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

But does it?

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

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

Revelation? Hardly.

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

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

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

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

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

– Karel

Aspiring screenwriter Terrence ponders over a question that has bugged all of us at some point: “Is screenwriting for me?”

Post: Terrence
Editor: Cleo Mees

The bustling streets of lower Manhattan. Ubiquitous blue planks of wood, held up by rusty bars of steel. A pedestrian crowd waves in and out of the shade falling from the skyscrapers.

CU of LUANNE, emerging from the crowd.

PULL BACK to reveal her blue sunflower-print dress. With a big smile, she waves from across the street.

Luanne walks against the crowd and crosses the street to meet ME. We hug for a long time. She gives me a warm grab of the arms. I relax into her and hold on tight. But she breaks off contact and I slouch, rejected.

She walks off and disappears back into the crowd.

LONG SHOT of me, standing still as the crowd floods around me. I become indiscernible. CUT TO BLACK.

Fade in.

This is me waking up from a dream. For the longest time, I have dreamed in a cinematic format. From framing to camera angles to cuts and fades, even sound mixing, my dreams were the stuff of film.

I only started becoming cognizant of these little quirks when I stumbled across the special features on some DVD that I can no longer recall.  It talked about framing shots, creating movement, and a lot more.  I had no idea what a lot of these cinematic principals were at the time, but it certainly opened up my eyes to the true art of motion picture.  After watching those special features I understood that every frame of that movie was by design.  Every shot, every cut, every dolly in and every close up, they were put there for a reason.

When Netflix blessed me with a service center that was not 5 miles away from me, I became obsessed with movies.  I loved rating the movies that I watched.  After all, Netflix did provide viewing suggestions based on your ratings.  By the end of a couple of months, I had rated over 800 movies, and within a year I had watched and rated more than a thousand movies.  At first, they merely served as entertainment, sometimes a distraction from the hustle and bustle and pain of daily life.  But then I started to become more of a discerning consumer.  I started to take an active interest in films.  I started noticing how there would often be shots of actors only from the chest up.  Sometimes one actor’s face would fill nearly the entire frame.  And then sometimes their presence on the screen was a small one, a small dot in the center of an aerial shot.

IS SCREENWRITING FOR ME?

Not having a formal education in film as an art form, I was a self-proclaimed student of film by way of self-study.  My education consisted of my own observations and notes about the hundreds of movies I had watched…Until the day came when I had to register for classes at my college.  It wasn’t a liberal arts college, so I was rather excited to see that there was a new class being offered.  It was Drama 106: Introduction to Film Appreciation.  Boy was I ecstatic!

Throughout the semester, we watched and studied films like The Cabinet of Dr. Galligari, Citizen Kane, Nosferatu, and surprisingly even The Graduate.  As we progressed through the syllabus, I gained a new appreciation for film.  I came to learn the lingo used in film and why we see two-shots, close-ups, how high angles and low angles are used.  I learned about mise en scene, lighting, the use of sound.  I absorbed all of this new knowledge with a great enthusiasm and appreciation.

Shortly after the semester’s end, I began penning a screenplay.  I noticed that the format felt incredibly natural to me.  Scenes started with a time and a place, new characters were introduced, dialogue was written.  The flow of it came easily – everything just seemed to make sense in a movie.  In fact, I saw my life as fitting into little scenes.  Before entering a classroom, I thought to myself, INT. CLASSROOM – DAY.  People became characters to me, and I studied them as such. I remembered bits and pieces of people I saw, be they bums on the street corner or a pretty lady in the New York City subway.

The question this leads us to is, how do you know if screenwriting is for you?  It may not come as naturally to you as it did for me.  I feel that the only way to see if the format is a good fit for you is to go and try to write one.  Just write out a story that you’d like to tell and put it into a screenplay format.  Also, find something that interests you, something that you’re passionate about.  Authenticity comes from real experience and expertise.

-Terry Ip
Self-styled perennial student of film working towards a career with a pension.

Cleo Mees

Cleo Mees is a Sydney-based writer, filmmaker and dancer. With a background across several disciplines, her interest is in finding out how these different disciplines can intersect and inform each other.

We’re currently at a humble 49th position, but according to this list we’re ranking as the #1 Screenwriting Blog.

If you are a regular reader, you will have noticed that our activity has increased exponentially over the past three months. At the end of last year this was still a one-man operation, now there are about a dozen contributors… and growing. Therefore I’m optimistic we may move up to the higher regions of the list next year.

Thank YOU for stopping by on occasion and giving the contributors to this blog the reward of having their stuff read.

Read, and write!

Karel Segers

PS: Thank you to Lilyana for bringing this to my attention ;)

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!

Zen may be the key to your well-being; it is the enemy of cinema.

Get your audience into the ‘now’ and your movie is dead. Storytelling for the screen is not about what is NOW but about what comes NEXT.

It is mind-boggling how many people still don’t get this. A couple of weeks ago I overheard a conversation between a major decision maker on government film financing and an eager filmmaker.

She was explaining to him what a wonderful movie she had seen. She also explained how the movie had bombed at the box office.

Wonderful style, fabulous photography. But she maintained that it was a “really good movie”.

It was “such a shame the stupid audience didn’t get it”. She didn’t literally say the last thing, but it was in the subtext.

Many writer/directors – and people outside the commercial reality of the film business – struggle with this essential aspect of storytelling for the screen. They want the audience to admire what is on the screen NOW rather than worry about what is coming NEXT.

This is exactly what sets film apart from other media. And this is exactly where disasters happen when visual art lovers meddle with movies.

Screen emotions are about ANTICIPATION.

Antipation means: hope for a good/better outcome, fear over what might happen to the hero, curiosity over how things will turn out. Nothing of this has to do with the NOW.

Once an audience starts enjoying the beautiful picture, the great music, even an amazing performance (“the actor was really in the moment”), your audience has stopped worrying about what is happening next – and you’ve lost them.

Zen is about being happy and content with what you have, NOW.

Screen story is not.

It’s rather about being UNhappy. About wanting to know, see, experience what will come next. If your audience is content about what’s on the screen NOW, there is no reason to continue watching. On the contrary, they will happily leave the theater and go home.

Once you’re finished with THE POWER OF NOW, check out THE TOOLS OF SCREENWRITING and Screenwriting: The Sequence Approach
to save your screenwriting life.

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!

National Screenwriters’ Conference 2009: Kenny – Plumbing the depths
by: David Tiley
Screen Hub
Thursday 26 February, 2009

Before opening a completely charming discussion with Andrew Knight about the writing of ‘Kenny’, Clayton Jacobson produced some very sobering numbers.

Kenny cost $500,000. By the time the film returned $5m, he was still $250,000 in debt. When it made $8m, his investors started to get a return. He has still not seen a dollar. As he said later, if he had cleaned toilets for all those hours he put into the film, he would have doubled his income.

However, he was determined to follow a film through the entire process, from idea to audience, and experience all the details in the middle. He is glad he did this, and learnt a lot, but he wants a fee for service in the future.

Andrew is an experienced comic writer and producer himself, and he brought a knowledgeable eye to the clips, the Jacobson touch, and the craft of comedy. Again and again he reiterated the same point – that the comedy works because it carries an exquisite sense of detail.

Indeed, Clayton acknowledged that the film is a mass of details driven by an underlying theme.

Here are the stages in the development of the project:

1. The Jacobson family assembles a gallery of fabulous characters with a fine sense of the vernacular. (His grandfather, for instance, ran a carnival, and the family lived for years in the big tent after it became unfinancial.) In a film mad family, the children are named after characters and actors. Raised on Jerry Lewis, Clayton sees Midnight Cowboy when he is fifteen and the skies open up.

2. Clayton goes to Swinburne, cleans toilets to pay for the course, graduates in 1984, ends up in high end commercials, develops many friends, writes extravagant features that have nothing to do with life.

3. Younger brother Shane runs a business doing lights for big shows. One day he imitates Ray, an old toilet plumber, and Clayton is fascinated. It sticks in his mind, and liberates in him the ability to write (O cliché! O wisdom!) what he knows about.

4. For months he collects lists of assets – dozens of connections, insights, lines, quirks and resources. Mates who can act, gear that is available, stuff that can go in the film, places that inspire him. Stories he is told. All to take him further than the limited world of his imagination.

5. Inspired by Paul Harris at the St Kilda Film Festival, they use a bunch of experimental rushes as a the basis of a 47 minute mockumentary.

6. They show this to the poo people, who supplied trucks, equipment and support, along with material from Shane. They are enchanted and want a feature film. They even want to put the money up. Clayton can’t see an extended version. Then they tell him about the toilet cleaning convention in the US, and it opens up for him.

At this point, Clayton made many decisions about the script. The first fifteen minutes is all about cramming scatology into the film, so the audience gets tired of it and happy to move on. We, the audience, see Kenny in his disregarded role, plodding on optimistically and decently doing a job we all need, and look down on. We are the antagonists in the film, it is our journey too.

He is driven by the desire “make the audience secretly love every character in the film” which means he gives space and emotional journeys to small sidebar stories and people. This is about an overwhelming ethic. He takes something crucial from Jerry Lewis – his ability to undercut humour with sudden tragedy, and then move on quickly.

He deals with the underlying melancholy of the characters and their crappy social tragedy by giving them an almost unshakeable sense of optimism. Bad things happen but they stay positive.

The film is built around a dual journey – we learn to respect and love Kenny, while he doubts himself. Moves into a crisis, goes to America, resolves the crisis – but it comes back. We want him to respect himself, but that is becoming less and less possible. The crisis is resolved because his father gives him some acknowledgement, and because he decides to reject the desk job which takes him away from his fundamental identity.

He plotted the film around the various events which the real company had, up to and including the trip to America. He invited ideas and talked incessantly about the projecte and its story, refining it as he saw how others responded, sometimes having them tell the story back to him. He recruited actors, mostly in his family – even his pestiferous brother in law who wanted to be in the movies, and developed a simple philosophy of performance: get people to exagerrate themselves, and use their own memories.

He plotted the emotional development in detail, and how the audience responded. He is an editor, and was keenly aware of set ups, and the way the audience can be placed on its feeling journey. This is very important – he managed the viewer’s knowledge of the characters very carefully.

He knew the script thoroughly, and would tell the actors what they were doing on the same day. He mined their knowledge of dialogue, and capacity to improvise. But he always knew the crucial lines and moments that had to be delivered exactly. Again and again, the right details.

Over six months, they shot the basic story, and over the next year they went back to the same events, for additional shots, to put in particular characters, to create atmosphere or simply reshoot.

Then Clayton went into the editing room until he just about went insane. With money, risk and family chaos layered on top.

He is now working on a web series called Mordy Koots: Blazing Angels, Clouds of Fear. Google as the project develops.

David Tiley
David Tiley is the editor of Screenhub, and can be contacted at editor@screenhub.com.au. or 03 9690 6893.

editor@screenhub.com.au
https://www.screenhub.com.au

https://www.screenhub.com.au/ | For Australian screen professionals

Republished with permission

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!

A Room with a View (Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, 1985).

Without any doubt, this is one of the finest literary adaptations and a timeless romantic movie.

The film launched the careers of actors Daniel Day Lewis and Helena Bonham Carter, while it was a first major hit in a string of successful adaptations written by James Ivory’s scribe of choice Ruth Prawer Jhabvala.

The film formed the inspiration for my university thesis about film translation and subtitling back in 1988. For that purpose I had to view it dozens of times (on VHS). But it couldn’t stop me from watching it many times again over the twenty years that have since past.

ACT ONE

SEQ. A: The English – Boredom and bickering about a view

00.00 Titles: Cast of Characters. Lucy Honeychurch, Charlotte et al.
02.30 Florence. Lucy & Charlotte unhappy: room without a view.
03.30 Charlotte complains over dinner. The Emersons stir the pot.
04.00 George is after Lucy. His dad offers room w/ view: vision within!
06.30 Charlotte affronted: how to deal with these people?!
07.00 Sisters Allan: Tactless, Kindness / Delicate, Beautiful.
09.00 Rooms changed. George leaves question mark for Lucy.
10.00 Father & son Emerson put cornflowers on sisters’ beds.
12.00 Lucy at piano. Beebe: if she would live as she plays: exciting…
13.00 Charlotte and Eleanor go out together.

SEQ. B: The Italians – A call to adventure in Florence

14.00 Santa Croce Boredom. Emerson tells Lucy about George’s mind.
17.00 Ch. & Eleanor: physical sensation, smells, alleys. Adventure!
21.30 Lucy sees fight, blood. She faints; George catches her.
22.30 Her photos are blooded. The man is dead. George offers help.
25.00 By Arno, George: “Something happened to me. And you.”
27.00 (Out to see a view) Priest makes girl descend. Romance!
30.30 George in tree. He is declaring the ‘eternal yes’, father says.
31.30 Charlotte & Eleanor send Lucy away so they can gossip.
33.00 Lucy looking for George. He kisses her, while Charlotte watches.

ACT 2a: Lucy resisting George

SEQ. C: Leaving George and leaving Italy.

35.30 Leaving back for Florence in a storm. George is walking.
37.30 Charlotte: How to silence George? Promises: “Silent as the grave.”
39.30 Charlotte negotiates refund at the hotel.
40.30 George arrives back at the hotel.

SEQ. D: Officially engaged – Living a lie

41.30 (Home) Lucy has accepted Cecil Vyse’s marriage proposal.
44.00 Beebe about Lucy: “One day music and life will mingle.”
44.30 (Officially Engaged) News shocks Beebe in front of Cecil.
46.00 Lucy & Cecil walking, he is snobbish, elitist about Beebe.

MID POINT:
47.00 By lake: Cecil’s first kiss, clumsy, Lucy thinks of George.

ACT 2b: Lucy resisting Cecil

SEQ. E: Looking for new tenants – The Emersons

50.00 Lucy writes to the Allans for tenants.
51.00 Lucy plays to audience, Cecil takes credit for her culture.
52.30 Cecil and mum talk about Lucy & preparing her for London.
53.00 Cecil patronises her, then kisses her.
54.00 Tennis, Beebe reads letter; Freddy about new tenants ‘Emersons’.
56.00 Cecil tells about new tenants, he met them at gallery, Italian art.
58.00 Lucy mad at Cecil, calls him “disloyal”, he patronises her again.

SEQ. F: The Emersons are in town – The pot is boiling

58.30 Freddy & Beebe go to the Emersons: come and bathe!
60.30 George about coincidence & fate, Italy. The men bathe.
62.30 Cecil, Lucy and mum pass by, seeing the bathing scene.
65.00 Freddy at piano, Charlotte’s letter: she is coming over.
66.30 Mum complains about Cecil’s attitude.
68.00 Freddy raves about George.
69.00 Mum & Lucy: Charlotte will be arriving.
70.00 Charlotte meets George at station.
71.30 Charlotte arrives, chaos about cab fare.
73.30 Lucy & Charlotte: ‘no other source’, have you spoken to HIM?

SEQ. G: Cecil reads Lavish – Pandora’s Box opens

74.30 Cecil reads out loud from ‘Under a loggia’ by Eleanor Lavish.
76.00 Lucy and George recognise passage about kiss in Florence.
79.00 Lucy runs off, mad. George follows her and kisses her again.
80.00 Lucy challenges Charlotte. Coincidence! Eleanor no friend.
81.00 (Lying to George) Lucy orders her out, George declares his love.
84.30 (Lying to C.) breakup with Cecil “because he didn’t play tennis.”
87.30 Cecil seems to take it well.

ACT THREE

SEQ. H: Planning Escape to Greece

88.30 The Sisters Allan: letter to Lucy, raving about about Athens.
90.00 Freddy tells Mr. Beebe. Cecil: Greece is not for our little lot.
91.00 Charlotte, mum, Lucy; Beebe takes Minnie to the Beehive.
91.30 (Lying to Beebe, mum, Freddy, servants) Lucy plays piano.
92.30 Lucy: I must go away, Constantinopel, Athens…
93.00 Lucy to Charlotte: Help me, I must go to Greece.
94.00 Lucy & Freddy, he plays piano.
94.30 Charlotte talks to mum, Lucy has a plan. Go to Greece with her.
95.30 Emersons preparing to leave. George: ugly house anyway.
96.30 George leaves, his dad is sad.

SEQ. I: No more lies – Speaking up

97.00 Lucy and Allans about Cecil and travel.
97.30 Lucy and Mum: Glad! why not announce it?
98.00 Allans: Didn’t look like a future bride; she lacked radiance.
99.30 Emerson tells Charlotte George loves her, reason for move.
100.0 Charlotte: Lucy not marrying. Emerson: Time for speaking out!
101.0 Mum: why Greece? Mum hurt.
102.0 They see the moving. Mum: pity for the Emersons.
103.0 (Lying to Mr. Emerson) He pushes her to confession.
106.0 Lucy runs out: “Wait! Lucy has got something to tell us.”

SEQ. J: Aftermath

107.0 Charlotte reads Lucy’s letter from Florence
107.3 V.O. Dinner at pensione: “We have a view”.
108.0 Lucy reads letter from Freddy, with George in room with view.

108.3 The End

NOTES ON THE STORY STRUCTURE

The film stays relatively close to the original novel and I believe this may be the reason why the turning points are not all where you would expect them. But perhaps I’m just not seeing it right. Please compare notes and comment.

Act One

Much like Rose in Titanic, Lucy longs for adventure in her ordinary life. The inciting incident occurs quite late in the film (25mins) when she is alone with George for the first time, under emotional circumstances. The meaning of the moment is emphasised when George says “Something happened to me. And you.”

George kisses Lucy in the Tuscan flower fields, a moment that feels very much like a second Inciting Incident. But it marks Lucy’s decision to resist him, and the end of Act One.

Act Two

The conservative English upper-class mores, an abstract antagonist in Act One, is incarnated in the character of Cecil Vyse from Act Two.

Cecil’s kiss (at 47mins) marks the Mid Point and the moment Lucy realises she will never be happy with this man and the values he represents. The flashback to George’s kiss underscores her change of heart: from this point onwards she is no longer committed to Cecil. She will be moving apart from Cecil until the final breakup, which marks the end of Act Two.

Act Three

It is tempting to see the talk about “going to Greece” as a Road Back Home sequence, or break into Act Three, in which Lucy finally confronts her true feelings and admits her love for George.

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!

Terminator 2 offers amazing entertainment, with groundbreaking visual effects and unexpected character layers.

Just like he did five years earlier with Aliens, co-writer/director James Cameron delivered an exceptionally satisfying sequel.

ACT ONE

Sequence A: Two Terminators

00.00 Girl on swings, idyllic ‘silence before the storm’
01.00 2029, war against the machines. Humans lose.
02.30 Narrator: 2 terminators, which one will arrive first?
05.30 First Terminator (T1) arrives, familiar face.
06.30 Enters bar, asks for clothes, boots, bike. -“Please!”
08.30 Fight, T1 takes what he needs, doesn’t shoot man.
09.00 Bar owner tries to stop him. T1 takes glasses & gun.
10.00 Terminator Two (T2) arrives, takes police car.
11.30 T2 searches for John Connor: juvenile delinquent.
12.00 John about foster mum: “She’s not my mother!”

Sequence B: Sarah Connor needs to get out

13.00 Sarah in asylum, forced to take pills.
16.00 Foster parents tell T2 about biker, give T2 photo.
17.00 John robs teller with friend, “Mum’s a total loser”.
18.00 Sarah has vision of Kyle: “Protect him, soldier!”
21.00 Sarah’s vision: Nuclear blast.
21.30 Review: Sarah now denies everything, to get out.
25.00 D.I. Dyson: parts of Terminator kept and studied.
26.30 Review verdict : 6 more months! Sarah explodes.

Sequence C: John in more trouble than ever

27.30 John in game gallery, T2 sees him.
28.30 Both Terminators are approaching John.
30.30 T1: “Get down!”, gunfight, T2 turns into liquid metal.
32.30 Terminators follow John, chase.
33.00 T2 takes truck.
34.00 Chase in aqueduct.
36.00 T1 picks up John, truck explodes.
37.00 John: “Time out!”-T1: “You sent me to protect you.”

ACT TWO

Sequence D: John realises and takes control

39.00 T2 takes cop car.
39.30 T1 explains mission and advantages of T2.
40.00 Calling Janelle. T1: “Your foster parents are dead”.
42.00 T2 sees dogs tag, knows John is with T1.
43.00 Sarah interviewed, prepares escape.
44.00 John realises his mum was right about future.
45.30 John manipulates T1 to help and protect mum.
46.00 John tells T1 not to kill, tests on two punks.

Sequence E: Sarah finally getting out

47.30 Sarah tied to bed, has pin, nurse abuses her.
49.00 Sarah escapes, T2 arrives at asylum.
50.00 T2 kills guard, copies him (takes his form).
53.00 Sarah knocks nurse down and escapes.
53.30 T2 back to normal, looking for her.
54.00 John makes T1 swear not to kill anyone.
55.00 Sarah uses syringe as threat and escapes.
57.00 T2 hears alarm.
58.00 Sarah sees T1, freaks out. John: OK, here to help.
59.30 T1 shoots at T2, liquid sword duel in elevator.

61.00 Heroes escape in cop car, leave T2 behind.
63.30 Sarah: “John, that was stupid.” John hurt.

Sequence F: Regrouping for a new objective

65.30 Repairing T1.
66.00 T1 explains to John; life expectancy: 120ys.
67.00 John stops Sarah from killing T1.
70.00 T1 stands guard all night.
70.30 Heading South; John teaches T1 slang. “Smile!”

73.30 T1 tells about Dyson and Skynet, military comp.
75.00 Going after Dyson. “I have detailed files.”

Sequence G: Dyson must be stopped.

75.30 Dyson at home at work, on a roll.
78.00 Enrique: provides weapons and truck to heroes.
81.00 John & T1, Sarah watches.
87.00 Sarah has a vision of the blast.
89.00 Sarah rides off alone, to stop the future.

90.00 John realises Sarah’s plan: Let’s go!

Sequence H: Dyson becomes an ally

91.30 Sarah shoots at Dyson, misses.
94.30 Sarah spares Dyson.
95.00 John and T1 arrive.
96.00 T1 assists Dyson medically
97.00 T1 explains future, shows cyber-arm.
99.00 Dyson accepts to destroy everything.

99.30 All go to Cyberdyne.

Sequence I: Destruction of a fatal future

100.0 A black highway at night. Entering Cyberdyne.
102.0 Guard finds colleague tied up, for calls backup.
104.0 T2 arrives at Dysons’, hears police message.
104.3 Our heroes destroy files & items at Cyberdyne.
105.3 Police arrives Cyberdyne.
107.3 T1 shoots at police cars, without killing.
109.0 John & Dyson destroy chip.
110.3 Police shoot Dyson.
112.0 Police find Dyson w/ detonators: explosion.

ACT THREE

Sequence J: Getting out

113.0 T2 arrives.

114.0 T1 immobilizes police.
115.3 T1 gets van, John & Sarah get in, T2 takes heli.
117.0 Chase, gun fight between heli and van.
119.3 Heli crashes, T2 takes truck with liquid nitrogen.
120.3 T2 in truck chases heroes in ute. Road duel.
123.3 Truck crash. T1 shoots frozen T2: “Hasta la vista!”
125.0 Steel ovens, heat melts T2 together again.

Sequence K: Final Confrontation

126.0 T2 chases heroes inside steel mill.
128.0 T1 leaves heroes to confront T2, gets stuck.
129.0 T2 goes for John and Sarah.
130.0 Sarah tells John to run. Sarah vs. T2.
131.3 T1 comes to help, finished off by T2.
134.0 T1 goes to alternate power.
134.3 John hears mother call for help, real one appears.
135.0 Mother pumps shotgun empty, T2 regenerates.
136.0 T1 appears with grenade.
136.3 T2 falls in hot liquid metal bath.
139.0 T1 asks to be terminated. John cries.
142.0 T2 terminated.
142.3 TITLES

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!

Because the plot points are often quite subtle, structurally this film seems a bit fluid and the protagonist’s objective is never explicitly stated. Yet there is a clear Hero’s Journey, with Enid Crossing the Threshold to enter and discover the Special World of Seymour. But where does this happen, at the end of Sequence B or C?

(UPDATE Nov 2010: Looking at Sequence C, with the introduction of the art class as sequence opening device, it is clear to me that this is where Act Two starts. I have also moved Sequence I into Act Three because Enid’s confession to Seymour “you’re my hero” is effectively the climax of their relationship. For the first time she shows the courage and honesty to tell him what she had been feeling ever since first seeing him.)

Enid is a reluctant character, and although she decides to enter the Special World, it is under a pretext. She will be resisting her attraction to Seymour (the Call to Adventure) until the second half of Act Two, when she explicitly suggests to Seymour she could move in (an Approach to the Inmost Cave).

At the end of Act Two, Enid goes through the crisis of losing both Becky and Seymour. The truth about her cruel joke on Seymour has to come out (an Ordeal, both for Enid and Seymour) before she is ready to move on.

I’m not sure if Enid’s visit to the hospital should be seen as the end of Act Two or the first scene of Act Three. Because the scene can be experienced as Enid’s redemption (the victim of her joke she calls now her hero) and she is finally honest about her feelings, I decided to put it in Act Two.

The scenes printed in blue represent the comic book source material that is – almost verbatim – included in the film. It shows how this is more than just an adaptation. It is almost entirely an original story, inspired by the characters created in the comic.

ACT ONE

SEQUENCE A: Life after Graduation

00.00 Panning across rear windows, against 50’s music.
02.30 Eccentric Enid, in her room, is dancing to the music.
03.00 Student graduation speeches; Enid &Rebecca roll eyes.
04.00 Gossiping outside school.
05.00 Enid & Rebecca in bar, making fun of un-cool girl.
06.00 Todd, making fun of the two girls.
07.30 Dennis, dork – not seeing him again: depressing.
08.00 Enid at breakfast with dad: an icon of boredom.
09.00 Enid & Becky at diner making fun, follow old ‘satanists’.
10.30 Wowsville, 50’s diner; Weird Al serves.
11.30 Personals ‘striking blonde’: plan for joke.


SEQUENCE B: A Cruel Joke

12.00 At Enid’s: calling the number, date at Wowsville.
14.00 Annoying Josh at the store, Doug interferes.
15.30 Please, Josh, give us a ride.
16.00 Driving with Josh.
16.30 Rebecca about Al “I want to make love to him.”
17.00 Seymour walks in, has vanilla milkshake.
18.00 Seymour leaves, cruel joke
18.30 Seymour’s near-accident; following; E. feels sympathy.

ACT TWO

SEQUENCE C: Getting closer to Seymour

19.30 Art class;teacher announces community show.
21.00 Looking for flat, stalking Seymour, check his mail.
21.30 Garage sale; Seymour sells record. E.’s impressed.
24.00 Diner, E.: he’s almost cool. Un-cool friend: “funky”.
26.00 Enid dyes hair green, father enters. Rebecca watching.
26.30 Let’s go hassle Josh. Old man Norman at bus stop.
27.30 Josh is not home; Enid’s note: “You are gay.”
28.30 Johnny (magazine shop) provokes “punk rock is over!”
30.00 Enid plays Seymour’s record on repeat.
32.00 Seymour shows her the original 78.

SEQUENCE D: A Challenge for Enid

33.00 Art Class: politically correct art in ‘higher category’.
35.30 Jamie @ Masterpiece Video, 8 1/2, go to surprise party.
36.30 Seymour’s Record Party: loser cracks on to Rebecca.
39.30 Enid in his record room, to Seymour: “You’re cool.”
40.30 I am your personal Dating Service.
42.00 Seymour’s type? Introduce him to Josh; he is shocked.
42.30 Taking S. to Anthony’s Adult: having fun, cat mask.
44.00 Becca’s at work, sick of losers; E.’s job? working on it.
45.30 Dad & Maxine: to bed early – art class for retards.

SEQUENCE E: Enid and Seymour have things in common

46.30 Art class – controversial imagery!
48.00 At diner, invited to band performance, Enid jealous
49.30 In car w/ Seymour; about music, misanthrope
50.30 Bands perform; Enid pushes S. to date; ruins it
53.30 Driving back; can’t relate to 99% of humanity
54.00 At Seymour’s, the story of Coon. Can I borrow?

SEQUENCE F: Things change when Seymour has a date

56.30 Takes Coon to class
58.30 Candy counter, turning customers away
60.00 Fired after one day? Some ideas for money.
61.30 Yard sale. Not selling. Forgot birthday cake.
62.00 Birthday, tells S. about Josh obsession.
63.30 Voice mail from redhead, Enid pushes to call.
64.30 Shopping w/ Becky, who’s sick of Seymour.
66.00 Dana visits Seymour; Enid reads.
67.00 D. & S. dancing; D. wants to see art movie.
68.30 Enid jealous, calls Becky, doesn’t want to see her.
70.00 Seymour; “Dana works out”. Dana arrives.
71.30 Enid almost ruins it, claims she hooked them up.

SEQUENCE G: Lots of offers but no friends.

72.30 Art Class: scholarship offered.
73.30 Dad has job for Enid, she is not interested.
74.30 Art Exhibition: critics hate Coon.
75.30 Seymour doesn’t show because of Dana.
77.30 With Norman on bench. Leaving town.
78.30 Fighting with Becky over flat, they split.

79.30 Dad says Maxine will move in.

SEQUENCE H: Enid wants to move in. With anybody.

80.30 Art Academy: no passing grade, no scholarship.
81.30 To Seymour: move in with you. Don’t you like me?
85.00 Post-coital; Seymour about moving in. Sleeping.
86.00 Seymour wakes up, Enid is gone.
86.30 Seymour goes to break up with Dana.
87.30 Maxine acts like mother; Seymour msg: moving in.
88.30 to Becky: I really want to move in with you.

ACT THREE

SEQUENCE I: Losing it all. A confession

89.30 Seymour alone, calls Enid, no answer.
90.00 Boss calls Seymour: Coon art in newspaper.
90.30 Becky’s new place.
91.30 Enid is packing.
93.00 Becky tells Seymour about Enid’s blind date joke.
94.30 Seymour threatens Josh, Doug: citizen’s arrest.
95.30 Enid visits Seymour in hospital: You’re my hero.

SEQUENCE J: Different paths

97.30 Enid & Becky on bench, reconciling.
99.00 Norman’s bus arrives.
100.0 Seymour with shrink, mother waits outside.
101.0 Enid on bench.

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!

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!