Apr
14
Inciting Incident: Planting the Bomb
Filed Under Premium Content | 1 Comment
Keeping the audience interested throughout the ’setup’ is a major challenge as professional readers won’t last until the Inciting Incident if the first ten or twelve pages don’t deliver.
The ’setup’ is often a complete sequence in which we see the ‘Ordinary World’, the protagonist’s ‘normal life’, an area of the story that by its name and nature risks to be a dull stretch. We see the life of the main character before the overwhelming event that marks the real start of story.
For the solution, we go back to a lesson from Alfred Hitchcock.
Remember the difference between surprise and suspense? Surprise is when a bomb suddenly explodes. Suspense is when we know there is a bomb, and it can explode any moment.
The Inciting Incident is our first story explosion.
How do we make our audience hang in there until it explodes? By foreshadowing the Inciting Incident. By creating anticipation.
Create strong anticipation during the story setup by foreshadowing the Inciting Incident.
DIE HARD: While John McClane argues with his ex, we see bad guy Gruber et al. preparing their actions. Worse is yet to come for John.
JAWS: Swimmer Chrissie is crab meat by the time we meet with hero Chief Brody. We know the reported ‘missing person’ won’t be seen again.
TOUCH OF EVIL: In the classic opening shot we see a bomb planted on a car, it ends on the explosion. This marks Vargas’ (Heston) call to action.
OMAGH: Terrorists from the Real IRA plant the bomb that will later cause carnage in the Northern Irish town, and kill the hero’s son.
E.T.: In the opening scene, an alien is left behind on earth, 12mins later it will disturb the life of little Elliott.
THE UNTOUCHABLES: Capone’s hitmen bomb a pub and kill a girl. In the I.I., her mother calls on Eliot Ness to stop the violence.
BLADE RUNNER: At the end of the Voigt-Kampf test and before we meet with Deckard, we see replicant Leon shoot his interviewer.
Note that these examples show the foreshadowing of an Inciting Incident of such a magnitude that it would not just disturb the hero’s life, but anyone’s under the circumstances. In other words, we don’t really need a lot of exposition or setup to understand that this Inciting Incident will stir the pot.
This approach may not work with just any story.
Most stories will still need you to first set up the protagonist’s character before introducing the Inciting Incident, just because the impact of the Inciting Incident is specific to that particular character.
First we are fully immersed in the life and world of Truman Burbank in The Truman Show before the appearance of his father on the street will be seen as a major event.
We need to know the character – and flaw – of Stu Sheppard in Phonebooth before we fully get how important it is when some stranger seems to know all those secrets he has been carefully hiding.
Even in most of the seven examples above, between the foreshadowing near the opening of the movie and the actual Inciting Incident, the screenwriters make sure they build on the gravity of the I.I.’s impact:
- in Jaws, Chief Brody is relatively new in Amity so he may only have limited authority when he asks to close the beaches.
- in Touch of Evil we learn that Mr. and Mrs. Vargas are still honeymooning, so Mike is not really prepared to take on a case.
- in Omagh we see how close father and son Gallagher really are, before the son dies in the bomb attack.
- In The Untouchables, the domestic scene at the Ness home shows a dedicated father Eliot, so he is the right person to respond to the distraught mother later on.
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 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.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Feb
8
When talking about story structure, many people talk about where exactly in the story the structural element needs to happen. Often this is expressed in terms of a page number, or even a percentage of the film’s total duration.
I would prefer to leave such quantification aside for a moment and rather look into what these structural elements need to achieve.
For the inciting incident, here is my most important conclusion:
The inciting incident is a major event happening to the protagonist, never an action or decision by the protagonist.
When before I stated that the inciting incident must be a ‘deus ex machina’, I was wrong. Although it may seem so for our hero, it can but doesn’t need to be an act of God. But in any case it must be beyond the control of the protagonist.
To demonstrate that an action by the protagonist cannot work as an inciting incident, let’s look at two films that had a lot going for them but still failed to break out at the box office.
The following logline of Somersault, from a document published by the Australian Film Commission, claims to contain the film’s starting event. It says:
- A teenage girl runs away from home, hoping to find herself through love, but the people she meets are as lost as she is.
If the girl running away from home is the starting event, (i.e. the inciting incident), this is not a strong enough trigger for the story. But are we missing something? Why does she run from home? This is what we find on iMDB:
Heidi, 15, runs away from home after her mom sees her kissing mom’s boyfriend.
That, to me, reads like a pretty powerful inciting incident to the mother’s character. Not to the girl, because she started it in the first place.
McKee is absolutely right when he says the inciting incident should force the protagonist to act.
If the cause of the girl’s running away is not important enough to mention in the logline, it is probably not big enough to kick off the story. And the audience wouldn’t get the point that the story has effectively started. Such a ’soft launch’ of a film should be avoided at all cost.
Similarly, in what I believe to be the inciting incident of LUCKY YOU, Eric Bana’s character decides to bet all he has (i.e. the pawn ticket of his mother’s wedding ring) in a game of poker against his dad. When he loses, I feel it was his own mistake and he could have avoided it. It is not strong enough to start the movie.
Both films performed relatively poorly, given the exposure they had at the time of release. It certainly was not just because their weak inciting incidents, but I do believe it might have had something to do with that.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Feb
7
Inciting Incident: Definitions
Filed Under Premium Content, Story Basics | Leave a Comment
Inciting Incident, Catalyst, Call to Adventure, Disturbance. All terms referring to the first crucial moment: the point where your story kicks off.
Michael Hauge closes the first of his six story stages with it, at the 10% point of the story (10mins in a 100mins movie).
Paul Gulino sees it as the end of the first of a typical eight sequence movie. Christopher Vogler says:
The hero is presented with a problem, challenge, or adventure to undertake. Once presented with a Call to Adventure, she can no longer remain indefinitely in the comfort of the Ordinary World.
This moment better be BIG. If it ain’t, it may go unnoticed and the audience will still be waiting for the story to start.
Michael Tierno, in Aristotle’s Poetics for Screenwriters says:
It’s a self-initated action, a virtual “big bang” that sets the entire plot in motion, that can be committed by either the protagonist or antagonist, and that is an act of pure will.
According to Robert McKee:
The INCITING INCIDENT radically upsets the balance of forces in the protagonist’s life.
And later he says:
The protagonist must react to the Inciting Incident.
I wish authors would develop a common terminology but, alas, they don’t. Here is Linda Aronson’s approach:
Early on in the film there will be an event which changes the normal scheme of things and forces the protagonist in a new direction, effectively starting the story. This is called a catalyst or disturbance.
Linda Seger writes in her book Making a Good Script Great:
The catalyst is the first main “push” that gets the plot moving. Something happens, or someone makes a decision. The main character is set in motion. The story has begun.
Next: Inciting Incident: Key Aspects and Examples >>
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
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 >>
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Oct
30
BRUBAKER strays from the traditional structure because of its offbeat First Act. It lacks an Inciting Incident, nor does it have any significant protagonist characterisation. We witness from Robert Redford’s character’s POV how the most appalling injustice and brutality is inflicted relentlessly upon his fellow inmates.
Over thirty minutes into the movie, Redford’s character identifies himself suddenly as the new warden and announces in the same scene he wants to force through some serious reform.
Finally we have a 1st Act Turning Point.
But why was the warden’s identity hidden from the audience all along? Apart from a sudden surprise, it doesn’t add a thing. The use of dramatic irony (i.e.: the audience knows, but the other characters don’t) would have been much more powerful and it would have allowed for the badly needed character development.
Roger Ebert wrote:
“There’s no room for the spontaneity of real human personalities caught in real situations. That’s especially annoying with the character of Brubaker himself, played well but within a frustratingly narrow range by Robert Redford.”
Redford’s performance is rock solid given the material. BRUBAKER’s real problem is its flawed structure: half an hour into the movie, we have run out of screentime to sufficiently set up the protagonist’s character and potential internal conflicts. Redford didn’t have anything to work with, which makes Ebert’s comment rather unfair.
What the screenwriters did achieve quite well though, is the setup of antagonists and external obstacles in the way of the protagonist’s objective. Perhaps this explains why the film did work for me.
(originally published 06/05/2006, edited 31/10/2007)
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
