• Have You Read This Yet?

  • Structure: The Incredibles
  • A Grant Winner’s Praise and Gripes
  • Protected: Roy and the Mousetrap
  • Plot => Character (Rituals => Tribe)
  • Can’t get ME out of my mind.
  • Never, ever leave your vehicle.
  • Newsletter #27

• The Tag Dept.

  3-act structure act one adaptation character consultancy dialogue first draft format formatting happy ending hero's journey inciting incident kuleshov logline mckee michael hauge mid-point outline pitching pixar plot point point of view protagonist robert mckee scene screenplay screenplay structure screenwriter screenwriting script script editor selling sequence sequences slug line software step outline synopsis tag line turning point

• Is this web site too slow?

  The Story Dept. is hosted in Australia. If you're in the Southern hemisphere, you may want to browse the AU hosted version. It is updated more frequently and it may respond faster.

This blog started when a certain analysis of Michael Mann’s THE INSIDER sparked my frustration. Discussing BLADE RUNNER in a story workshop recently, I felt I was close to doing the exact same thing. To this date I don’t fully agree with her INSIDER analysis but Linda Aronson taught me this: to learn story, you will have to be ready to tear your favourite films apart.

REPLICANTS, SCREENWRITERS AND DOGSWhen last year the restored BLADE RUNNER screened in Sydney in all its 4k digital splendour, I was present at the Cremorne Orpheum, on the hunt for story weaknesses. It didn’t take me long. After fifteen minutes and thirty seconds, I put the scalpel aside and thoroughly enjoyed the rest of the film, i.e. Act Two and Three. (For Premium Subscribers, my brief analysis is here.)

This year the Coen brothers snatched the top Oscars despite issues with the ending of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. I won’t add to that discussion but if you would like to read some incisive thoughts, check out this article on the Mystery Man on Film blog.

Long before the Coen brothers won their first Oscar with FARGO, they had established themselves as favourites of the Cannes film festival with a Golden Palm for BARTON FINK. I have watched it a few times since and I still enjoy its Faustian slant, the flamboyant performances of Michael Lerner and John Goodman and the wonderful production design.

Why could BARTON FINK never appeal to a mainstream audience? It is about a screenwriter. But more importantly, the end of Act One makes a promise, then Act Two doesn’t deliver. Variety wrote at the time:

“After a little more than an hour, the pic is thrown in a wholly unexpected direction. There is a shocking murder, the presence of a mysterious box in Fink’s room, the revelation of another’s character’s sinister true identity, three more killings, a truly weird hotel fire and the humiliation of the writer after he believes he’s finally turned out a fine script.”

In essence there is nothing wrong with ‘a wholly unexpected direction’ but the problem is: no new promise is made. What do I mean by that?

The end of act one shows us what the protagonist’s objective is: Fink wants to write a screenplay. It promises a clear direction for the film. Once the murder is introduced, Fink doesn’t really have a clear objective and the story suffers from that. The film as a whole survives because of the exquisitely funny references to the real world of Hollywood in the 1940’s, the sensational performances, the amazing sound design etc.

Recently somebody mentioned WAG THE DOG (1997) to me, written by Hilary Henkin and David Mamet. In my memory, this movie was a hilarious touch of genius. Upon re-viewing, I was dumbfounded as not much of the exhilaration from ten years ago had survived for me.

Again, problemo numero uno: Hollywood behind the scenes. No matter how important we believe the workings of Hollywood are, no-one cares.

Secondly: no matter how clever, genuinely funny and genuinely TRUE the premise – don’t trust your president when he goes to war, the story is preaching to the converted. I don’t believe one single vote was gained or lost because of this film.

The core problems with this film lie on a pure story level. It seems Robert De Niro is the protagonist, his objective: fix a potential presidential scandal. Then we shift to Dustin Hoffman. His objective: stage a war. Soon, however, it appears neither are really facing any seemingly unsurmountable obstacles. Problems are solved as quickly as they arise.

Ultimately the film industry outsider is left with a self-indulgent, unsatisfying and uninvolving story. Mamet’s dialogue is brilliant but this is not the type of film I can watch more than once without an element of disappointment.

Whatever I may say about WAG THE DOG, the fans will rightfully point at the film’s respectable BO figures. Oh well. Star-power saved the dog.

PAGE RANK FOUR!

The Story Dept.’s Page Rank has gone up a full notch and I’m now in the company of such excellent PR4 blogs as The Unknown Screenwriter and the above mentioned Mystery Man on Film.

If you have the Google Tool Bar installed, you can see a white/green strip indicating the PageRank of the page you are visiting. It is usually located in the top middle of your page, under the address bar.

Last year, the world of SEO was turned on its head when millions of web sites saw their Page Rank drop. OZZYWOOD Films was one of the victims, sliding from a respectable Rank 4 to an okay 3.

In all fairness and humility, this web site may be on par for PR with Mystery Man and UNK, but no need to say yours truly will have a long way to go to deserve equal status with these boys.


THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS

Your second draft is the easiest of all. Why? Because the first draft is so bad each problem sticks out like a sore thumb. It is full of great ideas, but the execution stinks. To your editor/consultant it will be instantly obvious what needs fixing first. Hence, improving your story massively, immediately is actually a breeze.

On the other hand: the final draft is the hardest. Almost everything is as almost good as you can get it. Still, those few minor details that need fixing, jeopardise the entire rest of the script. Not only is it technically challenging, you aren’t quite sure which one is the right move. You can’t see the wood for the trees any longer.

Worst of all: after a long development you are so worn out you may be sick of this script and want to move on. You will need all the support and encouragement you can get, from your producer, your editor, your mum and dad (or wife and kids).

To move from draft one to two, it really takes only basic to intermediate skills. To move from draft eleven to twelve, it takes tremendous craftsmanship, talent and arduous persistence. Early on you will get heaps of great tips and advice from your story/script editor; towards the final draft more and more decisions will be yours: here is where your instinct comes into play.The comforting factor: it is often no longer a matter of working or not working, but of good or great. At this stage, you might have also shown the script to a few industry people, who should be encouraging you to run the last mile.

NEXT POST

With Michael Hauge’s Australia tour in May, I’ll be publishing a podcast and interview transcription, in conjunction with Inscription.

Also:
- Movie structure breakdowns (Premium)
- RATATOUILLE’s deleted scene
- Why the ‘3 Act Structure’?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

TBA August 2009 – 9:30am-5:30pm – CSGPN Training Room
Level 1, 158 Liverpool Rd, ASHFIELD NSW 2131
Contact: 0407 955 555 – karel@ozzywood.com

“Structure is everything.”
-William Goldman

WHAT YOU WILL LEARN:
This one day intensive and entertaining workshop teaches the difference between stories and scripts with screen potential and those that are just a fun read. Do you really know what the ‘3-act-structure’ stands for? Why has drama never worked without a solid structure? What could save your screenplay, that the story gurus have overlooked? The workshop is packed with insights and clips from recent and classic movies plus references from the most influential screenwriting books.

Click here to book now and save 20%

BACKGROUND:

The great careers in our industry are not built on volume of work but rather an informed choice of projects. To make it in movies, it is not enough to be able to read and write imaginative scripts. To connect with an audience, you need to know what lies under the surface and learn the skills to shape the story. This applies equally to writers, directors, actors and even producers.

A recent report revealed that Australian filmmakers are NOT disadvantaged in our home market. We CAN take our fair share of the almost one billion dollars spent annually at our box office – provided we care about our audience. The workshop was designed to teach you how audiences experience stories on the screen. This knowledge will empower you to make decisions that will not only help your current project but your entire career.

ESSENTIAL FOR FILMMAKERS:
Without the knowledge and skills taught in this course, filmmakers stand a better chance of winning the lottery than making it big in movies. Story structure is not just another aspect of screenwriting. It is the stuff that makes or breaks movie careers.

Combine courses and save up to 25%

INTENDED AUDIENCE:

Screenwriters – How to turn your idea into a story for the screen? How to go from an early draft to a winning script?
Actors – Which projects are worth fighting for, particularly if you are working for cheap/free? Does your part support the story – or will it be cut?
Producers & Directors – Where lies the heart of your project? How to select unique projects with commercial potential? How to structure your story to entice investors?

THE LOCATION:
The CSGPN Training Room in Ashfield.
By car from the city: take Parramatta Rd and turn left into Ashfield. CSGPN is 800ms further on your left, on the corner next to Blockbusters.
By train from Central: 15mins on the train, then a short 3mins walk. Ample parking available.
Here are more detailed directions.

COURSE FEE:
- $165: handouts, coffee/tea, script software, 3 months Premium Ed.
- $132: concessions % early bird (payment received 2 weeks before event).
- $99: for students (call or email to check eligibility first)

Registrations are strictly limited to 20 participants. Click here to receive registration information via email.

Student? Click here for your 40% discount!

ABOUT THE TUTOR:
Executive Producer and Story Analyst Karel Segers, a Licentiate of Germanic Philology (University of Louvain, Belgium) has produced three short dramas and co-produced a documentary and two feature films. As an EP, Karel has facilitated project funding from both government and private investors. Over the past few years he has consulted to award-winning writers, directors and producers on films in development as well as post-production. His views are published in The Story Dept., the undisputed #1 blog on screenwriting in Australia. Both nominees for the 2007 AWG Monte Miller Award were Karel’s clients.

WHAT OTHERS SAY:
“Karel Segers brilliantly conveys the best of what is currently understood about effective story telling for the cinema. His method of teaching is highly responsive, vividly supported by carefully selected visuals, and, best of all, witty and memorable.”
-Ron Cobb
Concept Artist, Writer, Director

“I attended a course of Karel’s in 2007 and two years later the details of what I learned have stayed with me. I catch myself automatically observing films and reading books using the critical tools I learned from Karel, and most importantly – how a story could be improved.”
-Marcus Amann
Professional Writer

“I enjoyed the day enormously and thought you were just wonderful. My knowledge and understanding of films was expanded enormously, and many things I understood instinctively but had never heard articulated about the art of storytelling were nailed firmly in place.
It was fantastic!”
-Kate Forsyth
Best-selling Author ‘Witches of Eileanan’

“Karel is the new breed of Teachers who not only conveys the technicality so effortlessly, but makes you want to write your story. He is passionate, focused and he knows his stuff. Karel you Rock, dude!”
-Gerard John
Producer / Entrepreneur

“I came to you with a bunch of scenes in the hope of finding a story and when I look back I’m still surprised at how far we have come. Now the script has won the 2007 Monte Miller award. Thanks again Karel.”
-Nathan Fielding
Winner 2007 AWG Monte Miller Award

“He never gets distracted with the little stuff that tends to fix itself when the important parts are working harmoniously. Karel is a rare beast amongst story consultants – a film literate and long-standing aficionado of many film genres. I hold Karel in very high regard.”
-Kieran Galvin
Film Director / Screenwriter

“Karel is my go-to guy for Script Development and/or assessment. He has a unique insight into the process and any projects I bring him are always infinitely improved by the time we have finished. His grasp of story and structure is second to none. I have recommended his services to several colleagues in the past, all of whom have been very satisfied with the results.”
- Michael Favelle
International Sales Agent
Top 10 Person to Watch in 2009

“Karel Segers is Australia’s Robert McKee”
– Stephen J De Jager
Creative Director, Roadshow Entertainment

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

While you were out celebrating New Year’s Eve, I was watching David Cronenberg’s eXistenZ on DVD. Not that I’m such a pathetic hermit; it was just my wife’s fun idea of closing the Old Year. She admitted afterwards she might have been wrong. Missing the Sydney Fireworks and all that.

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”