Here’s my weekly selection from the blogosphere. Feel free to recommend anything or give your feedback in the Questions and Comments below.

And don’t forget you can subscribe to our posts so you don’t miss any of this, ever.

• Robert McKee goes Campbell: Culture makes no difference
• “CUT TO:” – Cut it out.
• Final Draft adds highlighting – Easier PDF.
• Emily confused about Happy Endings. WTF is wrong with them?
• You can’t proceed without a PLAN: the crucial plot element
• How to write good characters: observation and mimicry
• Know bad writing so there’s no bad writing
• Breakdown of Indie “The Dinner Party”, writing lessons applied
• The Climax: finding the hero on villain turf
• More hypocrisy in our industry: 10 noms for Ward’s ugly egg
• Do’s and Don’ts for your spec script
• Don’t turn the lights out on your story: writing scenes in blacknessCOMING SOON to the Story Department:

• Structural breakdown of THE UNTOUCHABLES (Monday night midnight)
• Paul Gulino: Screenwriting, the Deadline Approach.

Enjoy!

Karel

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.

A friend asked me if I would be offended should he spend $600 to go see McKee in Melbourne.

Years ago I happened to be in LA in the first days of release of the first edition of STORY (McKee’s bestselling book). I purchased two copies: one for myself and one for my best friend who had attended the story seminar a couple of times and who had told me McKee had never published. McKee autographed both. Mine says:

“To Karel. Tell the truth.”

So I will.

I have seen McKee a couple of times. He is entertaining and has an impressive knowledge of cinema, both mainstream classics and arthouse. But I have never found the level of practical, detailed and essential information that is required to successfully analyse and create screenplays. This I have found with other people such as Hauge, Vogler, Truby and Gulino.

McKee’s weekend story seminar was the basis for his book. It is a literal transcription.

A few years back UNK published a blog post on his experience of the story weekend and when I wanted to forward the link to my friend with the spare $600, I couldn’t find the article on his site. Fortunately Google had cached it and I have reprinted the cache below.  UNK’s post is entertaining and …

The Truth.
(From The Unknown Screenwriter)

“So I got my yearly Robert McKee brochure in the mail…

Last year when I received the exact same brochure, I read it over… Having never been to a McKee seminar but having been to every other screenwriting guru’s seminar, I figured it was worth the read…

After all, I had spent the money to attend the seminars of…

* Bill Martell
* David S. Freeman
* Syd Field
* Blake Snyder
* John Truby
* Michael Hauge
* Chris Vogler
* Chris Soth
* Screenwriting Expo

And, to be honest, I THOUGHT I had left the best for last… The piece de resistance if you will…

Uh… No.

The brochure last year AND this year said for me to be sure to read STORY before attending the seminar so that I would be intimately familiar with the material…

So I did.

Now I already had a copy of STORY that I purchased the first year it actually came out. I remember trying to read through it but holy shit… So much stuff to wade through back then…

On the other hand, I can read STORY today (which I did a year ago) and pull an enormous amount of material from it.

Make no mistake… From reading the book, McKee obviously knows his stuff.

Maybe too well… LOL.

Why do I say that?

Let me take you back to last October (from what I remember) in Los Angeles when I attended McKee’s seminar…

First of all, I was late. I ended up having to take the 405 freeway which I loathe and always try to avoid but a quick glance at my Google Map revealed that I had to take the 405 to get to Loyola Marymount University after all!

So after an easy extra hour of driving, needless to say, I arrived LATE.

I walk up and get my complimentary cup of coffee (thanks Bob!) just outside the building where the STORY seminar was being held, go inside to the tables where the assistants were very nice and directed me to the seminar.

While I stroll around the McKee tables toward the entrance to seminar I notice piles of the book, STORY…

Piles of the screenplay, CASABLANCA…

Piles of the STORY audiotapes…

Cool.

So I enter through the seminar doors about an hour late and as I walk in I hear that “PHIFFFT” sound of a few hundred people turning pages…

A full house to be sure.

I find a nice little fold-up desk in the extreme upper left-hand corner of the room… Upper left-hand corner to Mr. McKee that is.

I didn’t know this but he had stopped in mid-sentence to wait for me to find a seat… I thought that was pretty nice of him but when I sat down and focused my attention down at him and his table, he didn’t seem that accomodating… LOL.

Oops.

I sat down and smiled at him and when he felt like my entering the seminar was no longer an interruption, he continued…

He went on and I was impressed! It was like watching Hal Holbrook’s one man show of MARK TWAIN TONIGHT!

The only thing I kept finding strange was the consistent “PHIFFFT” of hundreds of pages turning every so often…

This captured my attention so I looked around and by golly if there weren’t hundreds of people turning pages as Mr. McKee progressed with his performance… er ah… course outline.

At first I was confused. Then I realized that everyone was following along in their book as he was going through WHAT I THOUGHT WAS HIS OUTLINE…

Was I missing something?

Oh yeah.

I ended up meeting a very nice female actor who was sitting next to me — also reading through the book as McKee did his schtick. When we finally had a break, I made an inquiry…

I asked: “Why is everyone going through the book while he speaks?”

She replied: “Because HE’S going through the book.”

I asked again: “You mean he’s going through the same topics?”

She replied: “No, he’s going through the book.”

I asked again: “You mean he’s looking at the book and expanding on the information?”

She replied: “No! He’s MEMORIZED the book and he’s going through it!”

I asked/stated: “SAY WHAT?”

She replied: “He’s going through the book word for word but he’s memorized it.”

I stated: “No fuckin’ way…”

She replied: “Yup.”

I asked: “And I paid over $500 for this?”

She replied: “We all did.”

Okay, so we went on a little more about it until the seminar started up again… I sat there in disillusionment.

And the rumors you heard about cellphones are in fact true… If you have a cellphone and it rings during his performance, you gotta give the guy $10.00 for interrupting. I actually liked that part of the seminar because I fucking hate cellphones and I hate people that leave their cellphones ON during any kind of seminar… Don’t EVEN ask me what I’ve done when a cellphone goes off in a movie theater… Let’s just say YOU DO NOT WANT ME IN THE THEATER IF YOUR CELLPHONE GOES OFF…

Anyway…

After lunch, McKee’s cellphone goes off… He’s looking around the audience… The audience is looking around the audience… Everybody is looking at each other until finally… He checks his own briefcase… He opens it up and sure enough, the ringing gets immediately LOUDER.

Everybody laughs and he turns off the phone and remarks, “I’ll pay myself later.”

The audience HOWLED for at least a minute… THEY LOVED IT!

I sat there with I know what had to be a stupid look on my face… I swear I was in the midst of mob-mentality… THIS GUY COULD DO NO WRONG!

At one point throughout the weekend, McKee talked about good and evil… When talking about evil, he pressed a button on a remote and a picture of Oliver North went up on the screen… Again, most everyone laughed except for myself and a very large man down in front who just happened to be a former Marine.

He stood up and said, “Fuck you old man!”

I for one was hoping this was going to get good but alas… Everyone in the seminar kept sticking up for McKee and told the guy to eat shit and get the hell out of there if he couldn’t handle it… Yada yada yada… LOL.

And, the former Marine did in fact leave only to show back up later and take on the mob mentality himself, by clapping and laughing at McKee’s every breath…

I had about all I could stand when, on Sunday, we started going through Casablanca… Of course, I didn’t buy his copy of the script so I couldn’t follow along but I have gone through Casablanca on my own many many times so I felt qualified to at least sit there and listen.

It was BRUTAL yet everyone was eating it up… I finally got up and hit the road. Thank fuckin’ God but I did go ahead and purchase Mr. McKee’s STORY audio book on cassette tapes (he didn’t yet have the seminar on CD).

As I eeked my way through the Loyola Marymount University campus on a late Sunday afternoon, I inserted tape number ONE.

And guess what?

He did memorize the book!

The only thing that was different on the tape were the jokes! Nobody laughed at his jokes hence, they were not funny… By the time I got back home, I was listening to him go through his discussion of CHINA TOWN.

Word for fucking word I listened to the tape and while I cannot say with 100% accuracy that he simply went through the book word for word (but why wouldn’t he?), these audio tapes were exactly what I had just paid over $500 to sit through on a Friday, Saturday, and Sunday when I could have been at home or my favorite coffee shop, WRITING.

So there you have it… You can get the entire three days on audio for $15.00 — well, that’s what it cost me at the seminar so it might be more if you purchase it elsewhere IF you can purchase it elsewhere…

*NOTE: I see over at Amazon, that he now has the book on CD… Nice. Anybody know how I can convert my cassette tapes over to CD?

Shit…

So now the question… To McKee or not to McKee… Is that the question?

Is it?

If you want to witness the performance, by all means… Pay the $575 and see the one man show.

If you want the material, read the book. That IS the seminar. Better yet… Buy the book, buy the STORY audio CD and then follow along in the privacy of your own home, coffee shop, bathroom stall, etc…

My only regret is not actually paying $675 instead of $575.

Why?

For $675, I could have gotten the latest version of Final Draft instead of paying almost $200 for it about 2 months ago…

I never learn.”

-The Unknown Screenwriter

Here is another opinion, by John August. The disclaimer: John has written a few screenplays that manifestly stray from the generally accepted 3-Act convention. Up to you to decide if he’s a reliable source in this.

Commercial common sense will tell you: yes, you should.

Robert McKee says: “Tell the truth.” (see the previous post)

McKee means: your story needs to reflect your worldview. If you contradict whatever you believe in for the sake of commerce, you will fail. During his Arthouse seminar, he gives the example of Bergman’s THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY, where Bergman forced an ending upon the story in which he didn’t really believe. The story didn’t work, McKee says. Even the great Bergman couldn’t go against his instinct.

The discussion about happy endings is not exactly the same as the discussion about arcs. Protagonists without arcs have starred in films with tremendous success (see the reference to Mystery Man on Film in the previous post).

Although writers with a positive world may have more success in connecting with a large audience, I believe that talented and skilled screenwriters can create stories that work, irrespective of their worldview.

First-timers will have a harder time.

Here is the dilemma: to break in, you need to write something the market wants to see. Yet you’ll have a better chance if this first spec screenplay is written from the heart. You need to tell the truth.

My advice to beginning screenwriters: see how different genres allow to make different statements about the human condition without compromising the chances of success. Horror, crime and satire are darker genres than romance, adventure or kids movies.

Finally, to illustrate McKee’s point, below is a transcript of his introduction to THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY for British television.
______________________________________

Robert McKee: I saw my first Bergman film in Detroit, Michigan when I was 15. It was The Virgin Spring, a tale of revenge for rape and murder. Next came a comedy, Smiles of a Summer Night. After that Brink of Life, a social drama set in a maternity ward, Monika: A Teenage Love Story, Hour of the Wolf, a psycho-horror film. Bergman was like a one-man film studio bringing a fresh eye to many genres and by word of mouth filling cinemas everywhere. But then in the sixties he became a creature of the critics. They treated his films as intellectual crossword puzzles and drove the audience back behind a barricade of critic-speak � symbology, metaphysics, alienation � until it was impossible to watch a Bergman film without the feeling that you were taking an exam. And that�s where he stands today, on a pedestal, intimidating, distant, watched only by a tiny circle of cineastes. I think that over the years we forgot what the early audiences instinctively knew � above all else, Ingmar Bergman was a master storyteller.

Bergman�s difficult. Not to understand, but emotionally tough. He shines light into the darkest corners of life. He asks us to empathise with complex characters who, although very human, are not particularly loveable. Then he spins his stories over an emotional rollercoaster, taking us on a quest for the truth, truth that explodes the little lies that make life comfortable. To watch a Bergman film you have to be willing to invest all your humanity, to open yourself up, to care about life so much you want to know the truth though heaven may fall. It is not intellect Bergman demands so much as courage.

Bergman�s also difficult because he explains nothing. He doesn�t force his ideas into the mouths of his characters. Like Hollywood he tells stories visually, writes naturalistic dialogue and layers his meaning in the subtext. Unlike Hollywood his films are not tales of wish fulfilment, telling seductive lies about how everything works out for the best.

1a: The Film

�for now we see through a glass, darkly:
but then face to face; now I know in part;
but then I shall know even as also I am known

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

Nafa – Choctops Meeting: 18/2/08

(Report by John Haly,
Thank you to Tony Chu)

Karel -a Belgian producer and script consultant – founded OZZYWOOD Films and The Story Department (which is a unique Australian blog and online resource for screen story theory). Karel headed production and programming at London’s Digital Broadcasting Company and was a film buyer for CANAL+, (Europe’s largest pay TV service). He was the host for a movie show for MTV Europe. His production credits included two short dramas, a documentary and a feature film. In post-production, he has a short animation and a feature film. As a script consultant, he has clients both in Australia and overseas. Of interest to Nafa members, he also runs regular workshops on script writing. A notable fact is that the 2007 nominees and also the winner of the Australian Writer Guild Monte Miller Award were Karel’s clients. Accordingly, if you are a script writer, you will, indeed, be well advised to pay particular attention to his views on ‘What our industry needs is a Story Revolution’.

Karel began by delving back into his personal history stating that he had started in Radio as a reporter who would phone in initial reviews of films for night radio - a far cry from the online internet reviewing of films of the contemporary culture. His first venture into a screenplay dates back to 1989, although he admits to abandoning that path because of early criticism by an established script writer. His next attempt was twelve years later, and he promptly lost the first draft.

In 2001, he moved to Australia where he co-produced a documentary and then a short film, but the last didn’t go anywhere. The next film was “Aerosol” which was dispatched to, and was selected by a few film festivals, but won no significant prizes. As a consequence, he then contemplated a change of direction and began studying and reading in an effort to get new insights as to the creative writing process.

The author at the top of his reading list was Robert McKee. McKee’s book, ‘Story’ is considered by some as the “screenwriters’ bible”. When purchasing the software for screen writing called ‘Power Structure’, he was offered at a reduced price a DVD called ‘The Hero’s 2 Journeys’ which was promoted as extremely enlightening material capable of educating writers and which revealed the template upon which the vast majority of successful stories and Hollywood blockbusters are based. Michael Hauge and Christopher Vogler’s DVD opened Karel’s eyes as it offered a unique insiders’ understanding of the ways screenplay structure, character, and theme must combine to be successful.

Karel became aware of the sad fact that there seemed to be little by the way of ‘Story Education’ available in Australia. Michael Hauge’s principles were applied in advising writers of script plays. With the aid of AFC funding, it became possible to produce a following accompanied by good results. He educated writers that the structure of writing was important, particularly from the perspective of Character. His insight centred on the question: Where does drama happen? He emphasises that it is not in the visualisation of the story, but the subtext beneath the story that good scriptwriting lies.

The fault to which many writers fall prey is that of visualising the scene as they are writing, thus thinking in terms of pictures. As it is a visual media up with which we end, we must keep in mind into what it is that a visual story latches in the minds of the audience – for example, that of ‘Desire’! The question that ought to be at the centre of your script should focus on the desires and objectives of your characters because film ‘hangs together’ with the emotions of “Desire”.

A frequent criticism of Australian films is that they have weak protagonists, (i.e. those without will power). If you give your protagonist a visible goal with a desire and will to get there, then you are more likely to engage your audience. The essence of Michael Hauge’s proposition is that you need a character who has a visible goal with a clearly defined end-point.

Karel recalled the Columbia University educator, Frank Daniel, who was noted for his development of the sequence paradigm of Screenwriting. Frank’s conception of a good protagonist was ’somebody who wants something badly and has difficulty getting it.”

Karel turned to the audience to ask, ‘As a screen writer what is your primary goal?’ After a few financial and entertaining replies, someone suggested ‘to tell a story’. Karel then asked, ‘Why are you telling that story?’ Quoting Michael Hauge, his answer was two words, ‘elicit emotion’. In order to do this, there are three things with which a screen writer can play. 1. Character, 2. Desire, 3. Conflict.

The best way Karel can find to illustrate this is simply through the examples of successful films, which is what he uses when he runs his workshops. Irrespective of whether it is a Mainline or Arthouse movie, they all follow the same structure. The film ‘Die Hard’ deals with a man seeking to stop the criminals. ‘Jaws’ relates to a man’s desire to stop the Shark. Consider an Oscar winning Arthouse movie: “The Lives of Others’ where in the first half, the protagonist desires to expose the director while in the second half, he wishes to protect him.

As a screenwriter, you need to structure the desire. (Characters need structure in their desire). Your audience needs to know in the first act what that desire is. Your character also needs to resonate with the audience, exhibiting his or her human flaws. It is the flaw that holds the need of the protagonist. In ‘Die Hard, while desiring to stop the criminals, his flaw was that he was afraid to tackle the criminals who held his wife hostage. In the “The Lives of Others”, the protagonist changes his mind mid way. Audiences expect to perceive this desire, even if it is not spelled out.

As Aristotle distinguishes: a whole is that which has a beginning, a middle, and an end. In the beginning, the audience is introduced to the setting, the characters, their situation,/conflict and the goal they desire. In short, something happens, unexpectedly, which defines the story to come. To paraphrase Aristotle, ‘A beginning is that which does not itself follow anything by causal necessity, but after which something naturally is or comes to be’.

In ‘Die Hard’ the building is stopped while John McClane goes up to the highest floor to get a bird’s eye perspective and think through his options. He says to himself, ‘Think, think, think’. [KS: The exact same words are used by Woody in Toy Story 2 after Wheezy is taken away.] The initial plot point of confusion [KS: In the Hero's Journey the 'Mentor' stage, 'Refusing the Call'] shifts to the derivation of a plan and new plot point – an event followed by a reaction. Something happens, a plan evolves and the pursuit of activity begins and continues all the way to a resolution.

Karel advised that as a Script writer you should ask yourself, ‘What is the reason this story is being told?’. As for Karel himself, he was sitting here talking to us because he was strongly motivated by the desire to see a revolution in the way Australian Script writers create stories. He proclaimed, ‘Make sure there is a connection between yourself and the story you are telling. There is a requirement to want to connect to an audience.’

It is in the tribal ethos of ancient days that the storyteller tells stories relevant to their tribes. They are told not only to get the message across, but also to create such impact that the stories are repeatedly retold to subsequent generations of that tribe. It is important whether you be scriptwriters or producers or directors, that you choose the scripts that can best tell the story.

Be aware that the contemporary tribe of humanity is being conditioned by the way a story is being told in film and theatre. Be conscious of writing structure as it is entering an arena, a tribe, a society that is accustomed to perceive in a specific manner. Don’t be dismissive of the formula for telling the story in film just because you want to be ‘different’, or because your audience has been conditionally seasoned, even if they are not consciously aware of being told a story with a definite style.

Karel moved on to seek to discredit a few commonly held myths. The first one is that writers should rush out and buy specific Screen Writing Software such as ‘Final Draft’. In the first place, there are plenty of free alternatives out there for Microsoft word templates, [KS: Celtx] etc. Primarily, it initially tempts you to write in scenes, when it is the story you first need to relate. Reading scripts to get the format right as a pre-requisite encourages the visualisation of scenes when first, you should be concentrating on the story. Try watching a movie, break it down and decode it yourself rather than reading or writing a script (story first, script last).

The next myth concerns language. Some writers love flowery prose. Question yourself as to whether your objective is to write something that only reads well, or do you wish to write a story of substance? Identify: where is the story? Do you have a character with a desire? Where is the conflict in the story? This, as your primary guideline becomes the focus of the storyline.

The next myth concerns Log Lines. (A Log Line is a brief summary of the film, often providing both a synopsis of the program’s plot, and an emotional “hook” to stimulate interest). Karel confessed for a long time that he believed that the Log Line was the last thing you wrote after the script and synopsis. He is now firmly convinced the opposite is true.

If you want to know more about the importance of Log Lines go to ‘The Unknown Screen Writer‘ and ‘Mystery Man on Film‘. These will help you to use correctly the Log Lines – a procedure the importance of which cannot be overestimated. These are the selling lines of your film which you must know before you start writing. Formulate a Log Line of: who is your character? What does the character want?- and- What is the obstacle(s) in his way? Try to compose your log line by writing it down as soon as possible as this keeps you in focus. That great idea that pops into your head during the writing! Does it fit into your Log Line? If not, put it aside because it has no place in your story. Keep it for your next script.

Karel then suggested that the biggest mistake people make in the attempt to sell their scripts is to dispatch them too early. Sending and then resending draft versions is the quickest way to ensure that the people reading the dispatched articles lose interest. By resending a newer, updated version of the script, you are admitting to the producer or director that you sent them a previous script that you well knew wasn’t ready.

Following on from that theme, Karel pointed out that formatting the script is not important until you have the story written. As Art Arthur said: ‘Don’t get it right, get it written!’ Once it is written in the final draft, THEN there are formatting rules to which you need to comply. It is then that those slug lines, script punctation and the absence of typos needs to be scrupulously addressed.

Karel noted that studies of the Australian Government Feature Film Funding have shown that only about 19 out of some 419 films actually made money. He impressively expressed the point that our essential requirement was to think about the market. Again, he reiterated the need for writers to understand and act on the principles espoused in “The Hero’s Journey”.

Despite the perception that both Germans and Australians possess an inherent hero phobia, explore the successful films in our own industry, and that, in itself, will disabuse any such notion.

At this point, Jeanie opened the floor to questions. These included ones concerning the cultural differences between countries when it came to making films. This, in turn, raised the topic of our anxiety of being commercially successful. Questions about breaking the rules for film structure returned a reply of: ‘how about mastering the ‘Rules‘ first BEFORE contemplating breaking them- not the other way around.

Tony concluded the evening by thanking Karel for his contribution. Karel spoke privately to people as they approached him and eventually the evening broke up, as actors, producers and director’s networks chatted on before being kindly ejected by the Bar Staff wishing to close. Some of us spilled out onto the sidewalks to continue our conversations till the passing night drew us to the consideration that we should be homeward bound.

Inevitably, though, once you have figured out your characters and their journeys, you are down to the daunting task of writing that next draft. You will be writing at the scene level, and a slightly different set of rules comes into play.

Suddenly the very particular way in which you organise and formulate your thoughts becomes crucially important, as your mastery of language, i.e. grammar and vocabulary.

From the most common mistakes I have found in my clients’ scene writing, I have deducted three particular qualities.These three qualities your screenplay MUST have if you want the discerning reader to continue reading all the way to THE END, if you want your script to stand up to the competition and have a chance of being produced.

In each and every scene of your screenplay, your writing must be:

1. Clear
2. Concise
3. Colourful

Let’s look at these primary qualities one by one, in order of decreasing priority:

CLARITY

It is of the utmost importance that what you want to show, is on the paper. Don’t leave anything essential to the interpretation of the reader, the actor, the director. If it has to be on the screen, even if you want it to be felt by the audience rather than seen, it still must be on the page and it must be undeniably clear in the mind of the reader.

If it is not going on the screen, it shouldn’t be in the script anyway.

Aesthetics are less important than clarity. If you can’t find an unobtrusive alternative to a long-winded description or dialogue phrase without causing confusion about the intention of the scene, leave it in.

CONCISENESS

An elegant screenplay moves fast. Clutter, both in action and dialogue slows down the reading experience and gives the impression of a slow moving film. Be brief, catchy, summarise as much as possible, but always without causing any confusion (see the first primary quality).

Using ‘lots of white’ is a crucial style tip, but this is only possible if you are able to condense the meaning of your scenes in only a few well-written sentences.

COLOUR

What Robert McKee calls ‘Vivid Action in the Now’, I believe is a successful combination of conciseness and colour. It is concise enough to move fast, yet colourful so it speaks directly to our imagination.

Film is a visual medium and therefore you can argue that it doesn’t necessarily matter how you express something, as long as we can imagine what the scene looks like. Although this sounds right in theory, the reality is slightly different.

People making decisions on film funding read many, many screenplays. If you make the reading a burden by using a defective, unimaginative style, this will have a negative impact on the reading experience and potentially on the assessment of your script.

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 >>

Aronson, Linda: Scriptwriting Updated, Allen & Unwin
Field, Syd: Screenplay, Dell Publishing
Gulino, Paul: Screenwriting: The Sequence Approach, Continuum
Hauge, Michael: Writing Screenplays That Sell, Harper Resource
Howard, David & Edward Mabley: The Tools of Screenwriting, St.Martin’s Griffin
Jeffrey, Tom: Film Business, Allen & Unwin
McKee, Robert: Story, Harper Collins
Miller, William: Screenwriting, Virgin Publishing
Seger, Linda: Making a Good Script Great, Samuel French Trade
Tierno, Michael: Aristotle’s Poetics for Screenwriters, Hyperion
Truffaut, Francois: Hitchcock, Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Vogler, Christopher: The Writer’s Journey, Michael Wiese Productions
Voytilla, Stuart: Myth and the Movies, Michael Wiese Productions

The screenwriting books in italics are available through mail order from www.filmtvbookshop.com.au as well as the following books or audio CD’s on screenwriting:

Screenwriters Bible, David Trottier
Save The Cat!, Blake Snyder
Save The Cat Goes to the Movies, Blake Snyder
Screenwriters Masterclass, Kevin Scott
Scenario, Tudor Gates
Screenplay Story Analysis, Asher Garfinkel
How To Adapt Anything Into A Screenplay, Richard Krevolin
Psychology For Screenwriters, William Indick
Screenwriting, Richard Walter
The Scriptselling Game, Kathie Fong Yoneda
Scriptwriting For The Screen, Charlie Moritz
Screenwriters Guide to Agents and Managers, John Scott Lewinski
Screenwriting Is Storytelling, Kate Wright
Perfect Screenplay, Katherine Atwell Herbert
Screenwriting For Dummies, Laura Schellhardt
Idiot’s Guide to Screenwriting, Skip Press
Adaptations, Denise Faithfull
Writing The Second Act, Michael Halperin
Writing The Short Film, Pat Cooper & Ken Dancyger
Writing The Killer Treatment, Michael Halperin
Top Shelf 1,Greg Haddrick
Writing Television Comedy, Jerry Rannow
Write To TV, Martie Cook
Writing The TV Drama Series, Pamela Douglas
Raindance Writers Lab, Elliot Grove
Story Audio CD, Robert McKee
Anatomy Of Story, John Truby

A more extensive list for those interested in myth and Hero’s Journey:

The Hero

Meanwhile, the Story Dept. has entered its third calendar year, offering workshops, one-on-one consultancy PLUS a Premium Version of this blog, exclusive to clients and
subscribers. The Hero’s Journey continues, the obsession grows.

THE HERO’S SECRET

eXistenZ, named after a fictitious virtual reality video game, was released around the same time as THE MATRIX; the timing having been an excuse for its poor performance. I was surprised to see Roger Ebert’s review not really giving us any critical assessment of the film; all he says is:“eXistenZ’ is likely to appeal especially to computer game players”. He probably means: “It sucked but I don’t know why.”

The film remains original and entertaining but I believe the end holds a crucial mistake as it turns out our heroes have been keeping a secret from us. This goes directly against a key principle of writing for the screen: a protagonist must share with us their knowledge and emotions.

In the Premium Edition (see also below) I will look at a few more examples of heroes who are ruining box office prospects by withholding information or being unreliable for other reasons.
THE WRITER’S SECRET

When I asked one of my most loyal clients for a testimonial, he refused. I was baffled. “Karel,” he said, “if you knew where the gold was buried, would you go and tell everyone?” At first I thought that was a lame excuse, but then I had no reason NOT to believe him. He is a film industry professional who always puts his money where his mouth is. He is continuing our collaboration throughout 2008. But I’m not allowed to tell anybody.

My Unknown Client says about the story theory I’m teaching and applying during my consultancies “it’s the film industry’s best kept secret.” In many ways, he is right. Despite the title of Robert McKee’s bestselling screenwriting manual ‘STORY’, he only dedicates a relatively brief section to the principles of story structure. Many screenwriting manuals do mention the three-act structure but forget to explain why it works and why it is successful. Without a proper foundation, the 3-act structure remains dead theory.

Some people say Australian film schools are gravely deficient in the area of structure and if I am to believe my clients, many AWG script assessors tend to barely brush over it, too. In an article in The Australian last week, Joan Sauers, Billy Stoneking and Duncan Thompson blamed Australian scripts. Again. And again they forgot to mention what William Goldman said: “Story is structure”

]]>