today, changes are going on; stylistic changes. More and more the screenwriter is using many of the tools of the novelist: point of view, memory, subjective elements, voice over narration, flashbacks etc.. It has changed the look of the contemporary screenplay.

I was reminded of this a short time ago when I ran into an acquaintance I hadn’t seen for while. We went to the nearby Coffee Bean and over a flavorful ice-blended started catching up with our lives. He’d been writing several TV shows, his kids had grown, and he had a feature idea he was playing around with. He asked what I’ve been up to and I told him I’ve been traveling almost non-stop for the past two years, giving seminars and workshops on screenwriting.

He asked me if I had noticed any differences in screenwriting from country to country. I told him no, that international screenwriting had evolved to a point where it was just “screenwriting.” I’m finding that no matter where I am in the world, whether in Brazil, Cairo, Madrid, Manila, Mexico City, Bombay, Singapore or Vienna, independent what language is spoken, a screenplay is still a story told with pictures. For me, as I’m constantly stating, it’s the screenwriter’s job to remain true to the culture they’re a part of. So many writers around the world want to write “a Hollywood movie” instead of focusing on their own cultural heritage and issues.

It’s the screenwriter’s job to remain true to the culture they’re a part of.

What is have noticed, I told my friend, is that the screenplays are becoming more visual, more fragmentary, in terms of scope, form and execution. And, I shared an experience I had when I spent several weeks working with the writer and director as a script consultant on a film (to be released in 2010 by Fox) titled My Name is Khan.

It didn’t matter that this was an Indian film, or that it was written by one of my students. Khan is really a story that impacts our humanity. It transcends language, country and culture. Since the story line was about a journey, with moments of flashbacks and memories, I suggested they use more voice over narration so we could gain more of an insight into the character. In that way, there didn’t have to be so much explantion. That meant that we had to re-structure most of the story line, especially in the beginning and I feel, gave it a stronger emotional impact. (When it’s released, we’ll see how accurate I am.)

I suggested using the voice over narration because there’s a simple rule in screenwriting – either the character drives the action, or the action drives the character. In this case the character drives the action (same as (500) Days of Summer, Shawshank Redemption or Juno). An example of action driving the character would be Little Miss Sunshine, Slumdog Millionaire or The Lookout.

From my vantage point, the craft of screenwriting today has evolved, and is continuously evolving into what I call a “revolutionary form.” Look at: Atonement, Vantage Point, Slumdog Millionaire or Inglorious Bastards. Almost every film being released today uses elements of voice over, sub-titles, flashpresent, interviews, or other elements of a multi-media presentation. To me, it is the mark of a new style of screenwriting.

Why is this happening? Well, I have a theory about that. I believe that this “new” style of screenwriting is evolving through the influence of technology. And it’s creating a “revolution” in the way we’re writing our screenplays.

Utilizing an analogy with texting, we’re using less words and more pictures to show/explain things. R u wi me? Today, we think in pictures, not words. As I always say, Film is Behavior. Because of this advance in technology, the world has become a smaller place and more information from anywhere in the world can be retrieved almost instantaneously.

So, you may be wondering: What is this Evolution/Revolution that’s going on?

I believe – and it’s my own personal theory, by the way, which is validated by many scientists – that this rise of technology is imprinting itself as an evolutionary form of behavior. We see, we don’t explain. In film, how a character acts or reacts to a specific incident or event illuminates their character, reflects their value systems and morality, and reveals who they are more by their actions, than their words. Because of this evolutionary process, things are changing; we’re seeing the same things, we’re just seeing them differently.

Here’s how I look at it: the rise of digital technology. BD (before Digital) we had Analog Technology – meaning that all signals, or bytes of information, are singular and individual: sound is read as sound, music is read as music, picture is read as picture. And if you were building a “composite” movie track you would be pile each track layer upon layer – a layer of music, a layer of effects, a layer of dialogue, just like laying down sheets of pasta when you’re making lasagna.

But digital moved us to a different level. Digital technology is different:, all signals, or bites of information, are read as being the same – they are read, or interpreted as one component. So, all bytes of sound, picture and music are read as one unit of information. Like making soup – you take all the ingredients, (the analog) then put them in the pot and when they all blend together, and you have soup (digital.) You can’t separate the ingredients because they’re now one.

This rise of technology is imprinting itself as an evolutionary form of behavior

We can do things technically in film today that we couldn’t do ten years ago. And more importantly, at least from my perspective, we can include bits and pieces of a character’s memory into the story line so it becomes an integral part of the action. Look at The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum. We didn’t have that technology 20 years ago to incorporate a character’s past or memory fragments into a character’s behavior. Today, with digital technology, we’re able to utilize a character’s memory as part of their character development and incorporate it into the story line.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. Look at a classic film like Casablanca. There’s a scene in the first act where the German, Major Strasser, invites Rick to join them at their table for a drink. He begins to ask Rick questions: What’s your profession, he asks? “Drunkard,” Nick replies. Already you hear his rebellious nature. Irritated, the German pulls out his little black book and begins to tell us all about Rick. It’s all expository dialogue designed to give us information about who Rick is, his past, where he came from, and it reveals to us why he might be a potential danger to the Nazi’s in Casablanca. It’s all words, talking heads. Yes, it still works, but it’s the old, classic way of giving us necessary information to move the story forward. You’ll see this style in The Hustler, The Apartment, and many other films.

But, here’s the new way of giving us the same character exposition for Rick. In the beginning of The Bourne Ultimatum, Jason Bourne is riding in a train and is reading a newspaper. He sees his name in the paper and as he reads the story, we cut into bits and pieces of Bourne’s visual memories. These visual fragments serve an expository function the same way that Major Strasser’s reading about Rick’s character in Casablanca does.

If we’ve never seen any of the Bourne series we learn things about him that were in the previous two films. And, it’s done in a little more than a minute. All pictures, no words. In Casablanca the information is simply inserted into the story line, (like the love story told in flashback between Rick and Ilsa), whereas in the Bourne films, these bits and pieces of memory are integrated into the story line.

This is what I’m talking about in terms of the Evolution/Revolution of the modern screenplay. Take a look and check it out.

-Syd Field

Syd Field is acclaimed as the “guru of all screenwriters” by CNN and “the most sought after screenwriting teacher in the world” by the Hollywood Reporter. The internationally celebrated author of eight books on screenwriting, Syd has conducted screenwriting workshops all over the world, has been a special script consultant to several governments, and was inducted into the prominent Final Draft Hall of Fame in 2006. Syd is currently on faculty in the Masters of Professional Writing Program at USC.

Photo Credits: Stock XChng, Syd Field

Jamie Campbell

Jamie Campbell is an author, screenwriter, and television addict.

Jamie is proud to be an Editor for The Story Department.

Her latest series Project Integrate is out now.

jamiecampbell.com.au

Interview: Karel Segers, David Trendall and Niels Abercrombie

With thanks to Screen Australia

Karel: I’m excited to have with us today the godfather of screenwriting theory: Syd Field.

Syd Field: Thank you, thank you so much. The godfather, it’s a little odd sounding but I will accept that with gratitude.

Karel: You started long before Robert McKee…

Syd Field: Of course, many many years before. I started teaching in ’75 and wrote the book in ’79, I started doing workshops in ’80 at the weekend and I really designed the weekend form which McKee took and borrowed freely from. I think I was about 3 to 4 years ahead of him and I was travelling as he was just starting out in LA.

I really designed the weekend form
which McKee took and borrowed freely from.

Karel: How did you get inspired to write Screenplay and develop “the paradigm”?

Syd Field: I was a documentary filmmaker in the beginning for four years, then I became a freelance screenwriter for 7 years, I wrote 9 original screenplays, 2 were produced, 4 optioned, and 3 nothing ever happened to. And then out of work, broke, trying to be a single parent, I got a job as the head of the story department at a place called Cine Mobile. So as a writer taking a break from writing I started reading screenplays to sharpen the skills of my craft.

As a writer taking a break from writing
I started reading screenplays
to sharpen the skills of my craft.

Karel: How many scripts did you read?

Syd Field: In 2 years I read more than 2000 screenplays and more than a hundred novels and I only found 40 to submit to our financial partners, so my question to me, Sydney, what made these 40 better than the other 1960?

Karel: What did?

Syd Field: I had no answer whatsoever but I kept reading and I took apart those 40 screenplays, because I love to analyze, and I began to see those screenplays started on page 1 word 1.

In 2 years I read more than 2000 screenplays
and more than a hundred novels

And there was an incident that grabbed everybody’s attention and the writing was so stylized and so active, all present tense, that I immediately became hooked so when I had the opportunity to teach a course at Sherwood Oaks Experimental College I went in there as a writer and a reader.

Karel: That’s how you started teaching.

Syd Field: I started teaching a class and I assumed an incorrect position teaching that class, which was a great lesson for me. Since I was there at the head of the class and everybody was there coming to hear me talk, I assumed I knew something they didn’t. What a mistake that was, I was the most terrible teacher because I had this opinion about… because I was there I had to know something.

I assumed I knew something they didn’t.
What a mistake that was.

After a year I had no students left and all left and all walked out.

Karel: How did you deal with that?

Syd Field: I began teaching from a different perspective, I became the student and my students became the teacher. They wanted answers to questions about writing, how do you develop character, how do you write a story, what makes good dialogue, how do you structure a story. So I answered their questions, and out of answering their questions I began to realize everybody has the same questions, how do you prepare your material, how do you execute your material. How do you write great character, how do you write great dialogue.

After a year I had no students left and all left.

I began to go into my experience as a reader and a writer and answer those questions and that’s how the whole thing started. Pretty soon those classes became pretty full and popular and when I wanted to go back to writing and about another year or so after teaching, the urge to write again came back.

I said why don’t I write what I’m doing right now, why not write from my experience. So I wrote a 67 page book presentation, sent it to an agent in New York and she called me 3 days later and she said we’ve got a deal. And I was just astonished.

Karel: But didn’t you want to write screenplays?

Syd Field: I believe in a very simple philosophy: when you’re riding a horse you don’t ride a horse backwards. You go in the direction the horse is going in. So I’m going to put screenwriting aside right now and I’m going to write books.

Random House and Bantom Dell were just astonished. They had no idea that this book would take off like this, they published the book on a flier: “Here’s a little money for you kid, go and write and see what you can do,” that was their attitude.

Here’s a little money for you kid,
go and write and see what you can do.

The first printings were 5,000, second was 8,000, the next was 15,000. The president of the company came to me and pushed me in a corner, he’d been drinking: “What is it you’ve got in your book here?” and “I want another one!” so I said whatever is working, works.

Karel: So why don’t we know you today as Syd Field, the bestselling prose writer?

Syd Field: I wanted to write a book but not the same thing I’d already done. So many times people are writing books and writing the same thing all over again and I said forget it, and I started with Screenplay which is now published by the way in 28 languages and sold more than a million copies. Used in 500 Universities across the US and abroad.

So that’s how the things started

Karel: Since then you’ve been teaching people how to write.

Syd Field: I started traveling and teach the professionals… not how to write, nobody can teach anybody how to write… but what you can do is help the professionals sharpen their skills, go into the dynamics of story and evolution of story and find out ways to make your characters deeper, more dimensional and more interesting.

Nobody can teach anybody how to write.

Find ways to grab your readers attention more quickly and to keep the reader, and the viewer hopefully, perched on the edge of their seat, that’s my whole intention. My intention in writing all these books, I want to see better movies.

Continued next week: What is a great Screenplay?

by Margaret M. MacDonald

To sum up Syd’s point (which is not easy to do from a two and a half hour lecture) he was essentially saying that the influx of digital technology in our lives, our constant access to information, the inundation of sound and image and the literal ease with which films can now be made, has altered the way in which we tell stories through film. As our world has gone from analogue to digital, so too has our thinking.

As our world has gone from analogue to digital,
so too has our thinking.

One need only look at a news station like CNN to see this. Television news was once presented by a reporter behind a desk, occasionally supported by images, interviews and video clips. Now we are not only watching one or several reporters, but we are presented with captions to each story, sub-captions that repeat points about the story, a constant news ticker reporting other stories, and time and temperature all on the same screen at the same time. Yet we can watch these channels, take in everything we need to know and ignore the rest.

Film has changed, too

As Syd Field said, you can see this change in film as well. Storytelling is far less linear, we jump around in time, are given bits and pieces of character background in sound and imagery, and only put together the full puzzle once the story has come to its climax. But because our brains are so well adjusted to the information rich digital world, we will retain what we need to know and ignore the rest. In the end, the story will still be clear, even if it began at its middle.

Because our brains are so well adjusted
to the information rich digital world,
we will retain what we need to know and ignore the rest.

Unfortunately, I think Syd’s point was not as clear to the audience as he might have intended. I heard many people walk away from the lecture discussing advancements in filmmaking technology, digital imagery and the capabilities it has allowed for, but very few people were talking about storytelling.  Flashbacks, intercut scenes, voice overs, and dreamt or remembered images are nothing new in film, even if they occur with more frequency today.

It’s true that before cameras could literally go everywhere and a set could be conjured by computer, filmmakers had little choice but to prop a tripod up in front of a table and have their characters discuss their feelings over cocktails. But that is not only how filmmakers had to tell stories, it is how an audience expected to be told that story. We were still sitting behind the fourth wall and would have been rather shaken had one of our fedora wearing heros broken through it.

Capability and consciousness

Today there is no wall. Our stories are told to us in film like the news is relayed on CNN, one big picture with a constant ticker of information around its periphery. We jump around in time, layer realities on top of each other, switch between the character’s conscious and subconscious experiences, and even interact with our stories through internet forums and DVD extras. This is not only because technology has made it possible, but also because these new possibilities have engrained themselves into our brains, our cultures and our storytelling. Our change in capability has created a change in consciousness.

So why didn’t this message resonate with a room full of filmmakers?

Perhaps because we cannot see what is ticking away in our own brains. We tell stories not only the way we are capable of telling them, but also in the way we expect to experience them as an audience. We have taken the tools of technology, absorbed the capabilities they have given us, used them to share our stories and we have probably done it all without even realizing it.

If screenwriting has changed, it’s because screenwriters have changed with their times and their cultures. So what does this mean for the future of storytelling in film? To me, it means that as we continue to grow, evolve and change with our times, so too will our storytelling.

Great. Now what?

How do we apply those evolutions to the practical process of screenwriting?

If the screenplay is a blueprint for a film, how then do we make that blueprint say “protagonist’s subconscious”, “memories” or “parallel events”? The technology with which films are made has changed, so perhaps we need to alter the blueprints of film accordingly. Only then can our films be built upon a solid structure.

As modern filmmakers continue to develop and utilize new technology, and modern audiences continue to demand stories that appeal to our wi-fi sensibilities, we the modern screenwriters need figure out how to write modern stories.

So perhaps Syd’s next lecture could suggest a new set of tools for the digital generation of screenwriters. After all, who better to write the next chapter in the history of filmmaking, than the writers themselves?

Margaret M. MacDonald is a production designer and award winning screenwriter.  She has lived and  worked in Los Angeles, New York and currently Sydney.  She aims to use both her writing and designing to create cinematic worlds. She also loves to discuss the past, present and future and filmmaking and isn’t afraid to disagree with you.

You can find more of Margaret on Immmagination.com and on her blog Marglish.com

Later this month The Story Department will feature an exlusive interview with Syd Field, in which he speaks frankly about how he became the world’s first story guru and how Robert McKee borrows freely from the ideas Syd launched.

A friend asked me if I would be offended should he spend $600 to go see McKee in Melbourne.

Years ago I happened to be in LA in the first days of release of the first edition of STORY (McKee’s bestselling book). I purchased two copies: one for myself and one for my best friend who had attended the story seminar a couple of times and who had told me McKee had never published. McKee autographed both. Mine says:

“To Karel. Tell the truth.”

So I will.

I have seen McKee a couple of times. He is entertaining, and has an impressive knowledge of cinema, both mainstream classics and arthouse. I think he’s worth the money – if you can afford it – for a whole weekend of entertainment. His guru-like performance also ignites inspiration with a lot of people.

But I have never found the level of practical, detailed and essential information that is required to successfully analyse and create screenplays. This I have found with other people such as Hauge, Vogler, Truby and Gulino.

McKee’s weekend story seminar was the basis for his book. It is a literal transcription.

A few years back UNK published a blog post on his experience of the story weekend and when I wanted to forward the link to my friend with the spare $600, I couldn’t find the article on his site. Fortunately Google had cached it and I have reprinted the cache below.  UNK’s post is entertaining and …

The Truth.
(From The Unknown Screenwriter)

“So I got my yearly Robert McKee brochure in the mail…

Last year when I received the exact same brochure, I read it over… Having never been to a McKee seminar but having been to every other screenwriting guru’s seminar, I figured it was worth the read…

After all, I had spent the money to attend the seminars of…

* Bill Martell
* David S. Freeman
* Syd Field
* Blake Snyder
* John Truby
* Michael Hauge
* Chris Vogler
* Chris Soth
* Screenwriting Expo

And, to be honest, I THOUGHT I had left the best for last… The piece de resistance if you will…

Uh… No.

The brochure last year AND this year said for me to be sure to read STORY before attending the seminar so that I would be intimately familiar with the material…

So I did.

Now I already had a copy of STORY that I purchased the first year it actually came out. I remember trying to read through it but holy shit… So much stuff to wade through back then…

On the other hand, I can read STORY today (which I did a year ago) and pull an enormous amount of material from it.

Make no mistake… From reading the book, McKee obviously knows his stuff.

Maybe too well… LOL.

Why do I say that?

Let me take you back to last October (from what I remember) in Los Angeles when I attended McKee’s seminar…

First of all, I was late. I ended up having to take the 405 freeway which I loathe and always try to avoid but a quick glance at my Google Map revealed that I had to take the 405 to get to Loyola Marymount University after all!

So after an easy extra hour of driving, needless to say, I arrived LATE.

I walk up and get my complimentary cup of coffee (thanks Bob!) just outside the building where the STORY seminar was being held, go inside to the tables where the assistants were very nice and directed me to the seminar.

While I stroll around the McKee tables toward the entrance to seminar I notice piles of the book, STORY…

Piles of the screenplay, CASABLANCA…

Piles of the STORY audiotapes…

Cool.

So I enter through the seminar doors about an hour late and as I walk in I hear that “PHIFFFT” sound of a few hundred people turning pages…

A full house to be sure.

I find a nice little fold-up desk in the extreme upper left-hand corner of the room… Upper left-hand corner to Mr. McKee that is.

I didn’t know this but he had stopped in mid-sentence to wait for me to find a seat… I thought that was pretty nice of him but when I sat down and focused my attention down at him and his table, he didn’t seem that accomodating… LOL.

Oops.

I sat down and smiled at him and when he felt like my entering the seminar was no longer an interruption, he continued…

He went on and I was impressed! It was like watching Hal Holbrook’s one man show of MARK TWAIN TONIGHT!

The only thing I kept finding strange was the consistent “PHIFFFT” of hundreds of pages turning every so often…

This captured my attention so I looked around and by golly if there weren’t hundreds of people turning pages as Mr. McKee progressed with his performance… er ah… course outline.

At first I was confused. Then I realized that everyone was following along in their book as he was going through WHAT I THOUGHT WAS HIS OUTLINE…

Was I missing something?

Oh yeah.

I ended up meeting a very nice female actor who was sitting next to me — also reading through the book as McKee did his schtick. When we finally had a break, I made an inquiry…

I asked: “Why is everyone going through the book while he speaks?”

She replied: “Because HE’S going through the book.”

I asked again: “You mean he’s going through the same topics?”

She replied: “No, he’s going through the book.”

I asked again: “You mean he’s looking at the book and expanding on the information?”

She replied: “No! He’s MEMORIZED the book and he’s going through it!”

I asked/stated: “SAY WHAT?”

She replied: “He’s going through the book word for word but he’s memorized it.”

I stated: “No fuckin’ way…”

She replied: “Yup.”

I asked: “And I paid over $500 for this?”

She replied: “We all did.”

Okay, so we went on a little more about it until the seminar started up again… I sat there in disillusionment.

And the rumors you heard about cellphones are in fact true… If you have a cellphone and it rings during his performance, you gotta give the guy $10.00 for interrupting. I actually liked that part of the seminar because I fucking hate cellphones and I hate people that leave their cellphones ON during any kind of seminar… Don’t EVEN ask me what I’ve done when a cellphone goes off in a movie theater… Let’s just say YOU DO NOT WANT ME IN THE THEATER IF YOUR CELLPHONE GOES OFF…

Anyway…

After lunch, McKee’s cellphone goes off… He’s looking around the audience… The audience is looking around the audience… Everybody is looking at each other until finally… He checks his own briefcase… He opens it up and sure enough, the ringing gets immediately LOUDER.

Everybody laughs and he turns off the phone and remarks, “I’ll pay myself later.”

The audience HOWLED for at least a minute… THEY LOVED IT!

I sat there with I know what had to be a stupid look on my face… I swear I was in the midst of mob-mentality… THIS GUY COULD DO NO WRONG!

At one point throughout the weekend, McKee talked about good and evil… When talking about evil, he pressed a button on a remote and a picture of Oliver North went up on the screen… Again, most everyone laughed except for myself and a very large man down in front who just happened to be a former Marine.

He stood up and said, “Fuck you old man!”

I for one was hoping this was going to get good but alas… Everyone in the seminar kept sticking up for McKee and told the guy to eat shit and get the hell out of there if he couldn’t handle it… Yada yada yada… LOL.

And, the former Marine did in fact leave only to show back up later and take on the mob mentality himself, by clapping and laughing at McKee’s every breath…

I had about all I could stand when, on Sunday, we started going through Casablanca… Of course, I didn’t buy his copy of the script so I couldn’t follow along but I have gone through Casablanca on my own many many times so I felt qualified to at least sit there and listen.

It was BRUTAL yet everyone was eating it up… I finally got up and hit the road. Thank fuckin’ God but I did go ahead and purchase Mr. McKee’s STORY audio book on cassette tapes (he didn’t yet have the seminar on CD).

As I eeked my way through the Loyola Marymount University campus on a late Sunday afternoon, I inserted tape number ONE.

And guess what?

He did memorize the book!

The only thing that was different on the tape were the jokes! Nobody laughed at his jokes hence, they were not funny… By the time I got back home, I was listening to him go through his discussion of CHINA TOWN.

Word for fucking word I listened to the tape and while I cannot say with 100% accuracy that he simply went through the book word for word (but why wouldn’t he?), these audio tapes were exactly what I had just paid over $500 to sit through on a Friday, Saturday, and Sunday when I could have been at home or my favorite coffee shop, WRITING.

So there you have it… You can get the entire three days on audio for $15.00 — well, that’s what it cost me at the seminar so it might be more if you purchase it elsewhere IF you can purchase it elsewhere…

*NOTE: I see over at Amazon, that he now has the book on CD… Nice. Anybody know how I can convert my cassette tapes over to CD?

Shit…

So now the question… To McKee or not to McKee… Is that the question?

Is it?

If you want to witness the performance, by all means… Pay the $575 and see the one man show.

If you want the material, read the book. That IS the seminar. Better yet… Buy the book, buy the STORY audio CD and then follow along in the privacy of your own home, coffee shop, bathroom stall, etc…

My only regret is not actually paying $675 instead of $575.

Why?

For $675, I could have gotten the latest version of Final Draft instead of paying almost $200 for it about 2 months ago…

I never learn.”

-The Unknown Screenwriter

Here is another opinion, by John August. The disclaimer: John has written a few screenplays that manifestly stray from the generally accepted 3-Act convention. Up to you to decide if he’s a reliable source in this.

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!

Since writing the below post, I have come to realise that the mid point may well be the last checkpoint to make sure you have the most powerful story you can get.

I believe the mid point can only exist if everything else works. Without knowing exactly what the outer objective is (Turning Point 1) and how the character changes (Turning Point 2) it is impossible to create the right mid point. The mid point changes the direction of the visible goal (Outer Journey), sometimes it completely changes the goal altogether. It also accelerates the Inner Journey as the protagonist is now committed to resolving the Need.

I have added some notes on THE INCREDIBLES and THE LIVES OF OTHERS to the examples below.

Many unsuccessful movies run out of steam halfway. Even a fair few memorable pics are weak in the middle, or have a ‘soft belly’. The Second Act seems to be the hardest nut to crack. But why? Perhaps because the protagonist is chasing the same objective all along? After all we have a massive chunk of script to fill, about an hour of screentime on average. One remedy is to chop the movie up in quarters. First and last act are roughly one quarter each already, so Act Two we just cut in two.

It’s variously called the mid-act climax, the mid-point, first culmination or the mid-point reversal. I prefer the latter, although it is not always a strict 180 degree turn. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a climax either but it must be a ‘major turning point’. Things will be dramatically different from this point onwards.

Syd Field describes it something like this: “An important scene in the middle of the script, often a reversal of fortune or revelation that changes the direction of the story.” Field suggests that driving the story towards the Midpoint keeps the second act from sagging. For once I find Field more helpful than others. An executive at the talent agency ICM is trying to get his head around it:

“An event occurs wherein the character cannot give up his pursuit. It is a “no turning back point.” The bridge has been burned behind him (figuratively speaking), and he can only move forward. Often, this is manifested as a TICKING CLOCK. In classically structure (sic) romantic comedies, this is the point where the man and woman sleep together.” Hmmm… Not sure about that last one.

Here’s my favourite definition, from Frank Daniel:

“Mid-Point or First Culmination: a Major Reversal of fortune, making Main Character’s task even more difficult. Often, give the audience a very clear glimpse of an answer to the Central Dramatic Question “‘ the hope that Main Character will actually succeed at resolving his problem “‘ only to see circumstances turn the story the other way. First Culmination may be a glimpse at the actual resolution of the picture, or its mirror opposite.”

Let’s look at a few examples to understand the mid point better:

THE UNTOUCHABLES – Not only a well-structured, commercial movie with a top notch cast; it has a midpoint that ticks all three boxes: After a shootout on the Canadian border far away from the crime-ridden streets of Chicago, Eliot Ness and his team find out they can get to Capone through his accountant.

The mid-point sequence happens halfway the movie (ironically, not all midpoints really do), it changes the course of the story (Ness is no longer after Capone but after his accountant) and it takes place in a very different environment/change of scenery from the rest of the movie. And indeed: catching the accountant does get Capone in court. Important for the Inner Journey at this point is Ness’ response to the criticism on the way Malone forces a confession out of one of Capone’s men. When he says “Well, you’re not from Chicago”, it proves Ness is now open to approaching things ‘the Chicago Way’, as taught by his mentor Malone.

JAWS – It’s more than thirty years old and scary as ever, and not because of its state-of-the-art FX. Look closely and you’ll see: that plastic shark is a big joke! This is one piece of brilliant writing. Police Chief Brody (Roy Scheider) has been unsuccessful in trying to stop the shark killings by urging the mayor to close the beaches. When his own son narrowly escapes death, he is forced to change tactics (different direction): he must go and attack the shark in its own habitat. It brings a fresh turn to the movie with a change of scenery and the stakes are heightened because we are now fighting the killer on his own territory. What’s more: the protagonist is under greater jeopardy because he can’t swim. At Brody’s Inner Journey mid point, he is committed to tackle things at the core in stead of dealing with the symptoms. See also my notes at the bottom of the structural overview of Jaws.

ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST – In his book THE SEQUENCE APPROACH, Paul Gulino mentions another function of the midpoint: it gives the protagonist a flavour of the possible outcome of the story (Frank Daniel’s “glimpse of an answer to the Central Dramatic Question“). Here, Nicholson’s character tastes freedom when he takes the patients out on a trip. The reality however is that after this point he learns he may never leave the asylum again. A powerful reversal: rather than proving he’s insane, he now has to try and get out. The scene/sequence of the mad men’s outing is another beautiful example of a change of scenery. At one stage during the edit, director Milos Forman cut the sequence out. About the result he says: “I cut it down television style, under two hours. And you know what was funny? It felt much longer.”

I wouldn’t necessarily call the following movies class examples but I’ll give them any way because their mid-points worked really well for me:

THE PARALLAX VIEW – Bang in the middle of this classic conspiracy thriller, Warren Beatty’s character undergoes a five minute brainwashing. The scene is borderline unbearable and would have probably been cut by today’s studio heads. We undergo the character’s psychological torture first hand while we stare at the seemingly random images, exactly like the protagonist experiences them. After this, Beatty’s character is no longer the curious outsider vs. the mysterious corporation; he is fighting the system from within, which will ultimately lead to his demise.

GIU LA TESTA (A FISTFUL OF DYNAMITE) – Very much like in THE PARALLAX VIEW, we share the point of view of Rod Steiger’s character Juan while he watches what will cause a major change in his personality and in the course of the movie. At the very midpoint in the movie Juan witnesses a lengthy, traumatic shootout with a life-changing effect: from a mindless and merciless robber dreaming of the ultimate big heist he has now become a freedom fighter and finally commits to the cause of his alter-ego Sean (incarnated wonderfully by James Coburn).

THE QUEEN – The Queen is stuck in the lonely hills near Balmoral, her Land Rover having let her down. Without help from anybody she is out of her comfort zone when she notices the deer her grandsons have been stalking, upon her own advice and encouragement. A moment of realisation (with a lot of symbolism) leads to the decision to chase the dear away in an attempt to save its life from the hunters. The parallel with Princess Diana’s end becomes even more apparent when it turns out the deer was shot by a group of hunters after a chase on a neighbouring land (France?). The Queen has witnessed something that has changed her view and we see it externalised in her lukewarm response to the Queen Mother’s statements about the British people in a following scene.

NORTH BY NORTHWEST – The single most memorably scene of this film sits right in the very middle: the famous cropduster scene. Again, an entirely new setting in the movie, with hardly any other characters around. While most of the movie is rather talky, this sequence offers pure visual cinema with minimal sound design, then gradually picking up the pace and finally (literally) exploding in a symphony of action and music. The reversal: Roger Thornhill learns that Eve has betrayed him.

THE INCREDIBLES – Mister Incredible has successfully completed the task he travelled to the Special World for: eliminating the evil robot. Now, for the first time he is about to meet with his employer.

The reversal happens when his mission turns out to have been a setup to get him killed. The employer is effectively his arch-enemy Syndrome and the mid point delivers two major reversals: 1) in stead of staying on the island, he will have to escape 2) in stead of working alone, he’ll have to collaborate with his family.

THE LIVES OF OTHERS – In the first half of this 2007 Oscar winning drama, Captain Wiesler tries to expose the suspected playwright Dreyer to satisfy his superior at the Stasi (the former Eastern German State Security Service). While listening to a phone call, he learns that Dreyers best friend and mentor has committed suicide. Wiesler realises his work is not doing the good he had always believed it would. He is effectively killing people. When Dreyer plays the piano music he received as a gift from his mentor, Wiesler is so moved that he decides to not expose but protect Dreyer from this point on. To my taste, this is one of the most wonderful and moving mid points in cinema in recent years.

In my earlier blog “STRUCTURING THE FACTS” I briefly mention the midpoint reversal in UNITED 97: The passengers learn this is a suicide flight, therefore they have to change their tactics from trying to notify their relatives on the ground to actively fight back the terrorists.

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!

I am speaking with Michael about his career, his teaching and his first visit to Australia in May of this year. With apologies for the poor audio quality of the telephone recording.

Karel: Terry Rossio, co writer of ALADDIN, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN and SHREK, says you are “the only screenwriting instructor who might be truly wasting his time because he should be writing screenplays instead.” That’s my first question: Have you ever felt like you were wasting your time?

Michael: It’s very generous of Terry to say that. We first met when I did a special event as part of the American Screenwriters Association conference where I interviewed Ted Elliott and him. It was just when SHREK was in theatres. I gave a one hour lecture about SHREK and then they came on stage and we did a Q&A. They said later they appreciated that everything I had talked about was exactly what they intended when they wrote the script.At the time they were in the midst of writing Shrek 2 and weren’t real happy with the direction things were going, and people not appreciating their approach to it, which the studio ended up using anyway.

I really don’t think I’m wasting my time as a consultant. My strength, and my passion, is for working with writers and filmmakers, empowering them to get their stories on the page and on the screen, either by working with them one-on-one, or through my lectures, books, DVDs, articles, etc.

Karel: Have you ever written a screenplay?

Michael: Some time ago I made a stab at writing a screenplay, and it was OK, but it really wasn’t where my passion was. I just have so much fun doing what I’m doing.

————

Karel: How would you position yourself among the known screenwriting teachers?

Michael: Good question… How would I position myself? Well, first of all I’m somebody that has been around now a long time. There are a few of us who are sort of regarded as the front guard, or the old guard.

There’s me, there’s Bob McKee, there’s Syd Field, Linda Seger, Chris Vogler, John Truby, Kathie Fong Yoneda, a couple more that I’ve probably forgotten. So I think that gives us all a certain cachet. We all have books; we all have reputations and so on.

As far as lecturing goes, we all seem to have different things that we kind of enjoy doing. Linda goes to a lot of festivals and does a lot of work outside the US. I don’t do so much outside the US and I don’t do so much lecturing as her or Chris or Bob McKee. The trip to Australia, is the first time I will have come to Australia to give a seminar or to do a workshop, so that is a bit different.

I think of that whole group I mentioned, I’m the one that does the most coaching. Linda writes a lot of books. Chris, is working for Paramount, and he travels to Europe a lot to lecture and collaborate on projects. But I think I’m the guy who is primarily a script consultant

————

Karel: In your view, are there any contradictions between the various story theories?

Michael: In my experience, all those people that I mentioned, Bob and Syd and Linda and Chris and John, we all have our own approach to story, character and structure. And I have yet to find anything significant about which we disagree. It is just a different way of getting at the founding principles of story developed by Aristotle, and probably even before that.

That’s why I wanted to do the DVD of The Hero‘s 2 Journeys with Chris Vogler. He uses Joseph Campbell’s model, a mythical model for approaching story. I think it is wonderful, and I think his work is among the best out there. He and I don’t really disagree on the core principles of story, we just have different approaches, so we can sort of make fun of each other and argue about that.

I will say that there are a lot of myths about screenwriting floating around, and some are perpetuated by other lecturers. Myths like ‘if you live outside LA you don’t have a chance’ or ‘it’s not what you know, it is who you know’. It is important to know people, but you can get to know people. There are ways to network and contact people and get them to read your script and you’ll get to know them.

There are a lot of things like that, that I disagree with, but not the principles that I hear espoused by the top screenwriting teachers, or by the successful writers that I work with.

————

Karel: We know you from your books and DVDs but what keeps you busy most of your time?

Michael: I primarily do three things: I consult with writers, directors, producers, filmmakers and storytellers of all kind; I’m invited to lecture to lots of different groups; and I write — books and articles and so on. And of course, I have DVDs and CDs of some of the lectures that I give.

Karel: You seem to have a lot on your plate. How do you organize your day?

Michael: In a typical day, the majority of what I do is the consultation. I get up in the morning and I read a client’s script, and take extensive notes on that screenplay.

Later that day, I have a consulting session with that client, either in person or by phone. If it’s the first time we’ve talked, that might take up to three hours. If it’s an ongoing client, our session is closer to one and a half or two hours.

Then I might have another session with a writer who has outlined changes they plan to make as a result of our previous sessions. I might have a third coaching session with one of my clients who wants to get my guidance on their writing process, or on their pitch. And in between, I talk to prospective clients, write articles, prepare for lectures, add information to my web site and newsletters, and answer emails.

And after I’ve been in the office for about twelve hours, I’m done! And then my wife and I will have dinner and watch television or a movie. And that’s pretty much it. Glamorous, isn’t it?!

————

Karel: Which are your favourite TV series?

Michael: Well right now there are two new series that may not yet be playing in Australia. The season is kind of truncated because of the Writers Guild strike here. But there is a half-hour series on HBO called In Treatment, which I love. It’s on six nights a week. Gabriel Byrne plays a psychologist, and each episode shows him in therapy with one of his clients. The series is set up so every Monday we see the same client as we saw the previous Monday, just like it would be with a real therapist. So Monday nights are about a young woman, and Tuesday night it’s about guy, and Wednesday nights it’s a teenage girl, and Thursdays a couple. Then Fridays the shrink goes to see his own therapist and talks about his own problems. It’s just talking heads, just two or three people in a room doing therapy. It’s based, I think, on an Israeli series, and it’s brilliantly written and wonderfully performed.

My other favourite series so far is Terminator: The Sarah Conner chronicles. I was a big terminator fan and they are doing some interesting new things with that franchise.

Karel: What is your favourite classic movie?

Michael: When I hear the term ‘classic’, I think in terms of pre-1950. I don’t think of movies from the 70’s on as classics in the same way. I guess you would have to regard The Godfather as a classic film. But when you say classic, I think of black and white, Hollywood in its heyday. And then I think without exception it would be Casablanca.

In more recent times, certainly Chinatown, certainly The Godfather. Those are sort of easy, because everybody puts those on the list. But I think any list of great movies would have to include Sleepless in Seattle, Shrek, When Harry Met Sally, L.A. Confidential, and a number of Woody Allen movies – but probably most of all Manhattan.

To be honest, it is an impossible question. There are so many movies that I love, so many movies I think are just wonderful. I actually hate the questions because I know I’m gonna forget to mention a movie that is just very close to me. And there are more coming along all the time!

————

Karel: Do you watch a movie every day?

Michael: No, I probably watch on average about two movies a week, maybe three. But I watch television too, because I also consult with television writers, plus I’m a fan. I mean there are certain TV series that I really like, so I watch those. And I watch videos, and I go to the movies about once a week.

Karel: Do you have any favourites that don’t follow the principles you teach?

Michael: Oh yeah, yeah. There are a number of movies that I think are wonderful, that I generally don’t talk about when I lecture. The reason is: I want people to understand the core of what I consider the essential principles of story and structure and character arc and love story and eliciting emotion. So the examples I use are ones that follow the formula – if you want to call it that – so they can strengthens a writer’s understanding of it.

No movie breaks all the rules, but great movies often push the envelope, or they take liberties, or they fit into a niche that is less commercial.

So people regard Annie Hall as a great romantic comedy. But the basic formula for a Hollywood romantic comedy involves deception – a character with a compelling goal is lying about something to get it, then she meets someone and falls in love, but the person doesn’t know that the hero is pretending to be somebody she’s not, as in Working Girl or Tootsie or The Wedding Crashers. Or maybe the hero is just lying, as they are in a Sleepless in Seattle or Sideways. In any case, there is almost always deception, and always a happy ending.

Annie Hall doesn’t have any of those elements. It is more like a dramatic love story, but it’s so funny that it is regarded as a romantic comedy. And it doesn’t have a happy ending. Woody Allen is pretty much allergic to happy endings because he sees love affairs and relationships as finite. So he breaks the rules, but it’s still a great movie.

Another example, one of my all-time favourite movies and one of the great screenplays coming out of Hollywood in the last twenty years, is The Shawshank Redemption. It certainly follows rules for creating empathy, and giving characters visible goals, and developing character arc and theme. But it doesn’t follow a common structure. Instead it uses a three-stage structure. We see the hero in one period of time, then we jump ahead quite a few years, see them again, jump ahead, and see them a third time. That structure is used by When Harry Met Sally, by Steel Magnolias, by Driving Miss Daisy, by numerous other movies. But those movies are a very small percentage of the movies Hollywood makes.

So that’s not a typical film, yet it’s also a great screenplay.

Here’s the way I usually say it: you can break the rules only after you know the rules so well that you can honestly say, “I will elicit more emotion, and create a better emotional experience for the audience, by pushing the envelope rather than following the formula.”

When writers get in to trouble is when they say, “I don’t believe in formula, I’m just going to ignore the rules and tell whatever story I want to tell.” Those movies rarely work.

END OF PART ONE

For information on Michael’s books, DVDs and one-on-one consultation, or to contact him directly, please visit his web site: www.ScreenplayMastery.com. To register for any of his Australian seminars, go here: www.epiphany.com.au.

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!

It is not enough to know and understand Syd Field’s set of phrases, as some hot shots may only be familiar with McKee. Unfortunately different people have different definitions for the exact same term.

This is my attempt to broadly define the most essential notions, informed by the best known theories, but influenced by the need to make them useful to the screenwriter rather than the analyst. Some theories are great to analyse finished films, but useless when you are stuck in your second draft. I hope that my definitions will help in identifying problems.

I will occasionally add to the list and modify definitions. If you disagree with anything or the explanation is not clear, feel free to flag this to me.

Normal Life

Also: opening, ordinary World, normal life, prologue, Journey Stage One.

Inciting Incident

Also: disturbance, catalyst, beginning

First Act Turning Point

Also: act one turning point, first threshold, first turning point, plot point one.

Mid-Point

Also: mid point reversal, point of no return, mid turning-point

Crisis

Also: ordeal, low point

Second Act Turning Point

Also: plot point two, crossing the 2nd threshold

Climax and Resolution

Sequence

Also: journey stage, block

Plot Point

See: Plot Point

Point of View

See: Point of View

From the above follows:

Act One

Some people will say this is the

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!

]]> https://www.thestorydepartment.com/glossary/feed/ 0 112