Not only will you find a link to the transcription of the story meeting, Mystery Man adds his own incisive insights and boils them down to 10 terrific points.

You can watch movies, read books and attend workshops but it hardly ever gets any better than this.

Never has there been a better time to be a learning screenwriter.

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!

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

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

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

The answer is baffling.

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

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

Story rule or rubbish?

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

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

Here we go:

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

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

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

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

Thank you all! It was a great exercise.


WHERE TO START

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

How do you choose who to listen to?

Do you take the word of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, you are on your own, confidently.

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

CONFIDENTIALITY KILLED THE CAT

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

WHERE ARE YOU GOING? YOU AND YOUR HERO?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO POV, NO PLAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Brad Bird

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

Movies are inherently about empathising, even identifying with characters.

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

Omniscient POV is devoid of emotion.

Read some more about Point of View here.

Karel FG Segers

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

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

REPLICANTS, SCREENWRITERS AND DOGSWhen last year the restored BLADE RUNNER screened in Sydney in all its 4k digital splendour, I was present at the Cremorne Orpheum, on the hunt for story weaknesses. It didn’t take me long. After fifteen minutes and thirty seconds, I put the scalpel aside and thoroughly enjoyed the rest of the film, i.e. Act Two and Three. (For Premium Subscribers, my brief analysis is here.)

This year the Coen brothers snatched the top Oscars despite issues with the ending of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. I won’t add to that discussion but if you would like to read some incisive thoughts, check out this article on the Mystery Man on Film blog.

Long before the Coen brothers won their first Oscar with FARGO, they had established themselves as favourites of the Cannes film festival with a Golden Palm for BARTON FINK. I have watched it a few times since and I still enjoy its Faustian slant, the flamboyant performances of Michael Lerner and John Goodman and the wonderful production design.

Why could BARTON FINK never appeal to a mainstream audience? It is about a screenwriter. But more importantly, the end of Act One makes a promise, then Act Two doesn’t deliver. Variety wrote at the time:

“After a little more than an hour, the pic is thrown in a wholly unexpected direction. There is a shocking murder, the presence of a mysterious box in Fink’s room, the revelation of another’s character’s sinister true identity, three more killings, a truly weird hotel fire and the humiliation of the writer after he believes he’s finally turned out a fine script.”

In essence there is nothing wrong with ‘a wholly unexpected direction’ but the problem is: no new promise is made. What do I mean by that?

The end of act one shows us what the protagonist’s objective is: Fink wants to write a screenplay. It promises a clear direction for the film. Once the murder is introduced, Fink doesn’t really have a clear objective and the story suffers from that. The film as a whole survives because of the exquisitely funny references to the real world of Hollywood in the 1940’s, the sensational performances, the amazing sound design etc.

Recently somebody mentioned WAG THE DOG (1997) to me, written by Hilary Henkin and David Mamet. In my memory, this movie was a hilarious touch of genius. Upon re-viewing, I was dumbfounded as not much of the exhilaration from ten years ago had survived for me.

Again, problemo numero uno: Hollywood behind the scenes. No matter how important we believe the workings of Hollywood are, no-one cares.

Secondly: no matter how clever, genuinely funny and genuinely TRUE the premise – don’t trust your president when he goes to war, the story is preaching to the converted. I don’t believe one single vote was gained or lost because of this film.

The core problems with this film lie on a pure story level. It seems Robert De Niro is the protagonist, his objective: fix a potential presidential scandal. Then we shift to Dustin Hoffman. His objective: stage a war. Soon, however, it appears neither are really facing any seemingly unsurmountable obstacles. Problems are solved as quickly as they arise.

Ultimately the film industry outsider is left with a self-indulgent, unsatisfying and uninvolving story. Mamet’s dialogue is brilliant but this is not the type of film I can watch more than once without an element of disappointment.

Whatever I may say about WAG THE DOG, the fans will rightfully point at the film’s respectable BO figures. Oh well. Star-power saved the dog.

PAGE RANK FOUR!

The Story Dept.’s Page Rank has gone up a full notch and I’m now in the company of such excellent PR4 blogs as The Unknown Screenwriter and the above mentioned Mystery Man on Film.

If you have the Google Tool Bar installed, you can see a white/green strip indicating the PageRank of the page you are visiting. It is usually located in the top middle of your page, under the address bar.

Last year, the world of SEO was turned on its head when millions of web sites saw their Page Rank drop. OZZYWOOD Films was one of the victims, sliding from a respectable Rank 4 to an okay 3.

In all fairness and humility, this web site may be on par for PR with Mystery Man and UNK, but no need to say yours truly will have a long way to go to deserve equal status with these boys.


THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS

Your second draft is the easiest of all. Why? Because the first draft is so bad each problem sticks out like a sore thumb. It is full of great ideas, but the execution stinks. To your editor/consultant it will be instantly obvious what needs fixing first. Hence, improving your story massively, immediately is actually a breeze.

On the other hand: the final draft is the hardest. Almost everything is as almost good as you can get it. Still, those few minor details that need fixing, jeopardise the entire rest of the script. Not only is it technically challenging, you aren’t quite sure which one is the right move. You can’t see the wood for the trees any longer.

Worst of all: after a long development you are so worn out you may be sick of this script and want to move on. You will need all the support and encouragement you can get, from your producer, your editor, your mum and dad (or wife and kids).

To move from draft one to two, it really takes only basic to intermediate skills. To move from draft eleven to twelve, it takes tremendous craftsmanship, talent and arduous persistence. Early on you will get heaps of great tips and advice from your story/script editor; towards the final draft more and more decisions will be yours: here is where your instinct comes into play.The comforting factor: it is often no longer a matter of working or not working, but of good or great. At this stage, you might have also shown the script to a few industry people, who should be encouraging you to run the last mile.

NEXT POST

With Michael Hauge’s Australia tour in May, I’ll be publishing a podcast and interview transcription, in conjunction with Inscription.

Also:
– Movie structure breakdowns (Premium)
– RATATOUILLE’s deleted scene
– Why the ‘3 Act Structure’?

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karel FG Segers

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

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

I am not sure which film this student had in mind as a successful example of non-conventional structure, but I bet you it was PULP FICTION. Ever since 1994, filmmakers have been hoping to get away with it in the same way Tarantino did. In my view PF has done far more damage to the craft of screenwriting than its success will ever justify. The irony is that PULP FICTION is relatively conventional in its structure, just not linear. Check Linda Aronson’s book SCREENWRITING UPDATED.

But all that is completely beside the point. The point is that writers often have this immature attitude. “But my script is different.” Another one that keeps coming back: “Hollywood only makes crap, audiences really don’t want to see that stuff anymore.” This one I only heard today: “It all works in my head, the film experience will be very different from the script!”

Call me conservative but the more I learn about film, the more I am convinced audiences are conditioned by an increasingly structured type of filmmaking. Time and time again I hear people rejecting structure one minute, and raving about highly structured films the next.

Ever since the story of a boy and a princess in space 30 years ago, audiences – whether you like it or not – have been conditioned by a more sophisticated version of the 3-act structure, i.e. the Hero’s Journey. And this process has only been reinforced since that paradigm was written down by Christopher Vogler. (I almost called The Hero’s Journey ‘a structure’ but it was never really intended to be. Yet it can often be elegantly blended with the three act structure.)

LEARN THE RULES, THEN BREAK THE RULES

Despite my endless complaints about Australian writers, I have had the pleasure and honour of meeting and working with dozens of writers who are dedicated to learning the craft. They read, study, analyse, attend seminars etc.

Most of them learn with the intention of later applying what they have learned. Others take the basics on board and explore ways of being original and creative within the boundaries. Yet others fully intend to knowingly break the rules with their first screenplay.

Now that may be unwise.

The statement above reading “Learn the Rules, then Break the Rules” is in my view a dangerous one. I would rather replace it with something like:

“Master the Rules, then Bend Them.”

It often happens that screenwriters only get their first screenplay made after years of learning the craft. When the film finally hits the screen, they realises that although they believed they had learned the skills, they hadn’t. An audience is a funny thing. You want them to feel this way, but they respond that way.

As a writer you won’t know if you actually master the craft until the film goes out and is successful. Believing that you can learn the rules and break them with your first script, is a dangerous illusion.

Of course every year there will be at least one success story of a breakthrough screenplay that didn’t apply the principles. Everybody will write and talk about that one person. Bottomline: if you are in this game for the long term, it pays to look at the statistics and then review your chances.

THE ONE THAT GOT AWAY

I am currently working with a client on a screenplay that reminded me in some peripheral way of the French rural drama Jean de Florette, starring Gerard Depardieu and the late Yves Montand*. I watched the film again with my wife and paid attention to its structure.

Although I had seen the film at least twice before, what I found out this time, literally blew me away.

The screenplay was adapted by director Claude Berri and veteran scribe Gerard Brach, from a hugely successful original French classic by Marcel Pagnol. The film had been a breakout arthouse hit across the world, with major prizes in its home country but also in England and the U.S. where it was nominated for a Golden Globe.

My wife and I had seen this film last about ten years ago, yet neither of us remembered much of the plot. We did remember the characters and even individual scenes. Not the plot.

Why??

Because the structure is quite extraordinary.

The whole film is structured following a text-book three-act structure. Inciting incident, first act turning point, second act are all ‘tres formulaic’. But what seemed unusual to me, and the primary reason why I think this film still looked so fresh to us: the story is structured around the antagonist’s journey.

My advise: don’t try this at home. As a beginning screenwriter, make sure you try your hand at convential material before you venture into this type of territory. The screenwriters of Jean de Florette were both highly experienced, with many successes to their names. Unfortunately, although the follow-up to Jean de Florette (Manon des Sources) may have brought a more upbeat closing to the rural saga, the writing was less inspiring.

When you have the chance, do watch both films, analyse these structural exceptions and asks yourself what is different, why this one works and the other doesn’t (so well).

It is always fascinating.

*Nice coincidence: when I was out the following night my wife randomly picked the Marilyn Monroe classic “Let’s make Love” from our DVD shelf and watched it, only to find it had – again – Yves Montand in a major role.

THE WORKSHOPS WORK

More than one week to go until 10 February and the Sydney story workshop is sold out. This weekend I’ll be teaching for the first time in Queensland, at the International Film College. My next Sydney Workshop will be on Sunday 13 April and bookings are open now.

The emphasis of the workshops has shifted slightly. The first sessions were heavily theoretical, focusing on aspects of the 3-act structure. Lately I have shifted towards more practical examples from a wider diversity of films, both old and recent, across completely different genres: from action movie to comedy, from Touch of Evil (1958) and Die Hard (1988) to The Incredibles (2004) and The Lives of Others (2006).

Some people find that the material taught in these classes is advanced. Let me tell you this: it is not. It represents the bare essentials. It is the absolute minimum you need to know if you want to even consider breaking into the scene. That doesn’t mean that it will sink in the first time around. You will still need to watch films, analyse them and apply what you have learned to your own work.

Next, you will need to call in the assistance from a professional. But you will be so much better prepared to enter into a dialogue about your work if you have laid the foundations by learning the terminology. Not only will it speed up your development, it will potentially save you hundreds or thousands of dollars as your script editor will talk to you about your script on your level.

THE PREMIUM EDITION

The Premium Edition has had visitors from New York to the country of Jean de Florette (Provence, South of France), from Australia’s East and West Coasts to the City Library of Amsterdam. Meanwhile, the first paying subscribers have signed up, from Australia and overseas!

Eight users are online while I am writing this, of which no less than seven guests and a few search engine spiders. Check it out for yourself by subscribing for a year at only the cost of one cappuccino a fortnight.

Among the newly added content, Premium Members now have also access to a list of mistakes I have come across in screenplays lately, as well as a few suggestions on how to avoid them.

In the coming days and weeks new articles will be added and I will be conducting an interview with Michael Hauge (who is coming to Australia this May) and will talk about the dangers of mystery.

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!

Meanwhile, the Story Dept. has entered its third calendar year, offering workshops, one-on-one consultancy PLUS a Premium Version of this blog, exclusive to clients and
subscribers. The Hero’s Journey continues, the obsession grows.

THE HERO’S SECRET

eXistenZ, named after a fictitious virtual reality video game, was released around the same time as THE MATRIX; the timing having been an excuse for its poor performance. I was surprised to see Roger Ebert’s review not really giving us any critical assessment of the film; all he says is:“eXistenZ’ is likely to appeal especially to computer game players”. He probably means: “It sucked but I don’t know why.”

The film remains original and entertaining but I believe the end holds a crucial mistake as it turns out our heroes have been keeping a secret from us. This goes directly against a key principle of writing for the screen: a protagonist must share with us their knowledge and emotions.

In the Premium Edition (see also below) I will look at a few more examples of heroes who are ruining box office prospects by withholding information or being unreliable for other reasons.
THE WRITER’S SECRET

When I asked one of my most loyal clients for a testimonial, he refused. I was baffled. “Karel,” he said, “if you knew where the gold was buried, would you go and tell everyone?” At first I thought that was a lame excuse, but then I had no reason NOT to believe him. He is a film industry professional who always puts his money where his mouth is. He is continuing our collaboration throughout 2008. But I’m not allowed to tell anybody.

My Unknown Client says about the story theory I’m teaching and applying during my consultancies “it’s the film industry’s best kept secret.” In many ways, he is right. Despite the title of Robert McKee’s bestselling screenwriting manual ‘STORY’, he only dedicates a relatively brief section to the principles of story structure. Many screenwriting manuals do mention the three-act structure but forget to explain why it works and why it is successful. Without a proper foundation, the 3-act structure remains dead theory.

Some people say Australian film schools are gravely deficient in the area of structure and if I am to believe my clients, many AWG script assessors tend to barely brush over it, too. In an article in The Australian last week, Joan Sauers, Billy Stoneking and Duncan Thompson blamed Australian scripts. Again. And again they forgot to mention what William Goldman said: “Story is structure”

Karel FG Segers

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

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

The film not only put Russell Crowe on the celeb map with a Best Actor Nomination, it 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, Linda’s move smells a bit like my not so smart move to call WOLF CREEK a ‘missed opportunity’ inside the offices of the FFC.

But Linda is right when she says the script does not follow a straightforward three act plot.

Here are two main stories with three acts each, hooked into each other.

In a sense it is similar to SCHINDLER’S LIST, in which it is Itzhak Stern’s (Ben Kingsley) objective 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. Hence his function as the ‘first protagonist’.

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 follow largely the same structure.

To me these two movies illustrate that:

Stories don’t have three acts, but strong characters do.

(originally published 24/04/2006)

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!