Aug
21
Structuring the Facts
Filed Under Newsletters | Leave a Comment
Turning real events into a working screen drama is a hell of a challenge. Whether it be a historical movie, biography or docu-drama, the smart screenwriter remains true to the spirit of the subject rather than an accurate report of the events. Plus: the principals of drama must dictate how the story is (re-)structured. UNITED 93 turns out a phenomenal success on all fronts.
Have you noticed the almost unnerving consensus that this is great movie? The SMH gave it 9/10 in yesterday’s paper, Roger Ebert hands out four stars, on IMDb it scores 7.8/10. Who believes that the magnitude of the events guaranteed the movie would work, should check out the TV dud “FLIGHT 93” and think again. I believe here’s a hell of a great script at work.
I watched Paul Greengrass’ movie last weekend and was truly impressed. When I had recovered from the emotional rollercoaster ride, something quite unexpected dawned upon me: this story boasts an amazingly conventional structure.
If you go with me that the protagonist in this movie is made up from the collective passengers of the flight, you’ll agree the film reflects the following 3-act structure:
- ACT ONE: Boarding until cruise altitude; hijackers take control.
- ACT TWO/A: Passengers try to notify the ground.
- REVERSAL: News of the WTC attacks – this is a suicide flight.
- ACT TWO/B: Passengers prepare to fight back.
- ACT THREE: Attack on the cockpit and crash.
An important subplot dominates the first half of the movie and intertwines with the First Act: Ben Sliney’s struggle at the FAA to stay in control of the US air space. Here I’d like to refer to my very first post and my structural note on SCHINDLER’S LIST and THE INSIDER. Both movies start with a major subplot, in the case of THE INSIDER possibly even a second protagonist. Once we’re in the Second Act of the subplot, the main story kicks in. Same here: we’re well into Ben Sliney’s Second Act before the action on board United 93 starts.
For all above reasons – and I know this one is hard to prove – I believe the movie would have worked fine for anybody completely unfamiliar with the 9/11 events. While we sit through the relatively uneventful First Act (if you don’t know what’s coming up), we empathise with Ben Sliney whose air traffic controllers are steadily losing control.
You may argue that this structure is a mere reflection of the facts. Don’t forget filmmakers have always made their own choices about how and which events are presented over the course of the available screentime. With this subject matter I don’t believe Greengrass really had to be this rigorous in his structuring for the movie to have an adequate effect. Still he did. Why? To create maximum empathy with the protagonists. And boy it pays off!
It’s waiting now until October to find out what Oliver Stone did with WORLD TRADE CENTER, but the rumours are positive.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Aug
18
Diagnosis: Obsession
Filed Under Newsletters | Leave a Comment
Occasionally I receive requests to read a first draft and even a first draft by a first time writer. I do indeed offer story consultancy but these are requests to read – for free – with the hope of getting a producer’s attachment. With all due respect, but you’ve gotta be kidding. (Disclaimer: if you’re allergic to preaching, better skip this blog. If you disagree with anything, you are invited to comment)
First-time writers sending out a first draft should get a grip. Get out of your hole and find out how competitive this industry is. But is the writer really to blame? Our industry itself has created a perception that writing for the screen is a fun occupation, a lifestyle thing that can be easily combined with any other job. And every attempt is to be taken seriously. Believe me, the reality is different. If you consider yourself a dilettante, your chances of breaking through are minimal. If your entire life doesn’t revolves around movies , the odds are very much against you. Better get used to the idea or reconsider your future.
Like ‘aspiring practitioners’ in other industries where the stakes are high, screenwriters and filmmakers tend to love the success stories of those who’ve made it, hence the popularity of events like POPCORN TAXI etc. However, success stories are filtered, censored and jazzed-up versions of the boring, down-to-earth and painful true events they are based upon. Like their screenplay counterparts, true facts don’t sell.
The six movies to which writer Andrew Stanton contributed, have made several billions of dollars worldwide, yet he calls his growth to understanding story: “MY JOURNEY OF PAIN”
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
