Oct
30
Three or Four?
Filed Under Story Basics | Leave a Comment
My son Baxter is three. Next week: four! BIG deal…
A well-structured story has THREE acts. Or FOUR?
No big deal.
Earlier I said that the model you use to improve your screenwriting is your own choice. At the end of the day it is all academic. Whatever works for you.
A few things to consider before you choose:
First of all, whichever you choose, you will need to deliver the exact same turning points. In broad terms, these are the Inciting Incident, Turning Point One, Mid Point, Turning Point Two and Climax + Resolution.
In other words, the outcome of your story shouldn’t depend on the model you choose, but on your premise. The same premise should result in the same structure, irrespective of whether you think in three or four acts.
Otherwise the theory interferes with the result and this can’t be the idea.
Now, what IS the difference?
The four-act model equates to three acts with the middle act cut in two.
In many great stories, the objective as stated in Turning Point One changes at the mid point. In other words: the mid point is not just a PLOT POINT, but a TURNING POINT. Therefore you may argue we are moving into a new act.
A crystal-clear example is JAWS:
Act One: Amity has a shark problem.
Act Two: Brody tries to solve the problem by closing the beaches.
Mid Point: Brody realises his failure and decides to change tactics.
Act Three: Brody tries to solve the problem by hunting the shark.
Act Four: Brody kills the shark.
This results in four acts of roughly equal duration, which is kind of elegant.
The acts are also shorter and therefore more manageable, which helps.
I still prefer the three-act structure.
Great films have a strong cohesion in the main character’s journeys between Turning Point 1 and Turning Point 2. Cutting Act Two in the middle could cause a writer to ignore this cohesion.
In the example of JAWS, Brody has one over-arching desire: “to protect the people of Amity”. The Inner Journey, too, has a strong cohesion across Act Two: “to learn to act responsibly” (see the structural analysis of JAWS).
Although most great movies have this inner logic, it is often buried deep inside the essence of the character’s journey and not always clear through a simple analysis.
THE UNTOUCHABLES, however, is another great example. In structure and meaning it is not too dissimilar from JAWS:
Act One: Ness learns of the vicious methods of Capone.
Act Two: Ness tries to capture Capone.
Act Three: Ness tries to capture the bookkeeper.
Act Four: Ness captures the bookkeeper.
The over-arching desire, uniting Act Two and Three: “to protect the people of Chicago”. The Inner Journey: “to accept the Chicago way”.
Finally, another good reason to stick with the three-act structure is the fact that not all successful movies have such a strong reversal at the mid point.
Please let me know your views in the comments.
Jul
2
Checklist: Active Protagonist
Filed Under Story Basics | 2 Comments
Are you struggling with a passive protagonist? Let’s look into what causes a character to be passive.
A hero is not ‘active’ because he is constantly running, fighting, arguing etc. A hero is not ‘passive’ because he is never running, fighting, arguing etc.
Here is a list of points that in my view will have a positive impact on the protagonist’s ‘activity’ level.
Like any other principle, there will be numerous examples of successful films that stray from these. It doesn’t mean you can just ignore them.
1. The hero must have strong will power.
2. The hero should have a clear goal.
3. The hero should state the goal explicitly (on or before p.25 for feature films).
4. The hero must not be forced, but chooses to pursue the goal.
5. Once the goal is known, the hero should stay on the case.
6. The hero can only be distracted because of a new, stronger goal.
7. Keep showing us the Hheroero really wants to achieve the goal.
8. Make sure the obstacles in the way are significant.
9. Stay in the hero’s POV as much as possible.
10. When something happens to the hero, show us a clear response.
This list is definitely not exhaustive and I reserve the right to change my mind ;).
Feel free to comment, criticise and add.
Feb
16
How important are format and style?
Filed Under Free Content, Story Basics | 3 Comments
The first step for many aspiring screenwriters is to purchase a piece of pricey screenwriting software.
Some call it retail therapy.
You are not a screenwriter until you have made that sacrifice, until you have invested money in your career, right?
I call it a waste of $250.
Your first draft should be a quick and dirty braindump. “Don’t get it right, get it written,” dixit Art Arthur.
Of course, it has its advantages to write your first draft in some sort of a script format. See it as an exercise in format and style, plus you have a rough idea of the screen time.
However, for this they have invented free MS Word templates, style sheets or even better: Celtx.
Format and style are totally irrelevant.
If you are fiddling to get the wording of your action right, to make your characters sound like ‘real people’, to come up with really cool visuals, you are wasting your time.
If this is your first draft, nobody will ever see it, except your story editor or script consultant. And if the first script feedback is all about format, style, dialogue and scene construction, you haven’t given the editor the right brief.
Or perhaps you should change editors.
You should be working on that story, which currently may not even be a story yet. If McKee’s statistics are right, ninety percent of what you have written will go. Won’t make it to the screen. At least not for this film.
Now, because of my emphasis on story, it may seem as if I think the presentation of the screenplay is less important.
But can you afford to shop around an excellent story but scripted in a way that looks sloppy and rushed?
Of course you can’t.
I was talking about early drafts.
Once you are sending a script for consideration to producers, studios or talent, it has to be immaculate. Nothing must distract from a smooth read.
Your formatting has to be completely in line with the standards of the country (Letter format if you’re based in the US, A4 elsewhere), the company (if it’s a major studio) or even the person (if it’s, say, Spielberg) you are sending the script to.
Why am I so paranoid about this?
Because others are.
Imagine this: a reader or executive has just read an ‘okay’ story. But it was a terrific read: an elegantly flowing script, no typos, great style, a fast read with “lots of white”.
Your script is next.
Your story is on par with the previous one, but by page 10 this reader has found three typos, a couple of “we see”’s and some awkward sluglines.
Your story may have had the same potential. Yes, it could have been produced for less money and audiences might have loved the movie better.
Still, you’re out.
The other writer might have been equally talented; he was more professional. If you want to play with the pros, you’ll have to be ready to write fast, re-write fast, and keep the same level of professionalism. If you can’t even get that first spec script right - which they know you have laboured over for years - you’re not up for the challenge.
And guess what: in the books of this reader, producer or company, not just your script but even you may be history. They probably have a sufficient amount of fresh offerings every day so they feel perfectly happy to bar you from ever submitting anything ever again.
If you are serious about earning six or seven figure fees in your new career, prove it. Before you send out your script, invest a few hundred dollars in having it read and polished by a pro.
Now…
Did you just realise your script has gone out to more than one company? Like… all of them?
Bad format and style can kill your career.
Better start thinking about a cool ‘nom de plume’.
Feb
6
The Inciting Incident
Filed Under Free Content, Story Basics | Leave a Comment
The first guy to write down that a story needs a beginning, middle and end, was Aristotle. About twenty-four centuries ago. But his beginning is not the same as our Act One; it is the point in this act where the story kicks off.
What Aristotle was talking about, in screen story terms we call the inciting incident. Anything before that, he called the prologue, which we know as the setup, the normal life of the protagonist or ordinary world of the hero.
The inciting incident is the first point in the film something happens truly out of the ordinary. It is often a surprising event, both to the audience and the protagonist. At that point it is clear: the story has well and truly started.
After the inciting incident, do we know what the story is about yet? No. For this, we need to wait until the end of Act One, until we understand what the protagonist’s mission, objective or outer desire will be for most of the story.
To be a successful screenwriter you really need to fully understand this first crucial moment in the story. Let’s look at what it means, what others say it does and what essential aspects you need in order to make it work.
One thing is absolutely certain: without a strong inciting incident you will have a hard time getting your audience glued to their seats.
Next: Definitions of Inciting Incident >>
