In the Hero’s Outer Journey, an event occurs that makes the Hero change the approach to pursuing the goal.

On the inner level, the Hero shows a first commitment to change.

Some people speak of the Point of No Return. Because every strong plot point is in essence a point of no return, I don’t find this approach helpful. Both the Inciting Incident and the 1st Act Turning Point are almost always strong points of no return.

Mid points are often at a location very different from the rest of the movie (One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, The Untouchables), near rivers (The Queen, The Untouchables), bridges (A Fistful of Dynamite, The Untouchables) or cliffs (Butch & Sundance, The Incredibles, Forgetting Sarah Marshall). The ‘cliff mid points’ often include a jump into the unknown, showing the Hero’s newly found Faith.

At first sight, in the Untouchables there seems to be one Mid Point, mathematically placed right in the middle of the movie at 58mins (out of 112), at the end of Sequence D (fourth out of eight).

At closer inspection, there is a little more to it.

If Ness’ outer objective in the first half of the movie is ‘to catch Capone’, then this changes once they get hold of the bookkeeper’s ledger. Now the objective is ‘to catch the bookkeeper’ in order to decode the names of the recipients of money. The overall objective remains the same: ‘to protect the people of Chicago from violence by bringing Capone to justice’.

The Inner Journey is more complex, because two themes are at play: Ness’ struggle to stay within the law and his naivety around the effects of his type of work on a family life.

At the end of Sequence D, Ness shows he is willing to go beyond ‘The Law of the Land’ and adopt ‘The Chicago Way’. He shows this by replying to the mountie who disapproves of his methods by saying “Yeah? Well, you’re not from Chicago.”

A stronger mid point is yet to follow. Note that exactly halfway Sequence D, Ness kills one of Capone’s men.

Exactly halfway the next sequence, one of Capone’s men kills Wallace. The two killings form the transition into the second, darker half of the movie.

Both ‘families’ (Capone’s and that of the Untouchables) lost a member and they’re now both ‘Touchable’.

Soon after this reversal Hero and Shadow (the antagonist) will face each other for the first time, on the stairs at Capone’s hotel.

To summarise, the following reversals happen around the movie’s mid point:

Change of Ness’ approach:

1. Bring Capone to trial
2. Bring the bookkeeper to trial

Change of Ness’ morality:

1. The Law of the Land
2. The Law of Chicago

Change of energy, mood:

1. Untouchable
2. Touchable

These are not mere points of no return, they are complete reversals.

So, what’s there to learn?

The second act is by far the hardest to write, we all know that.  Creating a strong mid point or mid sequence is the first way of dealing with this.  You have successfully chopped the story into smaller, more manageable bits: you will only have to bridge story sections of 25-30mins (two sequences) maximum.

Although this may seem a purely structural device; it is not.  It is impossible to create a meaningful mid point without knowing exactly what your story and characters are about.  I really believe that once you have truly nailed the mid point (or sequence), your story will have its foundation and the other sequences will fall into place much more easily.

Most ‘gurus’ each have their own area of expertise and angle of attack, they each follow their own agenda. And with every new light shed on the craft, different people may see that light.

Don’t they ever contradict each other? And if they do, which truth do YOU choose?

Screenwriting is a dynamic craft. What Syd Field wrote back in 1979 was state-of-the-art… but things change.

Earlier theories fall short when it comes to writing successfully for today’s audiences.

And surely Aristotle’s basic  beginning-middle-end will not get you far – if applied only to the story spine.

Screenwriting principles and techniques keep getting ever more sophisticated as successful movies bend or refine the old molds and screenwriters share their secrets.

The mere fact that the gurus keep being reprinted (Field for thirty years now, Aristotle for 2,000) exposes them to obsolescence. Yet there doesn’t seem to be any flagrant contradictions between what most recognised story teachers and screenwriting authors have said.

Here is a choice of statements and claims that you may not fully agree with. Let us know what you think:

- McKee says “The finest writing not only reveals true character, but arcs”. This sweeping statement has been successfully contested by Mystery Man in a fine piece of research and clear and unbiased thinking.

- John Truby and James Bonnett denounce the 3-act structure. As I yet have to find a discrepancy between Truby’s teaching and the 3-act structure, I assume it’s just a matter of marketing.

- Michael Hauge once said that Inner and Outer journeys are completely separate. In an interview on this blog he tells us how he has changed his view on this, which will be included in the revision of WRITING SCREENPLAYS THAT SELL.

- In Save The Cat, Blake Snyder called the Mid Point either a “false peak” or a “false collapse”. No mention of an Inner Journey, which is essential to e.g. Michael Hauge’s approach to that crucial story point.

- Defining what we call the Inciting Incident, Billy Stoneking asks “What INITIAL PROBLEM or OPPORTUNITY confronts or is created by the main character [...]” This includes the assumption that the Inciting Incident can be created by the Hero.

- Kal Bashir in his detailed and insightful Monomyth eBook says: “in Star Wars (1977), music when Luke appears signals that there is a quality about him.” But what use is it to the screenwriter?

What theory do you follow? Ever changed your mind along the way?

A very small minority of successful screenwriters denounces all theory. They follow “their gut”. But most working writers know there’s a hell of a lot you can learn from studying films and screenplays as well as reading up on modern story theory.

In my work with screenwriters, I’m learning every day and I constantly refine my own views. In the first screenwriting lesson I ever taught, I stated that the Inciting Incident should be a ‘deus ex machina’ (oh dear oh dear…). I knew darn well what a deus ex machina was but clearly hadn’t nailed the essence of the Inciting Incident yet.

I also once disagreed with Linda Aronson when she stated that Ridley Scott’s THE INSIDER was a failure. I vehemently argued against this. Boxoffice Mojo reports for THE INSIDER a worldwide Box Office of $60,289,912 and a budget of about $90,000,000.

Epic fail, Segers.

Since writing the below post, I have come to realise that the mid point may well be the last checkpoint to make sure you have the most powerful story you can get.

I believe the mid point can only exist if everything else works. Without knowing exactly what the outer objective is (Turning Point 1) and how the character changes (Turning Point 2) it is impossible to create the right mid point. The mid point changes the direction of the visible goal (Outer Journey), sometimes it completely changes the goal altogether. It also accelerates the Inner Journey as the protagonist is now committed to resolving the Need.

I have added some notes on THE INCREDIBLES and THE LIVES OF OTHERS to the examples below.

Many unsuccessful movies run out of steam halfway. Even a fair few memorable pics are weak in the middle, or have a ’soft belly’. The Second Act seems to be the hardest nut to crack. But why? Perhaps because the protagonist is chasing the same objective all along? After all we have a massive chunk of script to fill, about an hour of screentime on average. One remedy is to chop the movie up in quarters. First and last act are roughly one quarter each already, so Act Two we just cut in two.

It’s variously called the mid-act climax, the mid-point, first culmination or the mid-point reversal. I prefer the latter, although it is not always a strict 180 degree turn. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a climax either but it must be a ‘major turning point’. Things will be dramatically different from this point onwards.

Syd Field describes it something like this: “An important scene in the middle of the script, often a reversal of fortune or revelation that changes the direction of the story.” Field suggests that driving the story towards the Midpoint keeps the second act from sagging. For once I find Field more helpful than others. An executive at the talent agency ICM is trying to get his head around it:

“An event occurs wherein the character cannot give up his pursuit. It is a “no turning back point.” The bridge has been burned behind him (figuratively speaking), and he can only move forward. Often, this is manifested as a TICKING CLOCK. In classically structure (sic) romantic comedies, this is the point where the man and woman sleep together.” Hmmm… Not sure about that last one.

Here’s my favourite definition, from Frank Daniel:

“Mid-Point or First Culmination: a Major Reversal of fortune, making Main Character’s task even more difficult. Often, give the audience a very clear glimpse of an answer to the Central Dramatic Question “‘ the hope that Main Character will actually succeed at resolving his problem “‘ only to see circumstances turn the story the other way. First Culmination may be a glimpse at the actual resolution of the picture, or its mirror opposite.”

Let’s look at a few examples to understand the mid point better:

THE UNTOUCHABLES – Not only a well-structured, commercial movie with a top notch cast; it has a midpoint that ticks all three boxes: After a shootout on the Canadian border far away from the crime-ridden streets of Chicago, Eliot Ness and his team find out they can get to Capone through his accountant.

The mid-point sequence happens halfway the movie (ironically, not all midpoints really do), it changes the course of the story (Ness is no longer after Capone but after his accountant) and it takes place in a very different environment/change of scenery from the rest of the movie. And indeed: catching the accountant does get Capone in court. Important for the Inner Journey at this point is Ness’ response to the criticism on the way Malone forces a confession out of one of Capone’s men. When he says “Well, you’re not from Chicago”, it proves Ness is now open to approaching things ‘the Chicago Way’, as taught by his mentor Malone.

JAWS – It’s more than thirty years old and scary as ever, and not because of its state-of-the-art FX. Look closely and you’ll see: that plastic shark is a big joke! This is one piece of brilliant writing. Police Chief Brody (Roy Scheider) has been unsuccessful in trying to stop the shark killings by urging the mayor to close the beaches. When his own son narrowly escapes death, he is forced to change tactics (different direction): he must go and attack the shark in its own habitat. It brings a fresh turn to the movie with a change of scenery and the stakes are heightened because we are now fighting the killer on his own territory. What’s more: the protagonist is under greater jeopardy because he can’t swim. At Brody’s Inner Journey mid point, he is committed to tackle things at the core in stead of dealing with the symptoms. See also my notes at the bottom of the structural overview of Jaws.

ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST – In his book THE SEQUENCE APPROACH, Paul Gulino mentions another function of the midpoint: it gives the protagonist a flavour of the possible outcome of the story (Frank Daniel’s “glimpse of an answer to the Central Dramatic Question“). Here, Nicholson’s character tastes freedom when he takes the patients out on a trip. The reality however is that after this point he learns he may never leave the asylum again. A powerful reversal: rather than proving he’s insane, he now has to try and get out. The scene/sequence of the mad men’s outing is another beautiful example of a change of scenery. At one stage during the edit, director Milos Forman cut the sequence out. About the result he says: “I cut it down television style, under two hours. And you know what was funny? It felt much longer.”

I wouldn’t necessarily call the following movies class examples but I’ll give them any way because their mid-points worked really well for me:

THE PARALLAX VIEW – Bang in the middle of this classic conspiracy thriller, Warren Beatty’s character undergoes a five minute brainwashing. The scene is borderline unbearable and would have probably been cut by today’s studio heads. We undergo the character’s psychological torture first hand while we stare at the seemingly random images, exactly like the protagonist experiences them. After this, Beatty’s character is no longer the curious outsider vs. the mysterious corporation; he is fighting the system from within, which will ultimately lead to his demise.

GIU LA TESTA (A FISTFUL OF DYNAMITE) – Very much like in THE PARALLAX VIEW, we share the point of view of Rod Steiger’s character Juan while he watches what will cause a major change in his personality and in the course of the movie. At the very midpoint in the movie Juan witnesses a lengthy, traumatic shootout with a life-changing effect: from a mindless and merciless robber dreaming of the ultimate big heist he has now become a freedom fighter and finally commits to the cause of his alter-ego Sean (incarnated wonderfully by James Coburn).

THE QUEEN – The Queen is stuck in the lonely hills near Balmoral, her Land Rover having let her down. Without help from anybody she is out of her comfort zone when she notices the dear her grandsons have been stalking, upon her own advice and encouragement. A moment of realisation (with a lot of symbolism) leads to the decision to chase the dear away in an attempt to save its life from the hunters. The parallel with Princess Diana’s end becomes even more apparent when it turns out the deer was shot by a group of hunters after a chase on a neighbouring land (France?). The Queen has witnessed something that has changed her view and we see it externalised in her lukewarm response to the Queen Mother’s statements about the British people in a following scene.

NORTH BY NORTHWEST – The single most memorably scene of this film sits right in the very middle: the famous cropduster scene. Again, an entirely new setting in the movie, with hardly any other characters around. While most of the movie is rather talky, this sequence offers pure visual cinema with minimal sound design, then gradually picking up the pace and finally (literally) exploding in a symphony of action and music. The reversal: Roger Thornhill learns that Eve has betrayed him.

THE INCREDIBLES – Mister Incredible has successfully completed the task he travelled to the Special World for: eliminating the evil robot. Now, for the first time he is about to meet with his employer.

The reversal happens when his mission turns out to have been a setup to get him killed. The employer is effectively his arch-enemy Syndrome and the mid point delivers two major reversals: 1) in stead of staying on the island, he will have to escape 2) in stead of working alone, he’ll have to collaborate with his family.

THE LIVES OF OTHERS – In the first half of this 2007 Oscar winning drama, Captain Wiesler tries to expose the suspected playwright Dreyer to satisfy his superior at the Stasi (the former Eastern German State Security Service). While listening to a phone call, he learns that Dreyers best friend and mentor has committed suicide. Wiesler realises his work is not doing the good he had always believed it would. He is effectively killing people. When Dreyer plays the piano music he received as a gift from his mentor, Wiesler is so moved that he decides to not expose but protect Dreyer from this point on. To my taste, this is one of the most wonderful and moving mid points in cinema in recent years.

In my earlier blog “STRUCTURING THE FACTS” I briefly mention the midpoint reversal in UNITED 97: The passengers learn this is a suicide flight, therefore they have to change their tactics from trying to notify their relatives on the ground to actively fight back the terrorists.

When McKee talks about the conscious desire being a contradiction of the unconscious desire, would you relate this to the mid act 2 reversal / change in approach? Or would this be true from the very start of the story, script or life of the protagonist?

Answer:

Let’s start with quoting exactly what it is that McKee says:

“The PROTAGONIST may also have a self-contradictory unconscious desire(*).”

He goes on:

“Although these complex protagonists are unaware of their subconscious need, the audience senses it, perceiving in them an inner contradiction. The conscious and unconsious desires of a multidimensional protagonist contradict each other. What he believes he wants is the antithesis of what he actually but unwittingly wants.”

McKee makes a statement, then doesn’t really explain it. He doesn’t give an example either. But here is what I assume he means:

The conscious desire is what Michael Hauge calls the ‘visible goal, with a clearly defined end point’. In DIE HARD, John McClane wants to stop the gangsters and arrest them. In THE LIVES OF OTHERS, Wiesler wants to expose the theater director Dreyman. In JAWS, sheriff Brody wants to stop the shark from killing the people of Amity.

The subconscious desire is what John Truby calls the ‘need’, it is what the protagonist needs to become a more complete character, to overcome the flaw. This flaw often stops the protagonist from doing the right thing:

John McClane is a macho cop who can’t accept his wife to put her career first and Chief Brody can’t swim, so his fear of water keeps him initially from going out and kill the shark out on the sea. Wiesler wants to be a good man, but has only pursued this by following the stasi rule book.

Each of these have to overcome their flaw, before they can succeed in their outer objective: McClane makes a confession over the radio, Brody goes out on the open sea and Wiesler realises being a good man has nothing to do with justice fabricated by a totalitarian system. Sometimes this realisation happens at the mid-point, sometimes at the end of Act Two.

In each case, the inner need is in conflict with the outer ‘want’ from the start. Sometimes the mid-point causes the reversal, sometimes it is the Act Two turning point.

(*)From Robert McKee “STORY”, p.138

It is not enough to know and understand Syd Field’s set of phrases, as some hot shots may only be familiar with McKee. Unfortunately different people have different definitions for the exact same term.

This is my attempt to broadly define the most essential notions, informed by the best known theories, but influenced by the need to make them useful to the screenwriter rather than the analyst. Some theories are great to analyse finished films, but useless when you are stuck in your second draft. I hope that my definitions will help in identifying problems.

I will occasionally add to the list and modify definitions. If you disagree with anything or the explanation is not clear, feel free to flag this to me.

Normal Life

Also: opening, ordinary World, normal life, prologue, Journey Stage One.

Inciting Incident

Also: disturbance, catalyst, beginning

First Act Turning Point

Also: act one turning point, first threshold, first turning point, plot point one.

Mid-Point

Also: mid point reversal, point of no return, mid turning-point

Crisis

Also: ordeal, low point

Second Act Turning Point

Also: plot point two, crossing the 2nd threshold

Climax and Resolution

Sequence

Also: journey stage, block

Plot Point

See: Plot Point

Point of View

See: Point of View

From the above follows:

Act One

Some people will say this is the

]]> http://thestorydepartment.com.au/glossary/feed/ 0 http://thestorydepartment.com.au/brainstorming-plot-points/ http://thestorydepartment.com.au/brainstorming-plot-points/#comments Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:28:00 +0000 Karel Segers brainstorming-plot-points/ Writing a first draft is in essence brainstorming plot points and writing them down in a more or less chronological order.

It sounds as if I am simplifying things, but once you have cracked the essence of drama, it really is that simple.

To understand what follows, it is useful to read the word action as what a character does to pursue its objectives / desires.

When you brainstorm plot points, all you need to come up with is the trigger events. In other words:

DON’T BRAINSTORM ACTIONS; BRAINSTORM EVENTS

A character’s actions follow necessarily from these events. The nature of the resulting action will also show whether the trigger event was strong enough or not.

When you find a particularly powerful event, it may be triggering a sequence climax. Or even an act climax (also called Turning Point). Or a mid-point reversal. The two most powerful events in your story must be the inciting incident and the reversal. The first one triggers your hero’s main objective (which will define the ‘dramatic question’) and the second will make your hero decide to change the course of the second act.

A feature film needs between 40 and 60 plot points. Unfortunately only 10% of your first draft will end up in the final draft. So be generous when brainstorming plot points. Don’t stop at 40. Try 400.

Here is a test for finding strong plot points. Ask yourself the question “Does the event complicate the previous action?”. In a well-written story, the trigger event of one plot point will ‘interrupt’ a previous plot point. In other words: while your hero is responding to one event, a next event happens, which will force him to re-direct his actions and respond to this new event.

AN EVENT MUST COMPLICATE THE PREVIOUS ACTION

Or put differently: the event must provide an obstacle to the character’s objective(s) or desire(s).

Let’s go back to my earlier statement and explain why you should not brainstorm ACTIONS but rather EVENTS.

Once you have established a character, i.e. decided what is specific, unique about this specific character, you will show this by showing the character’s response to certain events. Therefore, you have no choice about the resulting action: it will follow necessarily from the combination of event + character.

Conversely, if you want your character to take a particular action, you will need to find an event that would trigger that specific action.

Finally there is the kind of event that creates a (seeming) dilemma to the character. These are simply the very best. Robert McKee has dealt with this extensively so I won’t elaborate at this point. I put the word ’seeming’ between brackets as I don’t believe these are REAL dilemma’s. If the function of the event is to bring out the truth of the character, there shouldn’t necessarily be two ‘irreconcilable goods’ or ‘evils’. Exactly because of the core quality of the character, there should only be one

]]> http://thestorydepartment.com.au/brainstorming-plot-points/feed/ 0 http://thestorydepartment.com.au/mid-point-one-flew-2/ http://thestorydepartment.com.au/mid-point-one-flew-2/#comments Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:25:45 +0000 Karel Segers mid-point-one-flew-2/ The two-disk release of ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’s nest features a great commentary by director Milos Forman and producers Michael Douglas and Saul Zaentz.

Forman is known for his ability to bring out phenomenal performances and with his trademark Czech accent he expands on his process, from selecting the cast to cutting their dialogue. Zaentz tells how people at the time didn’t recognise Jack Nicholson (yet), but asked Michael Douglas for autographs instead. The anecdotes are at times moving, as Forman tells about William Redfield’s illness during the shoot and his subsequent death of leukemia.

From a story point of view, I found it surprising to hear that Forman wanted to cut the fishing trip out of the movie. Apart from marking the story’s mid-point reversal, this sequence also gives us a taste of how McMurphy’s story could possibly end. But the director had a problem with the duration and as he says:

“I cut it down television style, under two hours. And you know what was funny? It felt much longer.”

]]> http://thestorydepartment.com.au/mid-point-one-flew-2/feed/ 0