Jun
29
POV: When to Shift?
Filed Under Free Content | Leave a Comment
Because the first shift of POV in a film may jolt the audience’s experience, it works best where this brief ‘disconnection’ doesn’t hurt the story: after a climax.
The start of Act Two is a good place to move to the antagonist’s POV.
We have just seen that our protagonist is ready to take on the main mission of the film. He knows what he is up against, he may even have a plan on how to approach it.
At the beginning of Act Two, you can immediately increase the stakes by creating dramatic irony. You show the protagonist only knows half of the truth and the antagonist is really a lot more powerful and the protagonist may be missing a crucial piece of information.
The shift can happen to any other character, exceptionally even to an omniscient POV. But the most powerful and most frequently used POV outside the protagonist will be that of the antagonist.
Almost always does this increase the stakes as you show how well the villain is prepared, how much stronger this character is than we (and the protagonist) believed and what he/she is capable of.
One of my favourite Act Two opening scenes is in NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Roger Thornhill has to clear his name of the UN murder and he must find out why he is being mistaken for the mysterious Mr. Roger Kaplan.
At the opening of Act Two we are in a boardroom full of unknown faces. The audience’s instinctive reaction will be to find a character to empathise with, to latch on to. None such in this scene.
This is the Secret Service, discussing a fictitious agent, created by them as a decoy for the spies. Now Roger Thornhill has been identified by the spies as this imaginary agent, the secret’s service’s plan works better than hoped for.
Not only do we now know Thornhill’s predicament, we also realise he cannot expect any support from the government as confirmed in the last line of the scene, spoken by one of the agents:
SECRET AGENT
Goodbye, Mr. Thornhill, wherever you are.
This scene shows how powerful a shift of POV can be to reveal an important piece of information the protagonist doesn’t have.
Another favorite example of dramatic irony created by a shifting point of view is taken from ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST and it constitutes the Mid Point Reversal.
McMurphy has just been on a fishing trip with his mates, sampling freedom outside the asylum.
The next scene shows the staff of the asylum discussing his fate, whether they should send him back to the work farm or keep him. McMurphy’s antagonist nurse Ratched drives the scene and the outcome is disastrous: he will stay in the asylum indefinitely.
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!
Apr
24
Structure: The Shawshank Redemption
Filed Under Premium Content, Structural Analysis | Leave a Comment
A structural overview of
The Shawshank Redemption
(Frank Darabont, 1994).
It was nominated for seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Actor (Morgan Freeman), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Original Score, and Best Sound – but it failed to win a single Oscar.
This film has an interesting structure because of its unusual treatment of the protagonist. The POV character Red is not the character with the clearest objective. Andy drives most of the story, although he is not entirely ‘honest’ to the audience. Only at the end of the story we find out about his real agenda.
One might argue that prisoners by definition have a strong desire for freedom. This is not the case for Red. Red considers himself ‘an institutional man’ without hope of ever getting out. Despite the lack of a strong outer objective, Red is the character with the strongest transformation.
While the theme of the film is about ‘hope’ and Red’s arc is just about that, there is some sort of a weaker arc for Andy, too. After the death of Tommy and Andy’s two months in the ‘hole’ (a text book example of an Ordeal sequence), Andy has a redemptive moment when he says about his wife “She died. Because of me, the way I am.”
Because of the lack of a clear ‘outer objective’ for either character, the end of Act One is not really signposted. The end of Act Two however is very clear.
Have a look and see how you see the story structure of The Shawshank Redemption. Of course, there is no ‘right way’ of doing this. Depending on which criteria you use, you may have a completely different outcome and I would be very keen to hear about it.
ACT ONE
Sequence A: “Fresh Fish”: New arrivals at Shawshank.
00.00 Andy Dufresne in car with gun.
02.00 D.A. quotes: “See you in hell before I see you in Reno.”
04.30 Eight bullets, two victims. He reloaded.
06.00 Verdict: Two life sentences for Andy.
06.30 Shawshank: Red’s parole hearing: rejected.
07.30 Red: I’m the man who can get anything for you.
09.00 1949: Andy Dufresne arrives. Inmates look on.
10.00 Red bets on Andy, he will crack tonight.
12.00 Norton: Your ass belongs to me. Welcome to SS.
13.30 Shower, clothes, bible. Red has his bet on Andy.
15.30 Lights out. “Fat ass by a nose.” Andy holds up.
Sequence B: Andy takes initiative.
19.00 Lunch: fat man dead. Andy: “What was his name?”
22.30 Shower: Andy taken by The Sisters.
23.30 Andy orders rock hammer. Red: “Grow eyes on back.”
27.30 Rock hammer comes in. “Book delivery for Dufresne.”
28.30 Sisters take him again. “He always fought.”
31.30 Roofing. Andy’s offer Hadley: taxes for three beers each.
ACT TWO
Sequence C: Andy fights to improve conditions
37.00 Playing checkers. Getting to be friends.
38.30 Andy asks for Rita Hayworth. Red: I’ll get her.
40.30 Sisters take Andy in projection room.
43.00 Hadley beats up Bogs. To min. security hospital.
43.30 Rita Hayworth poster for Andy. No charge.
46.00 Norton sizes Andy up; cell checked, bible found.
49.00 Andy library assistant; wants funding.
52.00 Report over lunch; asks for pool table, organise funds.
Sequence D: Brooks and being Institutionalised
53.00 Sends a letter a week for funding; no answers.
54.00 Andy does all tax returns; Red assists.
55.30 Brooks goes crazy; 50ys in jail. Institutionalised.
57.30 Brooks lets Jake free; in halfway house. Bagging job.
61.00 Thinks of going back. Shoot boss? Suicide letter.
62.30 Andy reads letter. Red: “He should’a died in here.”
Sequence D: Hope and how Andy’s efforts start to pay off
63.00 Response to letters: $200 and lots of books donated.
64.30 Andy plays Norton’s record for inmates: 2 weeks in the hole.
68.00 Andy: “a place called hope.” Red: dangerous thing: Brooks.
70.00 Red: 30 years anniversary and parole rejected.
71.00 Andy’s parole rejection present to Red: harmonica.
71.30 Red’s ten years Shawshank present to Andy: Monroe.
73.00 $500 annual payment to library. Extension and music.
75.00 Inside – Out program and shady deals bringing in money.
77.30 Paper leaves a trail. No: Randall Stevens. A phantom.
Sequence E: Tommy offers a sparkle of hope.
80.00 New young Boy Tommy. Andy teaches him.
82.00 Tommy is sick of learning, loses interest and hope.
85.30 Red tells Tommy about Andy, Tommy realises who he is.
86.00 Tommy tells Andy and Red about Andy’s wife’s real killer
88.00 Norton wouldn’t let him go. Andy 1 month in the hole.
90.00 Red: Andy is innocent. 19 years.
90.30 Tommy passed his test: news brought to the hole.
91.30 Norton wants to see Tommy; Hadley shoots him.
Sequence F: Every man’s got a breaking point.
94.00 Norton lies: Tommy shot escaping. Andy refuses further work.
96.00 Another month in the hole.
97.30 “I killed her, Red. Because of me, the way I am.”
98.30 Andy about Mexico. Red: I’m an institutional man now.
101.0 Andy: get busy living or get busy dying.
102.0 Andy: go to Buxton. Something I want you to have.
103.0 Andy asked for a piece of rope for Andy. Breaking point?
103.3 Andy gives Norton three deposits. Norton wants shoes shined.
105.0 In cell: lights out.
ACT THREE
Sequence G: Andy’s Resurrection
105.3 Red: That was the longest night of my life.
106.0 Man missing: Dufresne.
108.3 Red called into cell, questioned by Norton.
109.3 Hole in cell behind Racquel Welch: escaped.
110.0 Andy tunneled through wall in less than 20ys.
111.3 FB of night: shoes, climbing out, 500yds sewers.
115.0 Out. Bank, cashing in. Posts envelope from bank.
116.0 Press: “Corruption and Murder at Shawshank.”
118.3 Police raid on Shawshank. Norton suicides
119.0 Andy driving in convertible.
120.3 Parole board for Red. “I don’t give a shit.” Approved.
Sequence H: Living with Hope
123.0 Out
123.3 In halfway house: “Brooks was here.”
124.0 Bagging. Asking “permission to piss.”
125.0 What to do? Break parole? Go back? Live in fear.
125.3 Fulfill the promise: Red goes to Buxton.
127.0 Finds box with letter: I’ll keep an eye out for you.
132.0 Red travels to Andy. “I hope”.
The Shawshank Redemption – Screenplay (Early draft by Frank Darabont)
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
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!
Nov
1
Mid-Point: One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest
Filed Under Free Content, Script Development, Story Basics | Leave a Comment
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.”
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Oct
30
Michael Mann and Lev Kuleshov
Filed Under Free Content | Leave a Comment
Michael Mann’s commentary on the Restored Director’s Cut of MANHUNTER focuses primarily on the parallel psychology of the serial murderer and the cop. But let’s skip to the last few minutes of the commentary in which Michael Mann summarises his approach to filmmaking.
“Film is made in the editing room. In the writing and in the director’s preparation you’re planning what you’re gonna do in the editing room.”
He then refers to the Russian theory of montage from the 1920’s, which was followed by the Brits in the next decade (and used later to great commercial success by Alfred Hitchcock a.o.).
Anybody with a real interest in the effect of montage, should really do some reading on Lev Kuleshov and what is still known as the Kuleshov Effect. Using this, one could build a case that, if story is structure (which is what Stephen Gaghan doesn’t like), therefore transitions are structure.
Isn’t it remarkable that seventy years apart, two Russians were telling the world about transitions in their respective art forms?
Gaghan writes like a director. Similarly, Michael Mann is already thinking of what he will do in the editing room and therefore writes his story from scene transitions rather than starting from the overall dramatic arc.
(originally published 06/05/2006, edited 31/10/2007)
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
