Mar
25
Structure: Michael Clayton
Filed Under Premium Content, Structural Analysis | 5 Comments
A structural overview of Michael Clayton (Tony Gilroy, 2007) in 8 Sequences.
When I watched this film during its theatrical release, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Because of the relatively low budget (an estimated USD$25m) for its production values, Tony Gilroy was able to make some brave non-commercial decisions with his screen story.
This didn’t go entirely unpunished, as the Variety review points out:
Gilroy’s fidelity to his script comes at the expense of the pacing, which initially lumbers forward so assiduously as to feel like a throwback to an earlier era.
and:
Some of the peripheral threads — especially Michael’s relationship with his family, both as an irritated brother and a single dad — occupy time at the outset but really don’t lead anywhere.
-Brian Lowry
Looking at the story structure in the first act, we’ll find some obvious causes for the problems addressed above.
The Inciting Incident doesn’t happen until 25mins into the film and I yet have to find a clear 1st Act Turning Point. The scene with Marty (Sydney Pollack) at 51mins feels like one but at that stage Michael is already on his journey. The monumental 25mins of ‘Ordinary World’ make the story drag on to a point the audience will get very fidgety.
Then, in sequence two – and even before the end of the act – we find an abundance of scenes and characters that are not dealing with the main plot: Michael’s son, his debt, the merger and the scenes from Karen’s POV. These are simply things you cannot do without having clearly set up the main story.
I won’t go into any further story issues, but here is how I would structure the film in terms of plot points and sequences:
ACT ONE
SEQUENCE A: Prologue, Ordinary World
00.00 Arthur’s VO: This is not a relapse.
03.00 POV(*) Bach is settling, at office late at night
04.30 POV Karen in bathroom, tormented
05.00 Michael is gambling, phone rings
07.00 Urgent job: accident, go see client at home
08.30 At client’s: What are you? Miracle worker?
12.00 Phone rings: Michael gives details to referee.
12.30 Driving, GPS flickers.
13.30 Gets out at field with horses
15.00 Car explodes
SEQUENCE B: Subplot and Call to Adventure
15.30 – 4 DAYS EARLIER
16.00 Subplot: Michael drives son Henry to school
18.30 Subplot: Michael needs $75k to repay debts
20.30 At work, assistant asks: Are we merging?
23.00 POV Karen (intercut) rehearsing + interview
25.30 I.I.: Arthur stripped in deposition room
26.00 Arthur’s VO (cont.). Did you meet Anna?
29.00 Arthur: I have blood on my hands.
ACT TWO
SEQUENCE C: To get Arthur back on the case
29.30 POV Arthur tape, U-North people learn about Michael
32.30 Michael will get Arthur back in 3-4 days; find briefcase
33.30 POV Arthur calls Henry: Realm & Conquest.
35.30 Michael & Karen: defends Arthur. She’ll call Marty
37.30 Michael & Arthur as Mentor: “We’ve been summoned.”
39.30 POV Karen calls Mr. Verne
41.00 Arthur has escaped
SEQUENCE D: Allies and Enemies, Midpoint
43.00 POV Karen shows Marty the memo.
43.30 Searching Arthur’s office; psychiatric commitment?
45.00 Arthur followed, Michael leaves msg: janitor to janitor
48.00 POV Arthur calls Anna, call bugged.
50.00 With creditor: one week
51.00 Marty: He’s calling the plaintiffs; Michael asks loan
54.00 Looking for Arthur; with son, sees him
56.00 Mid: Arthur changed. Not the enemy.”Then who?”
SEQUENCE E: Subplot and Ordeal Plot Point
59.30 POV Arthur reads report on voicemail
63.30 POV Karen orders murder
65.00 Asks brother for support; hang for an hour.
67.30 POV Arthur killed
69.30 Brother shows up, off alcohol, in front of Henry
71.00 To son: you’re not like this. You’ve got it.
72.30 Ordeal: phone call, Arthur’s dead
75.00 In pub w/ Marty. Why?? No note. U-North settling.
SEQUENCE F: Ordeal Sequence Approach / and Reward
77.30 Calls Anna, in NY right now.
78.30 Goes to see Anna in motel, being watched
79.00 Anna: “something that would win the case”
81.00 Approach: Gets seal, to Arthur’s place
82.00 Followed, watched; searches flat
83.00 Finds Realm & Conquest; Police come in
84.00 Released from cell, “Who called 911?”
87.30 Reward: 3,000 copies of memo
88.00 POV Karen finds out about memo: ’situation’.
88.30 Marty ready for announcement;
89.00 Subplot Reward: cheque $80k
91.00 Pays off debt.
ACT THREE
SEQUENCE G: To get out, by bringing U-North down
92.30 Gambling // car bomb planted // phone rings, leaves.
95.30 Driving, miracle worker, fixer
96.00 Driving
99.00 Horses // Gimme cell // Explosion
99.30 Throws valuables in, runs off
100.0 Brother picks him up
101.0 POV Karen addressing board w/ settlement proposal
103.3 Climax: Confronts Karen: $10m
106.0 Resolution: Everything on record: NYPD
SEQUENCE H: Return with the Elixir – Finally Out
107.0 Taxi
(*): Scenes marked “POV” are not from the protagonist’s POV.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Mar
20
POV: Ratatouille’s Deleted Scene
Filed Under Premium Content | Leave a Comment
RATATOUILLE 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 a medium shot of Remi.
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, most often the antagonist’s, never to take an omniscient POV, because it is devoid of emotion.
One exception: you may use an omniscient POV to create dramatic irony, i.e. to reveal information the protagonist doesn’t know but which has an impact on his journey.
See also:
Introduction to POV
Omniscient POV
Shifting POV
When to Shift?
POV in Ratatouille’s Deleted Scene
POV as Controller of Tone
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Mar
11
Structure: Assault on Precinct 13
Filed Under Premium Content, Structural Analysis | Leave a Comment
This is the first in a series of structural overviews of popular films. Identifying the main story turns in a film is a great way to get a solid understanding of how film story works. So I invite you to view these films, break them down in their main story parts and compare notes with my overviews.
Not all of these films are recent and audience’s expectation may have changed since these films were released. I believe that film goers have become more demanding in terms of structure. Some of the stories that worked then, would today be considered as structurally flawed.
Still, if you look at the protagonist’s journey, you will find that most – if not all – have a clear Inciting Incident, Act One Turning Point (Plot Point 1), Act Two Turning Point (PP2), Climax and Resolution.
In ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, the Inciting Incident is foreshadowed by presenting the antagonists before we meet our hero Bishop. The sheer violence of the gang puts their storyline on a collision course with Bishop. Right from the start, even before he realises (Dramatic Irony) it puts him in extreme jeopardy, which is an effective way to make an audience connect with the protagonist.
This movie written and directed by John Carpenter is not only very entertaining, it is structured around a powerful reversal. The first (outer) objective of Wilson is to keep the convicts inside the police station, thus protecting the outside world from them. At the mid point, this reverses completely: now he needs to protect the convicts from the gang assaulting the police station.
The structural breakdown was done in a single viewing, without going back to check and most likely I will be wrong here and there. Particularly the Inciting Incident doesn’t seem to be strong enough, nor is there any reluctance or clear plot point leading to the ‘crossing of the threshold’. See for yourself and try to improve my breakdown of this film’s structure.
ACT ONE
SEQ. A: BISHOP’S FIRST DAY: A DANGEROUS AREA
02.40 DI: Anderson, CAL, 3.10am: 6 gang members killed by police
04.30 Press conference: weapons missing, serious threat
05.00 DI: Three war lords become blood brothers, arsenal of weapons
06.00 (04.50): Bishop driving, gets supervising duty Prec.9,div.13
SEQ. B: BISHOP GOES TO ANDERSON
08.30 DI: (05.11): Napoleon Wilson, on death row
10.00 DI: Wilson & Co are being transported
12.30 (05.32): Bishop driving
13.00 DI: (05.37) Father & Daughter lost in Anderson
15.00 DI: Gang members driving in car with weapons
16.00 (05.49): Bishop arrives, deputy informs captain, coffee with Kathy
20.30 Captain briefs bishop: first day on the job.
ACT TWO
SEQ. C: GETTING READY FOR THE NIGHT, NEW TASK
22.30 DI: (06.18) Punk trains gun on people while driving; ice cream van.
24.30 DI: (06.41) Transport goes to Anderson, convict is sick
28.00 DI: Punk kills girl and ice cream man
32.30 Bishop puts up sign as bus arrives, convicts go in holding tanks
SEQ. D: THE CONVICTS BECOME ALLIES; STATION UNDER SIEGE
34.30 Wilson checks out Bishop, men check out Kathy.
36.00 DI: (07.00) Father kills murderer, escapes into Police station
38.30 Nobody in car park. Phone dead. Chaney leaves, power down.
40.30 Bishop goes out, is being shot at. Chaney is dead. Silencers.
41.30 Transport minders shot. Police station under siege.
SEQ. E: REVERSAL – KEEPING THE GANGSTERS OUT
45.00 Making plans: flares; waiting for help; gang army approaches
50.30 Marked for a siege. Do they want father of killed girl?
52.00 Gangsters start assault; move in; Wilson fights back, shoots.
54.30 Everybody helps holding the gangsters at bay; armed. Silence.
SEQ. F: STAYING ALIVE
57.00 Julie dead; barricading doors. Squad car here in 5mins (he hopes).
60.30 Explosives in basement; cars back, bodies gone. All in 30mins.
63.00 Not afraid to die: convict knows about ‘ciolo’ revenge; save ass (Wells)
65.00 Counting spare ammo. Wilson gets a cigaret from Kathy.
SEQ. G: GETTING OUT
66.00 Patrol car Unit 7 checking the area
67.30 (08.15): Basement solution – hotwire car.
70.00 Wells goes out: “I’m doomed.”
71.00 Someone will come. “A man with faith”. Wells’ mission fails.
ACT THREE
SEQ. H: SETTING UP A TRAP
74.30 Renewed attack: “out of luck”; basement
78.00 The explosives; patrol: nothing unusual, phone worker dead.
80.00 Molotov attack, invasion & explosion
SEQ. I: HELP ARRIVES
83.00 Police support: “Anybody’s got a smoke?”
84.00 Bishop defends Wilson
(DI: Dramatic Irony)
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Mar
7
Exciting Coincidence?
Filed Under Free Content | 1 Comment
“A strong inciting incident is an event that happens to the protagonist, never an action by the protagonist“, I said.
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 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.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Mar
7
Killing My Darlings
Filed Under Free Content, Newsletters | Leave a Comment
This blog started when a certain analysis of Michael Mann’s THE INSIDER sparked my frustration. Discussing BLADE RUNNER in a story workshop recently, I felt I was close to doing the exact same thing. To this date I don’t fully agree with her INSIDER analysis but Linda Aronson taught me this: to learn story, you will have to be ready to tear your favourite films apart.
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’?
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
