The Story Department

www.TheStoryDepartment.com

2009-03-10T00:19:00.005+11:00

That's where the good stuff is happening these days.

And a lot of it, too.

Karel

The Social Department

2009-02-02T22:58:00.016+11:00

Finally caught up on some movies without guilt about sitting in a theatre, eating popcorn & having fun. Hey, it's my job! The tail of 2008 felt as the second act in a good screenplay: fun & games, midpoint, ordeal and reward. January started off like a good Third Act. Fast, furious, promising.

The Story Department is booming and I am now helping more filmmakers than ever before. I am proud to have my first Pro Pack Elite client: Writer/director Haifaa Al Mansour is the only female film director from Saudi Arabia, one of the country's best-known and most controversial directors. With her I will be working on her screenplay WAJDA (working title), which secured a place in the Berlinale Talent Campus at the Berlin Film Festival.

FLASHBACK TO 2008

This is a montage-style, birds eye overview of last year and I'm definitely leaving out hugely important stuff. Some of it is not your business anyway! (LOL)

FUNDING AND OTHER SUCCESSES: Early in the year, two of my clients were awarded AFC Development funding. The one client who had 'defected' to Michael Hauge was not so lucky (LOL). Speaking of Michael: in May, a handful of other clients joined me in the 5-day inspirational Michael Hauge development workshop organised by Inscription. Thank you Marcus West for making this possible!

PRODUCTIONS: In 2008 I completed two screen productions: Rodney March's fabulous animation TIN CAN HEART (a 'mini Wall-E', which we completed just before the release of the Pixar feature) and a documentary interview with legendary Hollywood designer and fellow Sydneysider Ron Cobb. The latter was commissioned by the CREATIVE MASTERS FORUM, where I hosted discussions with Ron Cobb and top cinematographer Don McAlpine.

THE SPRING SEMINARS - I'm missing Miritana, Antonio, Mellanie, Jacob, Daniel, Mark, Nicole, Ron, Michelle, Ngaire, Carlo, Sharon, Linda, Vee, Susanne, Thomas, Nick, Pam, etc., all participants of the Spring Seminars. Sign up now for Premium membership for $89 and receive an early bird discount code that won't expire in 2009.

THE GREAT DEBATE - In a stroke of insanity, I accepted Billy Marshall Stoneking's challenge to go head-to-head on Structure vs. Character in The Great Debate. Billy did his trademark performance and I focused on the learnable craft skills. The debate re-focused my thinking: as Jack Feldstein concurs, structure is indeed a more manageable and tangible approach.

WORDCAMP AUSTRALIA - If you were at the Great Debate wondering about the "W" pin on my shirt: I was not supporting the ex-US President; this is the WordPress logo. I recently held a 'lightening talk' at WordCamp Australia (Photo's: http://ma.tt). WordPress is the powerful open source technology behind my blog and I love it. Thank you WP!

SPONSORSHIPS - The Story Department was a proud sponsor of the Stinkwater Film Festival, the WIFT Mentorship Program and the AZA film festival in Greece. Check out this little making-of clip in which the Story Department's parent company OZZYWOOD Films features (with its a slightly distorted logo).

Finally, a big thank you to the interns who helped me throughout the year: Lauren, Susanne, Yvonne, Iona and Tanya.

THE PROMISE OF 2009

In the introduction I bragged a bit. Now, here's some stuff you might actually benefit from:

GUEST BLOGGERS - Jack Feldstein has written a bitterly funny four-part series about the psychology of the screenwriter. Some of it can be extrapolated to filmmakers in general, I think. Not sure if that's a good thing... I have a whishlist of some other people I respect in the industry and who I'm hoping are willing to contribute to the blog. Feel free to suggest someone from the screenwriting or filmmaking community you would like me to grill on story for the screen.

NEW YEAR'S BONUS - All existing Premium Subscribers will receive a free extension of their membership until 31 December 2009. For some this means an extension with more than half a year. And for new subscribers I am offering the Valentine Special of 50% discount, ending on 14 February. All subscribers will also enjoy a never expiring Early Bird rate for all workshops and seminars I organise throughout 2009.

STORY WORKSHOP - Join me for the first story workshop of the year! At this point, with more than two weeks left to go, we have no less than 29 confirmed guests at my scriptwriting workshop on 21 February at the Rex Centre. So hurry to secure your seat! It will be the largest workshop I've ever conducted and yes: I may be nervous! The event is organised by Ana Tiwary and her team at the WIFT NSW's Media Mentorship for Women. The workshop will kick off a new series of seminars and workshops about such topics as essential screen story, hero's journey, adaptation and script perfection.

Welcome to this year's interns: Cleo, Ursula, Marian, Francesca and Margit. I also look forward to mentoring Nicole Tanzabel through the WIFT MMW program.

ONLINE BUTTERFLIES

GET CONNECTED - Have you noticed I moved from Outlook to Gmail? It happened when the following icons appeared in my signature: . If you have accounts with LinkedIn, Facebook, Blogger, Twitter or Plaxo, it would be great to connect. Just click on them (sign up if you need/wish) and add me as a contact.TWITTER - Of the social network media family, Twitter seems to be the fastest growing sprout. I like the 140 character limitation of the messages. Can you fit the logline for your film in a tweet? Perhaps you should work on that.

TSD BLOG AND GROUP - On the Story Department Group on Facebook you can socialise, discuss and learn. With the closing of the AWG Bulletin Board, this might be an alternative. Go to Facebook and bookmark the page. I have started a discussion looking for the last truly great Australien Movie. Keen to hear which movie you remember to fall in that category...

I LIKE AUSTRALIA

My way of celebrating Australia Day was to get my blogs back up-to-date.

And to review Australia.

It now looks like the film has done pretty good business in Australia and overseas, not in the US. Unfortunately the latter is the market where the film should have recouped its investment, so the other territories could help going into profit.

America is still all about 'opening' (i.e.: making the money in the opening weekend), while at home the film has had the opportunity to grow. I would imagine Fox has an arrangement with the exhibitors to keep the film on for a minimum number of weeks at a minimum number of screenings per day.

I went to see it in its fourth week and the theatre was full. Although I liked it, Australia wasn't by far my favourite film of 2008. This honour probably went to Iron Man, which I preferred over The Dark Knight (although the latter did deserve some oscar nods). But I missed a few big ones last year.

So yes, I worked on 26 January. I will celebrate Australia Day on 25 September, the day I invaded Australia back in 2001.

Karel Segers

Creative Master Ron Cobb

2008-10-14T12:19:00.009+11:00

Did you know the story at the basis of what later became E.T. started with a pitch to Spielberg at a Paris hotel? On Friday I was sitting opposite the very man who pitched to Spielberg back in the late seventies. I listened to that same pitch. One of those moments you don't lightly forget...

The man sitting opposite me (and Spielberg) was Ron Cobb, who worked in a completely different capacity on other movies such as Alien, Back to the Future, The Abyss and Southland Tales (the last movie by Donnie Darko director Richard Kelly). Next week, Ron will be at the AFTRS Sydney screening theatre for the first Creative Masters Forum.

Now, why am I telling you all this? (prepare for the shameless plug)

Because I produced a documentary interview with Ron and I'll be hosting two sessions at the Creative Masters Forum, which is all about Ron's life and work. Legendary Australian cinematographer Don McAlpine will also be part of one of the sessions and I'll be talking with Rod March, co-writer and director of my latest 3D animation TIN CAN HEART. This film will have its world premiere on the launch night of the conference.

If you like the sound of all this, but your focus is more on writing and less on the design side of movies, here is an offer you cannot refuse:

Book the four Story Dept. Spring Seminars at full price now, and attend the Creative Masters Forum with Ron Cobb at no additional cost. This is a bonus valued at $990.

Details are below.

If it's not for you, please pass it on to your scifi geek friend.

www.creativemastersforum.com

EXCLUSIVE OFFER

Join us for the first Creative Masters Forum (www.creativemastersforum.com), on Tuesday 21 October at the new AFTRS Sydney screening theatre in the Entertainment Quarter.

The day focuses on the legendary writer, designer, concept artist Ron Cobb and among the forum participants are other Australian masters such as cinematographer Don McAlpine.

Ron will be talking about his life and career and answering questions during two public sessions, hosted by myself (Karel Segers). I also produced a feature interview documentary on Ron of which all delegates will receive a copy.

DOUBLE TICKET
This week only, The Creative Masters Forum and The Story Dept. are offering an exclusive double ticket. For $660 you will be able to attend the full day conference plus the four Story Department Spring seminars. This package is valued at $1,550 if booked individually.

ABOUT RON COBB
As a writer, Ron wrote an episode of THE TWILIGHT ZONE and he sold an idea to Steven Spielberg that later became E.T.. He directed the 1992 feature film GARBO.

But Ron is best known for his art, which has had a profound influence on modern popular culture through his work with the likes of Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Ridley Scott & Jim Cameron. His artistic talents have been commissioned by these iconic directors to assist them developing their vision from concept to creation, and ultimately to the big screen.

Ron Cobb's screen credits include ALIEN, CONAN THE BARBARIAN, RAIDERS OF THE LAST ARK, BACK TO THE FUTURE, ALIENS, THE ABYSS and many other classic science fiction movies.

OFFER DETAILS
Details of the conference are here: http://www.creativemastersforum.com.
Details of the screenwriting seminars are here: http://storydr.com/story-sydney
Book the seminars before Sunday 19/10 and get the double package (value £$1,550) for only $660.

BOOKINGS:
Phone: +61 (0)407 955 555
Email: karel@ozzywood.com
Web: www.storydr.com

What Do You Want?

2008-08-24T22:26:00.023+10:00

"No, you can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
And if you try sometime you find
You get what you need."
(M.Jagger/K.Richards)

These lines by the Stones have been quoted to me often enough to make a mention on this blog.

In the context of a character's journey, there often is a clear difference between what the character wants and what it needs.

The 'want' is also referred to as the 'visible goal', or the Outer Journey. It is often lacking in arthouse films or films with a so-called 'passive protagonist'.

The 'need' is the inner counterpart, the Inner Journey. It is about the weakness that needs to be overcome, the subconscious desire for a character quality or a type of behaviour that will make the character stronger, more complete.

In Jaws, the conscious desire of Chief Brody is to protect the people of Amity. His need or subconscious desire is to deal with the cause of a problem rather than its symptoms.

In many great movies, the conscious goal cannot be achieved without first achieving the subconscious goal. In Jaws, Brody cannot adequately protect Amity without killing the shark.

Finally, and additional to the 'want' and the 'need', Chief Brody also has a half-conscious longing: to make a difference.

Martin Brody moved with his family from New York to Amity because in the Big Apple he was a nobody. He wasn't equipped to make a difference because of the magnitude of the issues the police corps was facing. So he moved to a peaceful little island community where unlike in New York "one man can make a difference".

Brody hadn't foreseen the obstacles in his new environment: an idiot mayor, his own fear of water and his reluctance to deal with the heart of the matter.

His failure to deal with the cause of a problem is evidenced at two crucial moments in the story.

In the first scene Brody's son appears in the kitchen with a bleeding hand and he tells him not to play on the swings any more until he has fixed them.

At the mid point of the story, just before he ventures out into the sea, Brody warns his wife not to use the fireplace in the den while he is away.

In both instances, the Chief was aware of the problem. Still he hadn't fixed it.

Rather than protecting his family by dealing with the cause of each problem, he tells them to just avoid the dangers.

In the same way, in the first half of Jaws, Brody tries to close the beach, rather than go out and kill the shark.

Brody's WANT is to protect the people. His NEED is to deal with the cause of the problem. Only then can he make a difference and fulfill his longing.

(Check out this structural overview of Jaws)

Mick Jagger was obviously not thinking about movie characters.

We all have 'wants' and 'needs' and interestingly we usually attribute a higher value to the visible goals than to what we really need. Because we don't always realise what it is we need.

Sometimes we tell ourselves we really want something, although we may not need it at all.

The first thing many screenwriters want is not a great story. It is not even a great script. What they want is Final Draft, the screenwriting software. Because that will make them a screenwriter.

Recently I decided last minute not to deliver a workshop in the way I had planned because it was not enough of what they needed.

It was an honest choice because I genuinely want my students to succeed. But from their feedback I learned that teaching also has a commercial reality and if you don't give students what they want to only give them what they need, you go out of business.

The revised workshop was 200% more constructive, practical, relevant to the job and providing a better skills set. Yet one screenwriter was profoundly unhappy, even without knowing the new course content, simply because she was not getting what she wanted.

The others were initially reluctant to the course's new direction also. Afterwards all but one agreed what they had received was of greater value than what had been promised.

"If you try sometime you find
You get what you need."

This Sunday 31 August I'm teaching exactly what you both want AND need: The Hero's Journey.

On Saturday 13 September writers have the opportunity to stay in Sydney and pitch to Hollywood.

Funny Games Over

2008-06-30T19:00:00.004+10:00

In a really eerie twist of fate, four days after my article on Funny Games, co-producer Tartan Films has closed shop. If you didn't believe me when I wrote that arthouse is dead, the staggering facts are now staring you in the face. Not that I am wallowing in this news; I have greatly admired the vision and business of Hamish McAlpine, ever since I met with him in the late nineties.

Apparently the losses on Funny Games were the final straw, suffocating Tartan to the point first the US branch closed, then the company went into administration.

It is sad that a company that had been fighting, at times very successfully, to bring groundbreaking cinema to its specialist audience, is now punished for just doing that.

In the worst case scenario, this could be really bad news for film lovers in the UK and the US. It often happens in situations of bankruptcy that film rights end up in a no-mans-land.

I am not an expert but I understand that creditors sometimes exercise power over what happens to the assets of the company in trouble. Here, the assets are movie rights and if a dispute arises between creditors, rights can be broken up, requiring the approval of several parties before they can be exploited.

In the worst case, a situation arises in which it just becomes too complex - and too expensive - to allow the film in the market again, sometimes for a long, long time. And fans may have to wait for years before their favourite title is available again in cinemas, on disk, on TV.

Even in those cases where the rights simply revert back to the original rights holders, it is not always in the interest of the film(s). Often those rights holders just don't have the passion of someone like Hamish McAlpine who would move heaven and earth to get a movie out to the audience.

As we have seen happening this time again, investing in getting these films 1) made and 2) released can be an expensive exercise.

An Artful Preacher

2008-06-26T22:41:00.013+10:00

On the fabulous www.horrorphile.net you can read a review of Michael Haneke's 2007 remake of his FUNNY GAMES. Very much like reviewer Bryn, I realised I had changed since I saw the original 1997 version at the Ghent International Film Festival premiere screening (For that occasion I interviewed actress Susanne Lothar afterwards in front of the bewildered festival audience.)

I was mesmerised by the 1997 original and thought it was one of the most intelligent and though-provoking movies I'd ever seen.

Today - without having seen the remake - my thinking about movies is very different.

I'm entering dangerous territory here as Michael Haneke has a solid reputation as an intellectual and an artist.

If FUNNY GAMES is to be seen as a statement against a certain type of violence in movies, I assume Haneke would prefer to see the world without it. As an artist and intellectual, did he search for a way to do something about it? I guess the answer is that artists shouldn't provide solutions. They just flag the problem.

However, just because he is using the medium that has caused the problem in the first place, there is an opportunity to address the very target group involved in creating and perpetuating the problem. The first step could be to create awareness of the issue with an audience that can make a difference.

But the audience of Haneke's type of cinema is not that. They're already converted.

When you want to make a critical or philosophical statement, it works better to respect the rules and principles of the format you do this in. In a way THE SIMPSONS has always done this perfectly. To a degree Michael Moore understands this, too. George Carlin did.

In any case it goes against reason to make a statement about society in a specific format - here: cinema - and then break the rules of that format. Essentially this is what the story of FUNNY GAMES does: it directs itself to a cinema audience, then tells them they're idiots for wanting the resolution they expect. Not a good way to get a point across.

Possibly even more so if that audience is American.

Recently I have been referring to the movie PRINCESS as an example of a sharp cinematic statement about a dark aspect of our society. The movie does this using the conventions of cinema narrative and it succeeds in a frightening way. It doesn't shock by leaving us confused, but by addressing the issue head-on using a story structure we are all familiar with. The filmmaker has used all his intellectual and artistic powers to create an incisive document that makes a point without frustrating the audience that is willing to listen.

When you make a movie, you enter in some sort of agreement with your prospect audience, promising them you are going to tell them a story. That could be any sort of story with any sort of characters about any sort of subject. What it can NOT offer is just any sort of narrative structure.

You may argue that Haneke didn't just use 'any sort of structure' but one that was deliberately designed to make a point about genre cliches.

When you destroy a cliche, you need to offer an alternative. Haneke leaves a void. This void causes the audience to be shocked and confused, wondering about the point of the entire exercise.

When Alfred Hitchcock killed Janet Leigh's character in PSYCHO, he didn't just end the movie there. He took the audience to a new place by bending the rules and creating a story to fill the void left by Leigh and the film became a classic. Not just a cult classic.

All storytelling has its own emotional logic. To deliberately frustrate an audience can be seen as arrogant and perverted, even an abuse of the storyteller's power. How much of a point would I make by interrupting my son's bedtime story just before the happy ending, switching on the bright bedroom lights, and with the radio at high volume?

In all cultures, stories fulfill an emotional and psychological need. Filmmakers who deny an audience this fulfillment by turning what is inherently an emotional format into an intellectual one, may not be working in the most suitable medium. Perhaps, instead, they should write books, give lectures, go into politics.

When ten years ago I watched the original FUNNY GAMES, I didn't realise the film was preaching to the converted because I was a convert myself. I watched it on an intellectual level and enjoyed its brain tease.

But doesn't this preaching to the converted really defeat the purpose?

And forgive my preaching here, but if Haneke is really the artist he is claimed to be, why then would he ten years after FUNNY GAMES make the exact same movie again? Shouldn't he be doing other, newer, bolder things? Shouldn't the artist reflect the changing times?

Surely over the past ten years cinema has changed. Audiences have changed.

I certainly have.

Who Are You Gonna Call?

2008-06-23T23:53:00.003+10:00

Whether you are a producer, writer or director, sooner or later your project needs the advice of an expert. Movies cost millions. Their development is much like the setup of a million-dollar business. So think of the expert as a business coach. Major decisions will indirectly impact on your business' bottom line. Any advice leading to those decisions will in some way or other contribute to the success or failure of your project, your slate, your career.

It all starts with that first draft.

You give it to a friend, because your friend likes you enough to sacrifice a couple of hours and help your future Hollywood career.

But unless that friend is a pro, how can you expect expert advise? Your friend may have never read a single screenplay, produced or unproduced.

McKee says: don't ask your friends to read your script, but to listen to your story summary, told over a coffee. Ten minutes, no more.

So how is that going to help you?

I'm not sure your friend will distinguish a wonderfully told screen story with engaging characters from something that is wildly imaginitive but plain wrong for the screen.

If your friend doesn't work in a creative position in the industry, will you get reliable career advise? I think not.

Honest advise you may get from a producer or an agent, even an experienced fellow writer. These people's businesses rely on stories that sell. You might ask a director or actor for their opinion, but - with all due respect - it will be less reliable.

If no working professional sacrifices their time to further your aspirations, don't despair. There is an army of script editors, screenplay consultants, story analysts etc. out there to help you.

Whether you like it or not, you are going to pay them.

DO YOU TRUST THIS PERSON?

If you are a first-time writer, you will need input on more than one draft and over the course of many months until your script is ready to go into the world and compete with already established writers.

If you are serious about breaking in and earning a buck, think hard about who you are giving your money to. Good advice can be costly.

But cheap advice can be far more costly.

Too many screenwriters make life-changing decisions based on advice given by their friends, peers or so-called experts. Because people are writers themselves or have web sites advertising their services, they are not necessarily qualified to decide over your future.

The type of collaboration you are entering into is so crucially important, you really need to do your research. Here are a number of questions to consider before you make a decision. And when I speak of (script) editor, I mean 'story or script consultant' in the broader sense.

1. What is the editor's vision on screenwriting?

If you believe real characters don't change and your consultant insists that you must have a character transformation, you are effectively on a different wave length. Check out the consultants' web sites. Does it show their vision on story and script development? Or is it full of marketing speak, flowery promises about bringing out your voice, adding to the local culture etc.? Ultimately you want to become a successful writer, earn money and build a career.

2. What is the editor's vision on script development?

Is it a 'snapshot person'? An experienced reader, specialised merely in providing script notes and assessments? Or is the focus on getting your script from its current draft to something that can be marketed or produced? Does the consultant's approach dig to the core of the story or does it only fiddle with format and style on the surface?

3. What is the script editor's taste for movies?

If yours is an edgy sci-fi with elements of raw graphic violence, your money will be wasted on the king of romantic comedy. Can you find a set of favourite movies you both know? Does the consultant have taste that is broad enough for a true professional?

4. Does the editor differentiate between story and script?

Story deals with plot, which is how most audiences will refer to your film. Script deals with the detailed expression of story on the scene level. Writing script notes takes time but is relatively simple (I'll give you a whole list of tips & tricks for free). When you choose your consultant, be aware of these two areas of expertise.

5. Does the script editor speak your language?

If you talk about story like Syd Field, in Plot Point One and Plot Point Two, things may get complicated when your consultant prefers Crossing the First and Second Threshold. Conversely, if your editor doesn't believe in The Hero's Journey, you have a good reason for concern . A good consultant knows most if not all story theories and establish a terminology that fits your taste and beliefs.

6. Has the script editor published anything?

Does the web site give you more than fees and contact details? Is there a blog? Does it express the type of advice you expect? Are the views expressed on the blog or web site original? Can you find an insight you haven't found anywhere else before, which makes total sense? Or does it all read like a collection of cut-and-paste jobs from Robert McKee or - worse - other web sites?

7. Does the script editor share your passion?

If they care about the craft, it will transpire through their writing. If they are passionate, they will want you to succeed. If they love movies, they will know examples from both mainstream and specialty cinema. If they want you to succeed, they will quote from successful movies and reference the principles that made those movies great.

8. Is the script editor predominantly a writer?

Writers may be able to find creative solutions. On the other hand, if you are dealing with a consultant who is primarily an artist, the worldview of that writer may transpire through the advice. Writers by definition try to tell their own story. And some have trouble suppressing the artist inside in order to put the client before the art. Better to work with someone who has a broader understanding of the whole industry.

9. Do credits and testimonials give you confidence?

Do testimonials give evidence of a sharp, constructive and creative insight? Or just a 'nice person'? In fairness, editors can't (always) be blamed for the failure of films. But if you find a list of failed films, the message may not be the right one. If you want to write for the cinema and credits are biased towards television, you may want to look further.

10. Does the editor offer the service you require?

If you are working on an early draft, you need feedback on the story. It would be a waste of your money (and everybody's time) to get detailed script notes on style, formatting, dialogue etc. Different stages call for different types of advice. Does the consultant offer you these options? Or are all options skewed towards 'script notes'?

FORMER H'WOOD EXEC WILL GET YOU MOVIE DEAL!

Recently I have heard three stories first-hand from writers who had been given poor advice by 'senior American development people', 'produced writers', 'published screenwriting teachers' etc.

One writer believed she got the deal of the century when a former studio executive offered a Reader's Report for less than $150. When the report arrived, the excitement faded rapidly: a synopsis, a list of subjective character comments and 'apart from that, the story works fine.'

An other writer paid handsomely for a series of consultations with a respected author of screenwriting books. Although he ended up with a formally impressive draft, the writer soon realised the editor had not addressed an obvious, major structural weakness in the screenplay (as an experienced industry friend later revealed after a free reading of the script).

If someone works from LA, it doesn't mean they will give you better results. An emerging writer paid an established American script consultant top rates for several months. The script didn't even get shortlisted in a program for beginning screenwriters (in which two of the scripts I worked on received a big wad of development cash).

THREE KILOS OF FREE ADVICE

The first three readers brave enough to have (parts of) their synopsis published, I will offer a free Story Diagnosis. If you believe your synopsis is ready-to-go, I'll focus on the document's style and selling power.

Same for your script: send me the first fifteen pages of your screenplay. If you allow me to publish excerpts online, I will give you detailed scene feedback.

Please don't send any documents yet. Just send me an email to express interest and I'll get in touch about the next step.

Now, read the really small print below.

SOME REALLY SMALL PRINT

Isn't there a risk of my story being stolen?

Yes, there is.

It happens rarely but you can't eliminate the risk. That is why you need to register your screenplay first. I prefer you send me a synopsis of a draft you have already written and registered. Ideas cannot be protected. Screenplays can.

Alternatively, you can always send me something you had abandoned because it didn't work and you want to know why it didn't. In this case it's more about the learning experience than about getting that specific project up.

The Audience Shrinks

2008-06-03T10:40:00.023+10:00

CANBERRA 02/06/09 - The Dept. of Health and Ageing has allocated $35m to aspiring writers and Medicare will refund manuscript development costs since a report commissioned by Minister Roxon links creative writing with a balancing of the mind. Commenting on the controversial move, a department spokes person says: "Who cares if it bores audiences? It saves lives."(*)

NO BULK BILLING YET

Did or didn't you consider for a split-second the item might be real? There is some truth in the fact that first-timers often write auto-biographical material. And writing from the pain of your heart does work cathartically to a degree.

As a matter of fact, many successful writers' first screenplays remain the best of their careers, just because they are the most personal, vivid and direct, inspired and moving.

Why then, don't more writers succeed in getting their autobiographical screenplays financed and produced?

Because they care about their own catharsis, not the audience's.

The audience is now taking the place of the shrink. This system kind of sucks, because shrinks usually don't pay but get paid. And rather handsome amounts.

Still, there may be serious currency in self-analysis. All you need to do is tell your story in a language the audience understands.

The Greek tragedies we know were written around a character arc that would lead the audience through a journey towards change.

This journey would show them a mirror image of themselves and help them accept certain painful facts of life - and learn how to deal with them, how to become a better person, a stronger character.

The plays that stood the test of time were written for the audience's entertainment, not in spite of their catharsis but because of it. They were also meticulously structured.

When you want to transform a personal story for a large audience, you must take into account this need for structure and adapt the true facts to a work of dramatic fiction.

Writing a screenplay with autobiographical elements is in many ways just like adapting a biography for the screen.

(*) Yes it is fake and I will apologise if I must. But if you think this is tasteless link bait, my original heading was worse.

IRON MAN

Last month quite a few of my workshop students urged me to go see IRON MAN. I do like some mindless entertainment so now and then and I hadn't seen a good popcorn movie in a long time.

However, I was reluctant because superhero movies hardly ever offer interesting character journeys.

They are mostly just about someone trying to get a job done.

In my view, the superhero type of movies is even dangerous to aspiring filmmakers. Because it shows you don't need to create a great character to draw the masses.

Needless to say the whole argument about established franchises and billion dollar marketing is wasted on these inspired souls.

Saying that I was pleasantly surprised about IRON MAN is an understatement. I had a wonderful time: here was a totally entertaining film with a structure that didn't feel formulaic at all.(**)

With its double transformation, I wouldn't hesitate to call IRON MAN a character-driven screenplay.

Tony Stark first transforms from mindless war monger to mindless peace keeper, then his character grows from an immature, toy-obsessed playboy to an adult with clear focus and moral compass.

In a way it is the Spider-Man mantra revisited: "with great power comes great responsibility."

Too bad "IJ4" blew Tony out of the cinemas. It seems David Koepp could have learned a thing or two from IRON MAN.

(**) Although I suspect it has a clean Eight-Sequence structure. Watch the Premium Ed. for the analysis in the coming days.

The Third Digital

2008-05-16T23:59:00.011+10:00

My friend Michael Favelle is flying solo for the first time at the Cannes market. It will be a great experience, because he has a great film to sell. The entire line-up of Odin's Eye Ent. is pretty solid but the standout film is clearly BITTER AND TWISTED, for which the Americans fell in a big way earlier this month. It happened at De Niro's Tribeca film festival in New York. And even Michael Moore plays a role in the success story.

Flashback to August 2007.

Michael Favelle shows me BITTER AND TWISTED and I dig it. He knows this doesn't happen too often. The writing is dramatic and fresh, the direction shows a strong hand and the production design is splendid, showing a disciplined economy. The film stands out above anything I have recently seen. Days later I bump into Christopher Weekes, the writer/director/actor and I congratulate him on his amazing achievement.

Flash forward to late 2007.

I am writing a post-production plan for a feature with my fellow producer Brendan Sloane. The film is THE DINNER PARTY, competently written and directed by Scott Murden, an obvious talent from Canberra. Together with the creative team I find a way to improve the strength of the story on the basis of minimal pickups and one new major scene. It is a tremendous pleasure and we are all excited about the prospects.

Soon after, I learn B&T is competing in the same funding strand against THE DINNER PARTY. Bugger. We have a great project with a clear strategy for improvement but B&T is a monumental competitor.

When after weeks of uncertainty I hear we are selected and B&T isn't, I have mixed feelings about it.

Now, what has happened with THE DINNER PARTY since is another story and I won't go detail. What I can tell you, is that its completion is moving towards what is looking like a very happy ending.

I admit, up until this point, my story is pretty lame. Shit happens. Nobody is perfect. Judges make mistakes.

Flashback to September 2007 for the climax and resolution.

I am at the Odin's Eye offices. the atmosphere is gloomy. The funding agency doesn't agree with our excitement over B&W. The film has been rejected. Again. There is no money to complete post-production.

Before I get to the point, let me ask you this: how should a film at fine cut stage be judged? You watch it, right?

Wrong.

Believe it or not, but although the film was offered in a fine cut, the rejection was largely based on a reading of the screenplay.

Sorry, but what am I missing here???

To award that highest culinary distinction of a Michelin star, would the judge study the chef's recipe book?
To check the baby's health, does the doctor go back and screen dad's sperm and mum's egg?
In stead of visiting the Sistine chapel, would you rather stay outside and watch the pics in your Lonely Planet?

I mean, really... What planet do these people live on?

Here's the irony. While you were reading this article, Michael in Cannes has closed another deal and Christopher has been offered another movie to direct.

Let's wake up to the real world and learn to acknowledge and admit when stories are crap. But use reasonable standards and tools to judge films. Perhaps this will help revitalising an industry built upon egos, ignorance and one-hit-wonders.

After having let the above article rest for a while, I feel compelled to set one thing straight: over the past couple of years I have personally had completely positive experiences in dealing with government agencies. As a matter of fact, recent dealings have been wonderful and promising for the future of development. However this does in no way diminish my feelings about the above.

THE WELL. TREAT IT WELL

During the interview with Larry Jordan I mentioned one of my firm beliefs with regard to story development as an editor/consultant. What follows may be a tip for writers that are working closely with editors, producers, directors or just teams of co-writers.

Most early draft screenplays have one or more tentpole scenes that sooner or later will have to disappear. To an outsider this may be instantly obvious and it would be tempting to recommend the immediate removal of such scene(s).

This, however, is a perfect way to kill a complete story.

Over the years I have learned to understand that the excitement and inspiration of a writer to work on a story often springs from only a handful of scenes.

Some writers, even experienced filmmakers, are totally protective of those. For good reason.

Others have complete confidence in the advice of the consultant and will dispose of the scene at once. The development will stumble on, for a short or longer while. Ultimately the writer will lose interest in the story. The source of inspiration was plugged.

When this scene is not completely obstructing the flow of a story, I will recommend to 'leave it in for now'. If it is obviously of inferior quality or just plain wrong, I will ask the writer to 'park' it. Never delete, just put it aside "for later". Here is the one feature I really do like about Final Draft: the 'Omit Scene'. It just hides the scene. It really is still there, and you can always make it reappear if you feel so inclined.

Sometimes I refer to the story of Brian De Palma's repeated attempts to reference Eisenstein's Odessa Steps scene from BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN. It took him many years before he found a home for the scene: in THE UNTOUCHABLES.

Think twice before you excise.

WELCOME TO THE STORY DEPT. - PREMIUM ED.

The three winners of last months Premium giveaway are:

1. tefferm
2. rshaver
3. rclim24

To protect the winners from internet spam, I have hidden their full email addresses but after receipt of this newsletter they may expect an email with the login and password for the Premium site. This will remain valid for a full year. Congratulations!

I am encouraged to run the same competition again, only this time I am asking a little extra.

For my workshops and Premium Ed. web site, I am looking for case studies, synopses that I can review and possibly improve as an example of a story diagnosis. So, apart from entering your email address at the top left of this page, this time you will need to fulfill one more qualifying task to enter into the competition.

If you have a synopsis of an abandoned story idea, or a project in development that you would like to share publicly, email it to me and I may give it a detailed analysis on the blogsite. Your reward: one year free subscription to the Premium Ed. PLUS an improved draft of your synopsis.

Are you brave?

The three winners will get:
- Premium Articles direct to your email inbox
- The Story Dept. - Basic Edition (this newsletter)
- 15% off Options One and/or Two
- Discounted rates to selected workshops

(* The prize does NOT include the free Story Diagnosis. Or actually ... it might.)

If you are just interested in receiving news from The Story Dept. as and when I write it, have a look at the different subscription options. Most are free, only one is Premium.

Yada Yada Yada...

2008-04-30T18:02:00.005+10:00

Recently a friend recommended I should teach a course on screen dialogue. I found this surprising as I am not an expert on dialogue. I am not a native English speaker and I most certainly lack a deep knowledge of vocabulary.

My main reason for not jumping into dialogue workshops: I often read great dialogue, but I have never received one spec script where the structure couldn't be improved.

Structure is my shtick.

There is still so much to learn in this area, and you can't find it all in the books. I told my friend I have only scratched the surface and I'll turn my attention to a new area once story and structure have revealed all their secrets.

I mentioned this conversation to one of my most respected clients. He thought his use of dialogue had improved significantly through our development sessions. His script is certainly going the right direction: The coverage from a mini-major was thorough and contained genuine praise. Anyhow, it started me thinking about how I approach dialogue.

Because many writers love dialogue so much, I will stray from my path and share five principles. I am sure there are other, more important rules, but these are the ones that spring to mind. If you go against any of them, you need to have a very good reason.

About dialogue:
1. It should contribute to subtext more than plot.
2. Its semantics should be perfect, not organic or defective.
3. Its grammar SHOULD be organic and defective.
4. Its rhythm should support the scene's rhythm.
5. It can be reflective, not reflexive.

There is one more secret rule I love, which I only give away to my students and clients. It's about that one specific scene where you can - and must - break almost every rules.

Each of these techniques is a challenge in itself and you must develop a process to be aware of it during your own editing. Great dialogue doesn't usually flow naturally from your pen. It is laboured, crafted and endlessly polished.

That is why often at the very end of your development, when you are tantalisingly close to the final draft, you will need to do a thorough 'dialogue pass' and make sure every line and every word hits the mark.

Inexperienced screenwriters have great trouble judging whether their dialogue really works. This is because of their own tastes, education, movie influences etc. Another reason why they will always need a pro to do a final polish of your work before you send it out, even if the story works.

It can be tremendously helpful to workshop your lines with actors before committing to a shooting script. Beware: inexperienced actors will almost always favour dialogue over subtext.

Oh, and I fully agree with Robert McKee that often the line of dialogue the writer is most proud of, should be cut. Because Tarantino and Woody Allen get away with it, doesn't mean you should push your luck.

BREAK IT DOWN

Right after learning the principles of structure, it will be hard to apply them to your own work immediately.

Better is to consolidate your understanding by applying it to films you know, by watching them and identifying the key turning points.

A breakdown in scenes or plot points is an excellent start. To help you with this, I will regularly publish examples from different genres.

My structural overviews are hardly definitive. They are often different from the views of people I regard very highly. That doesn't make either of them 'wrong'. I don't believe in 'formula' and the main concern is to find a process that helps you creating and critiquing a structure so it has the best chance in the market place.

On the other hand, they can often be improved and I welcome your input.

Now, a lot of work goes into these structure articles and I want to reward my clients and Premium Subscribers, who pay for my time. Therefore, these overviews will only be accessible to non-paying readers for a limited period of time. During this time, you can copy it for your own use, not distribute it in any way or for any purpose without my written consent.

So far I have published five analyses:

Assault on Precinct 13 (Original Version)
Michael Clayton
Ghost World
Terminator 2
The Shawshank Redemption

The first two have gone Premium already, the remaining three will too, at the time of publication of my next post. But more will follow, so keep watching this space.

WILL READ FOR MONEY

I filled my shopping trolley with $489 worth of groceries and at checkout I said:

"I want all for free: soon I'll have a big family to feed and you'll make so much money, it is worth getting my business now!"

Guess what: it didn't work.

--- (deeeeeep breath - preparing for loooong whinge) ---

Every f***ing week people email me asking to read their work - FOR FREE. They all believe they have written the latest blockbuster, indie comedy, crime caper, romcom, etc. You name it.

And they all really - really - want me to spend half a day or a day of my precious time reading their shit rather than earning a living or spending time with my three-year old son Baxter.

Guys: this is my job.

Do you ever go into work in the morning and tell your boss:

"Hey listen, today I'm just doing you a favour, don't pay me. I love my job SO much!!"

With the persistence of leeches on steroids these people try to make me believe I am ruining my chances of becoming a billionnaire producer if I don't read their stuff.

Some keep coming back. Day after day. Week after week. Year after year.

Ever heard of the expression "pushing s*** uphill"?

Mostly I just try to make them see the light and sell my services, because without professional help they don't stand a chance of ever getting read.

But sometimes it just drives me plain mad.

If these writers had done their research on who I am, they would have known my views on screenwriting are pasted all over my three web sites. These sites have decent rankings and show up whenever you google my name.

Interestingly, the pattern is quite common:
1. First they send a sloppy synopsis, which;
2. I reject.
3. Then they tell me the script is better than the synopsis.
4. I kindly explain I don't work like that.
5. They insist I should read the 120p. script.
6. I reiterate what I have explained before, but offer to read on a consultancy basis.
7. They insist by repeating exactly what they have said before, only LOUDER.
8. Etc. etc. etc.

Sometimes I give in.

And guess what: in the rare cases I can free up time to read ten pages or so and give them free feedback, people get offended.

Only yesterday I received a highly insulting email in response to what was a polite, professional - free of cost - assessment of (part of) a screenplay. You're not prepared to lose? Well, don't play.

Which brings me to the following, more positive consideration:

I am very proud to say I am one of the very few consultants around the world who is completely transparent about their approach, their knowledge and their fees. You can read two years worth of articles on story and screenwriting in this blog, in which I am 100% open about my views on the craft.

But, you know what? Some of these people are just not interested in screenwriting. They just want some money to get their film made.

Apologies if I start to sound like a cranky old bastard. True, I am one. But I don't want to sound like one.

So:

THE GOOD NEWS

Currently I am working with six smart, dedicated writers with promising but unfinished stories. They have committed to regular consultancy sessions over a period of four months or longer. Yesterday an existing client signed up for the Intensive Pack.

More than a dozen return clients book regular Step Outline sessions and over the past two years, more than a hundred satisfied clients have paid for one or more services to improve their skills.

The Story Department - Premium Ed. has subscribers from both Australia's East and West Coast and from overseas.

The Story Workshops have been endorsed by Screen Development Australia, The ACT and NSW Writers Centres, The International Film College, and recently also the Australian Writers Guild, with whom I'm working on a workshop in South Australia.

If you have been considering joining a workshop or hiring my services, perhaps now is the time to get your project finally on the rails!

And more good news:

HAPPY BLOGDAY

The Story Department is now officially toilet-trained.

I have been crapping on about structure for a full two years now. No fad. Can you believe that even with 24 months, we haven't even made it into the average life span of Technorati's TOP 100 blogs?

Slowly the world is getting to know The Story Department:
- We are listed on Scribomatic (two places up from UNK).
- We are being interviewed by The Digital Production Buzz.
- We'll soon be interviewed on IF Magazine.

Also coinciding with the second birthday, there is a lot of news to be shared about the Premium Ed. too. Here we go:

- Australian readers can now enjoy much faster browsing and download speeds, thanks to the mirror site, hosted in Melbourne.

- Telephone consultations can now be recorded and made available to clients as mp3 downloads. No more frantic note-taking during our creative discussions.

- Top-level clients now receive a personal, password-protected web page with documents related to their projects.

PREMIUM GIVEAWAY

I am giving away a free one-year subscription(*) to the Story Department - Premium Ed. for the first three people who subscribe to this free blog.

Just enter your email address at the top right of this page. You'll receive an email each time a new post is added to this blog, which shouldn't be more often than once every week or two on average.

The three winners will get:

- Premium Articles direct to your email inbox
- The Story Dept. - Basic Edition (this newsletter)
- 15% off Options One and/or Two
- Discounted rates to selected workshops

(* The prize does NOT include the free Story Diagnosis)

Good luck!

Karel

It's Academic

2008-04-25T01:02:00.004+10:00

"What need is there to think of these events as having three acts? None."
-James Bonnet

Why the 'three-act' structure? Why not the 'three-part' structure? The 'five-act plan' or the 'ten-sequence' tale?

It's purely academic.

First there were stories. People studied them and found similarities in those that worked, elements that seemed to lack in those stories that didn't. To be able to talk about it, they gave those elements names.

It's that simple.

Aristotle talked about 'beginning, middle, end', or rather: beginning, complications and denouement. Theater has continued using this rough three-act structure.

In the late seventies, Syd Field built further on this and he designed 'the paradigm', a 'three-act structure' specific for movies.

Since then, many have studied the structure of films and refined that crude framework into something far more practical and sophisticated. Beyond Aristotle, but firmly grounded in the foundations he built.

The motivation to study the components of story - for me and many others - has always been partially a scientific curiosity into 'how stuff works'. The three-act structure has proven to be a handy tool.

But the other motivation has always been: money. A better understanding of how audience perception works, may result in a more successful approach to screenwriting. Good business for screenwriters and producers.

Plus: with hundreds of thousands of aspiring screenwriters around the world, there is business potential in selling your ideas to this group. Syd Field soon found out after the release of his book SCREENPLAY.

Those that came after him learned that merely re-hashing old models won't work; you will need to come up with an improvement of the existing theories. That's one reason why authors keep putting their own spin on the material.

On the other hand, we have to constantly update our understanding of story structure for the screen as audience expectation changes. Cinema goers and television viewers become more and more demanding.

Still, the whole damn thing is entirely conventional.

The only purpose is for you to find a way to improve your story. And by 'improve', we mean: increase the chances of reaching a wider audience, according to principles that can be learned.

McKee says something like: these principles don't say "You MUST do this." They say "IF you do this, then...". In other words, these principles have been empirically deducted from studying stories that work.

Scientific? Oh yes.

No-one cares whether you have three acts, eight sequences, twelve or one hundred and eighty-eight journey stages, as long as it works.

Why to speak of three acts? Because if you don't, and you still want to talk story, you'll have to come up with an entirely new system. And convince the rest of the world to use it.

If, like James Bonnet, you don't want to use the three-act structure, go for your life. You may well achieve the same - or even better - results. But when it comes to discussing your work with others, you may find yourself in a foreign country. And no-one speaks your language.

You may find it's a pretty lonely world out there.

Is Arthouse Dead?

2008-03-30T23:55:00.004+11:00

Yes. It is.

Look it up on Wikipedia or Answers.Com. "Arthouse" isn't even there. You'll find 'art film'. From that page it seems very much this is the type of film nobody wants to make any longer, let alone see.

One of the attributes of the term 'art film' is "noncommercial". Explain to me: if a film costs millions to make, how can you be 'noncommercial' about it?

Does it mean you are intending to make a loss? Or are you trying to only just make your money back? I would like someone to explain to me how you can make a business plan that aims to exactly return the film's cost. This is an illusion.

The term arthouse film dates back from the days when a relatively healthy number of people would flock to a type of movies (or rather: 'films') that would not necessarily be entertaining, but challenging and puzzling. Antonioni, Bunuel, Bresson, Tarkowski, Oshima etc. Every main street had its cinema and every cinema had its dedicated crowd of buffs.

ARTHOUSE vs. INDEPENDENT

Today, I feel some would-be filmmakers call their projects 'arthouse' if they ignore common-sense principles, they are making anti-cinema, they don't have a strong statement, they fear most people wouldn't want to see them. The term 'arthouse' today screams 'small audience', or worse: 'no audience'.

Arthouse at today's box office means 'foreign language film' or 'quirky subject matter'. Here are a few films I saw in independent theaters over the past year:
- BELLA, a colourful, life-affirming American indie film.
- THE LIVES OF OTHERS, Oscar(R)-winning drama.
- MICHAEL CLAYTON, drama starring George Clooney.
- JUNO, winner of the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.
I haven't seen AS IT IS IN HEAVEN yet, but does a movie that grosses $1m (in one theatre only) qualify for arthouse?

What these films have in common, and what arthouse didn't necessarily have twenty, thirty years ago: a traditional three-act story. Despite their independent flavour, they are definitely not arthouse as we used to know it.

The darkest film I have recently seen is PRINCESS, a revenge tale mixing anime and live action. Subject matter: pornography and child abuse. Darker? Anybody?? Still, the film was told in a traditional three act structure.

Even if you believe your film will appeal to intellectuals only, the discerning audience, you will need that conventional story structure. Because today, without it you have no audience.

JE SUIS UN ARTISTE!

Is there no more experimenting with form? Yes there is. But people don't want to see it any longer. The audience for experimental, avant-garde or non-narrative cinema has shrunk to such small numbers that if/when these experimental films still accidentally get out into the theaters, those theaters remain empty. Mostly they remain limited to film or art festivals.

If you consider yourself an artist, you should not be a filmmaker, dixit Christine Vachon, one of the most successful producers of independent American cinema. Films that have pushed the boundaries: Kids, Happiness, Boys Don't Cry, I'm Not There. She was recently quoted saying:

"Even a cheap movie costs a couple of milion bucks and if you are spending that just to be an artist, that seems rather indulgent."

When I set out to write this article, I googled the phrase "Is Arthouse Dead" and stumbled upon:

"Art house film distributor Andi Engel, dead"

I wasn't aware Andi had passed away. I had met him in London on a few occasions, less than ten years ago. His company Artificial Eye was the icon of British arthouse film distribution. Even then, the company was having a hard time. Despite the fact that they had the rights to virtually every classic arthouse film, for the entire UK, it was a struggle.

Andi died on Boxing Day last year and I believe true arthouse cinema had gone before him.

The bottom line for the independent filmmaker:

Your choice to make a movie for a discerning audience does not absolve you from the obligation to tell your story following a traditional three-act story.

Voila.

GET THE PICTURE

My friend San Fu Maltha, producer of Paul Verhoeven's BLACK BOOK, once asked me if I knew the total gross box office figures for Australia over the past year.

To my embarrassment, I didn't. Although San Fu works out of Amsterdam, he knew the numbers for Australia.

My attitude was symptomatic of many independent filmmakers, too focused on their own little films, not really working towards take a share of the money people spend every year. And that figure is - despite all the alleged doom and gloom - significant.

The AFC have just released the figures for 2007 and here are some highlights:

RELEASE OF AUSTRALIAN TITLES

Box office: In 2007 Australian-produced features accounted for a 4 per cent share ($36 million) of the Australian box office, a decrease from 4.6 per cent ($40 million) in 2006.

Top five titles in 2007: Happy Feet was again the top grossing Australian film in 2007, adding a further $20.7m to its $11.1m earned in 2006. Romulus, My Father followed ($2.6m) with Rogue ($1.8m), Bra Boys ($1.7m) and Razzle Dazzle: A Journey into Dance ($1.6m) rounding out the top five.

CINEMA INDUSTRY

Screens and theatres:The number of cinema screens in Australia has risen by 134 per cent between 1980 and 2007, from 829 to 1,941. Following several years of gradual growth, 2007 recorded the first fall in screen numbers since 1987, down 1 per cent on 2006.

Films screened: The vast majority (63 per cent) of films screened in Australian cinemas over the past 24 years have come from the US. However, in 2007 the US proportion was under 56 per cent for the third year in a row (172 out of a total of 317 films). Local titles comprised 8 per cent of films screened in 2007, just under the 24-year average of 9 per cent.

Box office: The gross box office rose to $895.4 million in 2007, a 3 per cent increase from $866.6 million in 2006. Admission numbers also rose in 2007 to 84.7 million. Films released through Roadshow/Warner Bros earned the largest share of the Australian box office in 2007 – 24 per cent, up from 20 per cent the previous year – with gross takings of $212 million.

Top films: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was the highest grossing film at the Australian box office in 2007 with earnings of $35,527,464, followed by Shrek The Third, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, The Simpsons Movie and Transformers. Happy Feet ranked eighth.

Australians spent nearly $900m at the box office. Nine hundred million dollars. That's a nice chunk of change. Can we please have a small share of that?

Easy.

Stop making arthouse films.

PUT YOUR SCRIPT DOWN

At the end of my workshops, I send my students home with the message: "Don't try this at home. Yet."

It is hard to apply the material of a course or seminar to your own work. At least immediately after the course. How do I know? Four of my clients took a course (NOT any of mine) that was dealing very specifically with the issues they were facing in their scripts. Right after the course, not one was able to address those issues successfully.

I am a bit wary of courses, seminars and workshops that deal directly with a writer's work. Too often, even if you point at the specific scenes, the students may not see it. Let's face it, the work of inexperienced writers is hardly ever a good benchmark to learn the craft. And it is impossible to see weaknesses if you don't have a frame of reference.

When it comes to story structure, you need to become completely familiar with the major story points before you can even look at your own work. Identifying an Inciting Incident or Crisis scene immediately after learning about it, is virtually impossible. This may sound bizarre and almost unbelievable, but it is a fact.

The only way to quickly sharpen your mind and critically look at stories, is to systematically view and analyse films. This is how I have learned much of what I now know. Watch a movie, preferably one you know well, summarise and note down the DVD timing for each plot point.

Only then, after acquiring a natural feel for a story's core beats, can you return to your own work and analyse it. Only then will you have the competence and authority to not only identify the main plot points but also critically assess them.

As promised, I have started to publish some structural overviews of films on The Story Dept. - Premium Ed.. Recently I analysed the first act of BLADE RUNNER. Meanwhile I have added the full three-act structure of ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 and MICHAEL CLAYTON (all links are for Premium Readers only, make sure you log in first.

This is not an exact science and we may disagree. Hell, I know I make mistakes. But the main thing is: the exercise of breaking down a story in its primary plot points helps you to understand how to shape and propel the drama.

Exciting Coincidence

2008-03-07T21:54:00.032+11:00

"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.

For these three, 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.

Exciting coincidence? Or does it mean that EACH TIME a protagonist incites the story, we have a down ending? Probably not. Perhaps the readers of this blog have a slight predilection for somber movies. ;)

Anyhow, I found the examples you sent to me striking.

More exceptions to the "event-not-action" rule:
- 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...

WHERE ARE YOU GOING? YOU AND YOUR HERO?

It has been the core of my consultancy and teaching: the protagonist needs a clear and present desire.

Nothing new, though, Michael Hauge has been teaching this for much longer. In the context of Michael's visit to Australia in two months, I interviewed him and the full text will soon be available to my clients and for subscribers of The Story Dept. Here's an excerpt:

Karel: Two problems I often find in screenplays by inexperienced writers are 1) the choice of protagonist and 2) the key qualities of the protagonist. Would you mind giving us an insight?

Michael: In almost every case where the problem seems to be choosing the wrong protagonist, the writer isn't clear about what the story concept is, about what the hero's visible goal is.

In other words: if the writer is operating under the belief that they just need to portray characters and show them going through a situation in their life and let's see what happens, then that's the quicksand they have stepped into. Because movies are about heroes who are pursuing specific visible goals.

It is about stopping the serial killer, about escaping from the panic room or from N.Y. or from Alcatraz, about winning the love of another person or winning an athletic competition. Or it's about getting the buried treasure. But the goal must be specific, must be visible, must have a clearly defined end point.

The first part of the full interview is now online on the Premium Ed. As usual, it will be visible for a few days only. After that you will need a subscription to see it. Part two and three will follow over the next few days, as well as a podcast (audio) version of the telephone interview.

NO POV, NO PLAY

The RATATOUILLE DVD shows has 1 (one) deleted scene. It is a long, uninterrupted travel from a wide establishing shot of the Paris skyline down to street level, through the Auguste Gusteau restaurant and ending on Remi, our hero.

The shot could have been spectacular, reminding of the opening shot of TOUCH OF EVIL and its pastiche in THE PLAYER.

Brad Bird's commentary talks about the reason why it was cut and it is simply: Point of View.

The natural question that would occur is "Why would you cut this spectacular shot?", because it is obviously great. "I want to see that film!" Well, I feel that way, too.

The problem, once you get passed the initial sort of rush of seeing this very elaborate shot that shows you a lot of different things in one shot and very impressively, is that it is no character's point of view.

It is just a sort of God-like shot where you're presented this whole world and it is spectacular and there have been many fine shots like that - Touch of Evil being one - that were great but I felt that this is Remi's movie and it needed to be Remi's perspective.

And I want to know the emotions that lead up to Remi looking into the kitchen. I don't just want it laid on a platter, you know, just cut to Darth going "You're my son, Luke."

We should be with Remi when he has that moment. We should know how he is experiencing it and what is he feeling when he is experiencing it. And you kind of aren't, this way.

It did lay everything out, but I don't think that it took the audience with it.
-Brad Bird

Brad Bird's reasoning confirms what I have written about 'omniscient POV': it is weak, or worse, it doesn't work.

Movies are inherently about empathising, even identifying with characters.

When you step out of the protagonist's POV, it should be to shift to another POV, never to take an omniscient POV.

Omniscient POV is devoid of emotion.

Read some more about Point of View here.

Killing My Darlings

2008-03-05T17:41:00.011+11:00

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 DOGS

When 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'?

First, Break All the Rules

2008-02-01T20:08:00.001+11:00

When I asked this student which one thing she remembered above anything else, she replied: “That you can break the rules, and get away with it.” She was not my student. In itself there’s nothing wrong with trying, but it saddens me that Heath Ledger’s last Australian film, Candy, was an example of a film that broke the rules. And failed.

I am not sure which film this student had in mind as a successful example of non-conventional structure, but I bet you it was PULP FICTION. Ever since 1994, filmmakers have been hoping to get away with it in the same way Tarantino did. In my view PF has done far more damage to the craft of screenwriting than its success will ever justify. The irony is that PULP FICTION is relatively conventional in its structure, just not linear. Check Linda Aronson's book SCREENWRITING UPDATED.

But all that is completely beside the point. The point is that writers often have this immature attitude. "But my script is different." Another one that keeps coming back: "Hollywood only makes crap, audiences really don't want to see that stuff anymore." This one I only heard today: "It all works in my head, the film experience will be very different from the script!"

Call me conservative but the more I learn about film, the more I am convinced audiences are conditioned by an increasingly structured type of filmmaking. Time and time again I hear people rejecting structure one minute, and raving about highly structured films the next.

Ever since the story of a boy and a princess in space 30 years ago, audiences - whether you like it or not - have been conditioned by a more sophisticated version of the 3-act structure, i.e. the Hero's Journey. And this process has only been reinforced since that paradigm was written down by Christopher Vogler. (I almost called The Hero's Journey 'a structure' but it was never really intended to be. Yet it can often be elegantly blended with the three act structure.)

LEARN THE RULES, THEN BREAK THE RULES

Despite my endless complaints about Australian writers, I have had the pleasure and honour of meeting and working with dozens of writers who are dedicated to learning the craft. They read, study, analyse, attend seminars etc.

Most of them learn with the intention of later applying what they have learned. Others take the basics on board and explore ways of being original and creative within the boundaries. Yet others fully intend to knowingly break the rules with their first screenplay.

Now that may be unwise.

The statement above reading "Learn the Rules, then Break the Rules" is in my view a dangerous one. I would rather replace it with something like:

"Master the Rules, then Bend Them."

It often happens that screenwriters only get their first screenplay made after years of learning the craft. When the film finally hits the screen, they realises that although they believed they had learned the skills, they hadn't. An audience is a funny thing. You want them to feel this way, but they respond that way.

As a writer you won't know if you actually master the craft until the film goes out and is successful. Believing that you can learn the rules and break them with your first script, is a dangerous illusion.

Of course every year there will be at least one success story of a breakthrough screenplay that didn't apply the principles. Everybody will write and talk about that one person. Bottomline: if you are in this game for the long term, it pays to look at the statistics and then review your chances.

THE ONE THAT GOT AWAY

I am currently working with a client on a screenplay that reminded me in some peripheral way of the French rural drama Jean de Florette, starring Gerard Depardieu and the late Yves Montand*. I watched the film again with my wife and paid attention to its structure.

Although I had seen the film at least twice before, what I found out this time, literally blew me away.

The screenplay was adapted by director Claude Berri and veteran scribe Gerard Brach, from a hugely successful original French classic by Marcel Pagnol. The film had been a breakout arthouse hit across the world, with major prizes in its home country but also in England and the U.S. where it was nominated for a Golden Globe.

My wife and I had seen this film last about ten years ago, yet neither of us remembered much of the plot. We did remember the characters and even individual scenes. Not the plot.

Why??

Because the structure is quite extraordinary.

The whole film is structured following a text-book three-act structure. Inciting incident, first act turning point, second act are all 'tres formulaic'. But what seemed unusual to me, and the primary reason why I think this film still looked so fresh to us: the story is structured around the antagonist's journey.

My advise: don't try this at home. As a beginning screenwriter, make sure you try your hand at convential material before you venture into this type of territory. The screenwriters of Jean de Florette were both highly experienced, with many successes to their names. Unfortunately, although the follow-up to Jean de Florette (Manon des Sources) may have brought a more upbeat closing to the rural saga, the writing was less inspiring.

When you have the chance, do watch both films, analyse these structural exceptions and asks yourself what is different, why this one works and the other doesn't (so well).

It is always fascinating.

*Nice coincidence: when I was out the following night my wife randomly picked the Marilyn Monroe classic "Let's make Love" from our DVD shelf and watched it, only to find it had - again - Yves Montand in a major role.

THE WORKSHOPS WORK

More than one week to go until 10 February and the Sydney story workshop is sold out. This weekend I'll be teaching for the first time in Queensland, at the International Film College. My next Sydney Workshop will be on Sunday 13 April and bookings are open now.

The emphasis of the workshops has shifted slightly. The first sessions were heavily theoretical, focusing on aspects of the 3-act structure. Lately I have shifted towards more practical examples from a wider diversity of films, both old and recent, across completely different genres: from action movie to comedy, from Touch of Evil (1958) and Die Hard (1988) to The Incredibles (2004) and The Lives of Others (2006).

Some people find that the material taught in these classes is advanced. Let me tell you this: it is not. It represents the bare essentials. It is the absolute minimum you need to know if you want to even consider breaking into the scene. That doesn't mean that it will sink in the first time around. You will still need to watch films, analyse them and apply what you have learned to your own work.

Next, you will need to call in the assistance from a professional. But you will be so much better prepared to enter into a dialogue about your work if you have laid the foundations by learning the terminology. Not only will it speed up your development, it will potentially save you hundreds or thousands of dollars as your script editor will talk to you about your script on your level.

THE PREMIUM EDITION

The Premium Edition has had visitors from New York to the country of Jean de Florette (Provence, South of France), from Australia's East and West Coasts to the City Library of Amsterdam. Meanwhile, the first paying subscribers have signed up, from Australia and overseas!

Eight users are online while I am writing this, of which no less than seven guests and a few search engine spiders. Check it out for yourself by subscribing for a year at only the cost of one cappuccino a fortnight.

Among the newly added content, Premium Members now have also access to a list of mistakes I have come across in screenplays lately, as well as a few suggestions on how to avoid them.

In the coming days and weeks new articles will be added and I will be conducting an interview with Michael Hauge (who is coming to Australia this May) and will talk about the dangers of mystery.

The Secret

2008-01-08T12:00:00.002+11:00

While all of 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”. I say: we have excellent writers, but they fail to structure their stories. For that reason, the drama of screenwriting is not going to save our feature films. Daytime TV has drama. Only I am not going to watch it.

My Unknown Client is right: what pretty much every screenwriter in the rest of the world knows - and what some practice -, seems to remain the best kept secret in Australia.

UPCOMING WORKSHOPS

Since September, about 60 people have attended my story workshops in NSW and the ACT. On 3 February I will be teaching my first workshop in Queensland, at the International Film College. For registration go directly to the web site of the IFC.

The next Story Workshop in Sydney will take place on Sunday 10 February at the NSW Writers Centre. For details and registration go here. The course fee is $99 for early birds (payment received on 20 January), for subscribers of this blog and for members of the NSW Writers Centre. Full registration is $125 for the day, this also includes tea and coffee, a CD with software, a glossary and a list with recommended reading.

(Note: The workshop is particularly recommended if you were thinking of hiring me as your script editor or story consultant. It introduces the essential vocabulary needed to discuss screen story and gives you an insight in the background and inspiration of my consultancy work. Workshop students also get access to the Premium version of the Story Dept. See below.)

CELTX IS TAKING OVER

I first recommended Celtx in October 2006. Until a year ago however, I didn't know anybody who was actually using the software. Since then, a handful of my new clients have taken the dive and are satisfied to the extent they are not (any longer) considering purchasing a commercial package.

Celtx keeps adding new features, while it remains free to download. A great tool is the file upload feature, allowing you to save a safety copy of your work on the private and secure Celtx servers. If you wish to make your script known to the world, you can make the file public. You don't have to.

Recently a client wanted to import a Word document into Celtx. The software doesn't provide for this (yet) but the support pages describe a method, which - in my case - worked beautifully.

And thanks to Mike Jones I now know you pronounce Celtx with a 'k'. The name actually stands for: "Crew, Equipment, Location, Talent and XML". The guys behind it don't call it screenwriting software, but 'media production software'.

SCRIPT LAYOUT AND FORMAT

The main raison-d'etre for script software is to get the formatting right. Unfortunately there are still a myriad of conventions that are not automatically dealt with and if you don't get them right, you are not considered a pro. Yet another reason why not to spend large amounts of money on software until you are actually making money writing.

Don't get me wrong: you MUST get your formatting absolutely right. When you pay a story or script consultant, you don't want to waste your money on layout notes.

Three of my clients who paid for script assessments through the Australian Writers Guild or directly to one of the script services, found pages of detailed feedback on format. As a matter of fact, the space it took up in the assessment seemed disproportionate to the essential and professional story and script advice you would expect. You don't pay between two and eight hundred dollars to find information you can perfectly find in a book under $50 or even for free on the web. The AWG are currently reviewing their script assessment service and IMHO it's about time.

Do I have the be-all and end-all solution to your formatting nightmares? No But I might just have a little life saver.

After reading a plug on the Mystery Man blog, I ordered a copy of David Trottier's The Screenwriter's Bible and found it one of the best resources for international script formatting. The book covers more than that but I value its section on formatting above anything else. Contrary to a number of other books and publications, it deals adequately with a number of specific issues, such as: phone conversations, intercutting, computer text, montages etc.

THE STORY DEPARTMENT: PREMIUM EDITION

The Premium Edition of The Story Dept. is now live. For the cost of a coffee every fortnight you will get:

1) Premium Membership: unrestricted access to all past and future editions of the newsletters, for one year.
2) Stage One Story Consultancy, phone feedback FREE once per year (value AUD$89).
3) Stage Two and Three at loyalty discount rate, (up to AUD$72 off the advertised rate, each).
4) One Virtual Coffee: double-shot decaf skim soy cappuccino.

For all the above you will pay the grand sum of $89 If you were planning on taking the Stage One Consultancy, it means you're paying $0 for everything else. (Offer applies only until the publication of the next post on this blog)

Some ideas for upcoming Premium Editions:

- How to divide your story into three acts. There are many theories and it doesn't matter which one you follow, as long as it helps you to improve your story. Fact is: many writers aren't even sure where their stories' acts start or end.
- Structural Analysis. It's something I've long wanted to include in these articles and will soon do in the Premium Edition: Not for the sake of it but to help you identify crucial story points. I recently watched DIE HARD (#1) again and compared notes with the guys of MovieOutline.com (note: I am not endorsing the software). Interesting result...
- A bibliography of popular screenwriting books, plus notes on what I believe to be their strengths and weaknesses.

Sign up now for one year on the Subscription Page. The process is automatic and effective immediately upon payment through PayPal. You can have your temporary username and password within minutes. (Present clients may get access at no additional cost - conditions apply.)

OFFICE SPACE FOR RENT:

My friend Zoe Harvey is looking for people interested in sharing office space:

"Office space for rent at 10a Hall Street, Bondi Beach. The office is centrally located in busy Hall Street, one storey above the street and one block from Campbell Parade and the beach. There are two rooms for rent, both with polished floorboards, high ceilings and new paint. The rooms can be rented either separately or together. One room is approximately 4 x 6 metres (24m2) and the adjoining sunroom which is 2 x 8 metres (16m2). Each room is $200 per week rented separately or if rented together $300 per week.

The office is fully serviced and rent includes all electricity, gas, water and ADSL 2 connection with unlimited download. The office is networked via airport hubs. The office currently houses businesses involved in film production and graphic design. Companies involved in film, TV, video, graphics or related industries would be best suited.
Incoming tenants will need to install their own phone lines. There is no off-street parking.
For more information please contact: Greg Read on 02 - 9365 5300 during business hours or email: greg@paperbarkfilms.com or Zoe Harvey on 02 - 9130 2544 / 0403 236 252 during business hours or email: zoe@torridfilms.com"

L.A. FILM FEST LOOKING FOR OZZY SHORTS

Friend writer/filmmaker Elizabeth Ban told me the HOLLYSHORTS film festival in Hollywood is looking for Australian short films. Here are the festival details:

HollyShorts Film Festival, Marina Del Rey, CA
February 15, 2008 - Earlybird Deadline
www.hollyshorts.com/

OUR NEW LOOK

As you see I have switched the template for the blog as too many people didn't like the 'white on black'. If you prefer the old look, let me know by joining the poll in the margin of this blog. Many thanks!

Bring on the Hero

2007-10-25T15:38:00.001+10:00

"Australia and Germany are two cultures that seem slightly herophobic."
-Christopher Vogler

About ten years ago I was first introduced to the Hero's Journey. Since then I have found myself regularly relying on it when explaining essential story structure. Today I wanted to write an article about why I believe the Hero's Journey is such a popular model for screenwriters and story teachers. Then I stumbled on the quote above and I got seriously distracted.

The National Screenwriters Conference is over and I didn't attend. But thanks to ScreenHub I know I missed an interesting discussion between AFC script guru Karin Altmann and Clubland scribe Keith Thompson.

I recommend reading the whole article, (as a matter of fact I recommend getting a subscription to ScreenHub and reading the full coverage from the conference) but here is the quote that set me off on my journey today:

Keith is wary of scripting how-to books, believing that they hold the potential for all movies to end up looking the same. Similarly, an overt focus on structure may be to the detriment of the script overall. He prefers to discuss scripts using more generic terms such as beginning, middle and end. The hero’s journey (a la Campbell and Vogler) should be approached warily.

Keep this in mind and let's go back to that quote above this post.

Australia and Germany are two cultures that seem slightly herophobic.

Vogler is a smart man and he must have good reasons for such a statement. In the case of Germany I accept the statement without further ado. Didn't their last hero get them in a bit of a pickle?

But on what basis would he put Australians and Germans in the same context?

The Australians distrust appeals to heroic virtue because such concepts have been used to lure generations of young Australian males into fighting Britain's battles. Australians have their heroes, of course, but they tend to be unassuming and self-effacing, and will remain reluctant for much longer than heroes in other cultures.[...]

That doesn't mean we don't have heroes at all:

The most admirable hero is one who denies his heroic role as long as possible and who, like Mad Max, avoids accepting responsibility for anyone but himself.

Now that last definition sounds like familiar Hollywood territory to me and it can be applied just as much to Maximus in Gladiator and John McClane in Die Hard as to Spider-Man, who needs to be constantly reminded of his responsibility as super-hero.

We all know that the movies Australians like are not very different from the rest of the world, as prove the numbers.

Obviously the situation is very different when we look at the type of films we are making. Suddenly Chris Vogler's words are getting a different meaning.

Have a look here: Australian Films at the Box Office

What does this teach us? If anybody is herophobic, it is the Australian screenwriter, not the cinema goer.

Ironic how I was going to make a very different point about the Hero's Journey but via a little detour I have come to the same conclusion:

If Australian filmmakers want to re-connect with the Australian audience - or any audience for that matter - they better stop refusing the call of the Hero's Journey.

Writing in Sin

2007-10-14T22:41:00.001+10:00

Losing a wonderful actor like Heath Ledger at the age of 28 is sad. But watching his last Australian movie CANDY is saddening in more than one aspect. I'm baffled that so-called established filmmakers can get it so wrong.

My fifteen students of Saturday's workshop could have told you CANDY would never be a success. Sensational performances, strong direction and technically flawless. But: the absolute essentials for a screen story are simply not there. When will we finally get it right? Do Australian screenwriters really believe theirs is the only job in the world you can just 'do' without first learning the skill? Let's not be naive.

Look at these figures: In 1983, a report on "The State of the Australian Film Industry" by Deloitte Consulting identified that only 11 films out of over 250 had made a profit during the previous 10 years. 20 years later Variety reported that the FFC invested in 169 feature films in the previous 15 years of which only 8 had turned a profit. If I can add up, that's 19 out of more than 419. In a total of twenty-five years OVER FOUR HUNDRED MOVIES HAD LOST MONEY. I bet you're surprised so many were even made.

In response to an earlier post on this blog, Jack Douglas identified the Seven Sins of Australian Cinema. I would love to share these with you:

"1. Weak or non-existent desire for a goal in the protagonist.

Few characters are memorable or to be cared about because they rarely want anything much.
Tthe national 'quiet achiever' or 'aw shucks' syndrome yields passive heroes and heroines.
Cate Blanchett's character in 'Little Fish' wanted to open a video shop - but did we really care?
The list of goalless protagonists in low concept pottering plots (a la December Boys) goes on and on.

2. Imitation of overseas styles and trends and often an inability to find original cinematic forms
mirroring rich local content (the legacy of a colonial culture).

Weir Schepisi et al have highly original cinematic visions - but not embracing local content since the 80's. Interestingly two ex-Dutchmen (Cox, de Heer) have been our most innovative directors in recent years. They are not fettered by the neocolonial cultural cringe.

But has an Australian film ever significantly influenced an overseas movie maker?
That's the real litmus test. Where are the specific locations in our feature films? The bush, generic suburbs or tourist shots abound. But few filmmakers have explored with loving detail the couleur locale of our major cities - like Scorsese explores New York, Truffaut Paris or Wilder LA. Our audiences continue to live vicariously through the cityscapes of others.

3. Original talented screenwriters who think cinematically and form a screenwriting community.

In the US of A screenwriters fall out of the trees and pump out over 60,000 spec scripts per year. Can Ozzywood transform us muffin-munching leather-jacketed scribblers into suffering and disciplined artists with 'cinematic brains'? A tall order, my friend.

4. A lack of uberpromoters like Harvey Weinstein or Jerry Bruckheimer.

Where's the cinematic counterpart of Harry Miller? Glenn Preusker ('Kenny') may be the only marketing genius we have.

5. An inability (in screenwriters, directors, producers and funders) to identify the potential movie stories with the right form for a compelling high concept cinematic narrative.

For example, the Ned Kelly story doesn't have the right structure for a movie (hence none of the Kelly films work). Other bushranger histories (e.g. Moonlight, Thunderbolt) have greater potential. Compare Cecil Holmes' 'Captain Thunderbolt' (1953) with, say, Mora's 'Mad Dog Morgan' or Jordan's 'Ned Kelly'. Which is the best movie of the three and why? Which one is closest to depicting the 'hero's journey'? Americans make movies, the British produce films, Europeans create cinema - we do features.

6. Ignorance of screenwriting structure

Some local films should not have been made at all and many could have been vastly improved with some hefty panel beating on the bodywork of the script. If Steve Kaplan had got his hands on 'Kenny' in time and manipulated its floppy narrative spine... who knows? it might have won an Oscar.

7. Our contemporary box office audiences

The average Australian movie goer is aged 40-60 and going to the pictures for a nice night's
entertainment (as Frank Cox mentioned). Our baby boomers (and their attention-deficient offspring) want entertaining genre flicks not life-challenging redemptive cinema - that's for the film festivals.

And a flick is just that - an experience you flick from your consciousness as soon as you leave the theatre."
-Jack Douglas

What's the Story?

2007-10-09T18:03:00.002+10:00

The Metro Screen story structure workshop sold out and it seems there will be another one soon. If soon is not soon enough, you can register now for an intensive one-day session on 1 June 2008.

WHAT YOU WILL LEARN:
This one day workshop is intensive but fun. It teaches you to distinguish between those screenplays with a strong potential to reach a wide audience and those that are just a fun read. You will finally understand what the 'three-act-structure' really stands for.

The workshop is packed with examples of great and not so great movies and at the end YOU will be able to point at the main causes for strong or poor box office results for most movies.

BACKGROUND:
The great careers in our industry are not built on volume of work but rather an informed choice of projects. This applies to writers, directors and producers but equally to screen technicians and particularly to actors.

Why do you think Matt Damon is the #1 box office actor today? Does he act better than Mark Wahlberg, Joaquin Phoenix, De Niro, Pacino etc.? No. He is a screenwriter and story genius. He understands which scripts will make money.

ESSENTIAL FOR FILMMAKERS:
Without the knowledge taught in this course, you stand a better chance of winning the lottery than making it in movies. A bold statement but painfully true. Story structure is not just another aspect of screenwriting. It's what makes or breaks your movie career.

This is the last opportunity for 2007 to take this course in one day. Of the 10 available places for each day, some will be taken by fimmakers on the waiting list from last month's course. Don't miss out this time!

INTENDED AUDIENCE:
Screenwriters - Does your concept hold up? How to improve the structure?
Actors - Which projects to fight for? Which projects will kickstart your career?
Producers & Directors - How to distinguish between hits and duds.

COURSE DATES:
- TBA

THE LOCATION:
The wonderful, sensational and inspirational NSW Writers Centre under the jacarandas of Callan Park, Rozelle where parking is never a problem. Check out the second hand book shelf with gems at $2 to keep you entertained during the breaks.

TESTIMONIALS:
"Karel's course is excellent. It finally sunk in, having studied structure twice previously with high calibre teachers. Karel delivers crucial basics, sound models and advanced techniques that work. Thank you Karel for sharing your extensive knowledge."
-Brenda Jackson

"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, Writer / Director PUPPY, Writer FEED

Anyone Can Cook

2007-09-25T20:19:00.002+10:00

Earlier this year, a friend of mine bought an expensive High Definition Video camera. He had saved up for it for a long time. In stead he could have bought a second hand Subaru. But he doesn't care he doesn't have a car. He has a dream. The Australian Dream.

Australia is a hands-on type of nation. When I arrived in 2001, it didn't take me long to get my first short film off the ground. So many wonderful people, eager to get their hands dirty and help me out. After all, filmmaking doesn't have to be the cumbersome, expensive art it used to be. In a way it is still cumbersome but the essentials to capture and reproduce images have become so cheap they are now within reach of anyone with a job or a credit card.

The largest short film festival in the world started in Sydney. Meanwhile Tropfest has spilled out to all major Australian cities and even the rest of the world . The fact it started here in Australia is no coincidence. When an Australian wants to do something, he doesn't first sit down to ponder about how it is usually done and then wait for an opportunity to arise so the job gets a bit easier. The Australian goes for it. ASAP.

You can hear me coming: despite all the good intentions there is a downside to this "let's just do it" attitude. In the case of filmmaking, I cannot shed the impression the Australian believes there are shortcuts. What is the easiest way to get your idea on the screen? You hire or buy a video camera, get some mates to stand in front of it and "just do it". We are all made to believe this is how it works. Practical guides to the use of digital equipment make it seem like child's play.

It is an illusion that has cost us dearly in recent years. I have seen a fair few movies lately that were all made with lots of enthusiasm but not a lot of thought gone into the screenplay. What is it with movies that people just cannot stop believing the illusion? At this point I must add that what sets my friend with the HD camera apart from the crowd, is this: he had first invested a significant amount of money in learning the craft of screenwriting.

FINAL GOODBYE FINAL DRAFT?

Only yesterday I received an email from which I quote:

"I have about 3 ideas for scripts, they would be produced entirely by my friends and I. I need to put the first drafts down I am trying to round up a script writing program to make it easier."

There is the other myth: Final Draft will help you write your script. (On a separate note: soon that myth may be forever buried, when Celtx takes over. They have just released version 0.995 and it is starting to look better than anything on the market. Interesting detail: Celtx is free. At least no money will be wasted on the illusion that software could spit out a story.)

In his book STORY, Robert McKee makes the point:

"If your dream were to compose music, would you say to yourself: "I've heard a lot of symphonies... I can also play the piano... I think I'll knock one out this weekend? No. But that's exactly how many screenwriters begin: "I've seen a lot of flicks, some good and some bad... I got A's in English... vacation time 's coming..."

The essence of story is not rocket science. I keep repeating: it is a learnable skill. But a skill that must be learned nonetheless. What you cannot learn is the inspiration, the need to tell a specific story. Yet so many people with the desire to tell that story believe they can get away without properly mastering the craft. They want to build the house without a notion of engineering. They want to compose a symphony without knowing a C from a Cis. They want to serve a bouillabaisse but can't even cook a ratatouille.

If you were hoping there might be a new generation waiting to jump in and rejuvenate this general malaise, the following might put a stop to your optimism. At a networking event earlier this year, I spoke with a university student who had taken a screenwriting class the previous year. Asked about the one thing she took away from that class, she answered:

"I guess, that you can break the rules and still get away with it."

THE OMNIPOTENT FUNDING AGENCIES

Having recently caught up on some Australian films of the past few years (see my previous post) and listening to feedback from others on more recent films (Clubland, West, Suburban Mayhem etc.) it seems these pictures are unable to connect with a mainstream audience. Or any audience, for that matter. It's no longer an issue of getting the audience into the theater, if those who saw the films are not entertained. There are strong indications the problems don't lie in the execution but in the bare essentials of story. Yep, they are breaking the rules.

But where did things start to go wrong? I believe the lack of understanding of the principles of story has become endemic for our entire industry. Not only do writers lack the skills: producers and funding decision makers fail to see the flaws in screenplays. As long as the 'elements' are in place, the film will get made. The 'elements' being: cast, technically experienced crew, government funding etc.

On the government's role: while preparing development notes for a government funding application, a particular paragraph in the guidelines struck me.

"What is the point of view (POV) of the script? That is, where is the audience positioned in relation to the script? Are they close to one central character? Is it an omnipotent POV?"

An "omnipotent POV"?? Somebody has lost the plot here. Point of view is crucially important in a story. The terminology should be second nature to anyone even remotely involved in screenwriting, let alone the funding of it. If even the funding agencies cannot get their act together, why would anyone expect the writers would? Interesting to note that the same funding agency has been reported to have feature drama screenplays assessed by documentary film makers. Go figure.

Recently a young filmmaker submitted a rough cut on DVD with an application for post-production funding. The application was rejected. The assessor didn't like the film? Correction: the assessor didn't like the screenplay. The rejection was justified in a multi-page assessment of the screenplay. The assessor did reference the DVD but the brunt of his tirade was directed at the script.

Why am I concerned... Very concerned...

Elephant in the Room

2007-09-07T23:13:00.002+10:00

"Babies don't come from babies", Keith Jarrett said when he meant that great art isn't inspired by other art but by life itself.
This quote shot through my mind tonight while watching the Australian film 2:37 by Murali Thalluri.

I had ordered 2:37 from Quickflix, as reference material for a feature film in post-production I am currently working on in the capacity of co-producer and story consultant. Because of some friends' recommendations, I was really looking forward to watching young Thalluri's directorial debut. Imagine my joy when less than forty-eight hours after putting it on my wishlist, the DVD tumbled in the letter box!

Thalluri is obviously infatuated with Gus Van Sant and more specifically ELEPHANT, of which 2:37 is a blatant pastiche. The school, the parallel points of view, the moody light, the school massacre reference, etc. How much more derivative can you be without breaking the law?

But all this could have been forgiven. Other great directors have copied shamelessly, to create something better or at least equally entertaining. I hate to admit but this umpteenth Australian case of the emperor's new clothes is boring as hell. The best five minutes are the opening scene and this is indeed great cinema: a promising naturalistic build-up of suspense, leading to the discovery of a student's suicide.

The dead body is not shown in the opening scene and most if not all of the movie's anticipation (or lack thereof) hinges on that single question: "Who died?" For most of the 98mins running time, the filmmakers are trying to outsmart the audience, ultimately delivering a twist nobody could have possibly seen coming. It may work in novels but it doesn't in movies, as evidenced by that obscenely successful whodunit whose screen adaptation embarrassed even the die hard fans: THE DA VINCI CODE. Too bad 2:37 didn't have the same marketing pull to defy any story sense and make hundreds of millions nonetheless.

ANOTHER ELEPHANT: LACK OF DRAMA

The mystery around the identity of the suicide victim in 2:37 is equivalent to that bad whodunit in which a totally uninteresting character we have hardly seen, suddenly shows up with motive and weapon. Even when a whodunit is done well, it often lacks suspense. On this subject Hitchcock once said:

"Mystery is seldom suspenseful. In a whodunit, for instance, there is no suspense, but a sort of intellectual puzzle. The whodunit generates the kind of curiosity that is void of emotion, and emotion is an essential ingredient of suspense."

That said, 2:37 might still have worked, if only the screenwriter had made the least effort to entertain or excite us along the way. Instead we are witnessing a never-ending tirade of profanities and artful but empty cinematography. Unfortunately I wasn't impressed either by the performances of the army of young and gorgeous actors. But you can't blame them, with this poor material.

The film does make various attempts to convey emotion but most of those lack drama. When the main characters talk about themselves and their youthful angst, the effect is theatrical, not cinematic. And until we know and understand the circumstances of these confessions, we will not fully invest emotionally in their content. That is why the 'talking heads' in this film don't work, no matter how desperately the actors try to convince us.

Bottom line: there are some basic screenwriting rules you break at your own risk such as: "you must not deceive the audience." I suspect Thalluri was considered an auteur and a prodigy, who de facto transcends the principles of storytelling. Here's my two cents: beginning writers should not try and outsmart their peers, let alone the audience.

WE DON'T GIVE A SHEET

Mysteriously despite all the above, the film was selected for the 2006 Cannes Film Festival where it received a 17 mins standing ovation, effectively paving the way for a successful theatrical release. Or so you would expect. Banking on the festival response, quick international sales were achieved reportedly bringing in three times the film's production cost.

The reality of the film's performance at the box office was sobering: at home it hardly grossed $500k. Of course some sources blame the distributor's bad release campaign. Or the exhibitor's marginal programming. And finally the audience, for not wanting to open up to the film.

And tomorrow me, for not supporting Australian cinema.

Little Things Got Bigger

2007-09-01T00:50:00.000+10:00

Congrats to Nathan Fielding, recipient of the Monte Miller Award '07! Nathan walked away from the awards last night in Sydney with a broad smile and a cheque of $5,000.

About developing the winning script LITTLE THINGS with me he says: "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. [...] Thanks again Karel. I'll get to work on another oddly thrown together bunch of characters and give you a call. I know you love a challenge."

It should be noted that the draft was developed with the assistance of the Australian Film Commission. Read Nathan's full testimonial here.

Big congratulations also to Story Dept. reader Andrew Slattery from Caves Beach who won the Monte Miller Award - Short Form for his screenplay NEAR SYNCOPE.

Avoid the Draft One Trap

2007-08-19T15:59:00.000+10:00

You’re a screenwriter. And you're SO stuck. Nothing is moving, nobody wants to make your movie. You are on a crusade for recognition, for people to tell you how great the idea and how successful you will be. But your phone calls are not being returned. Are you caught in the Draft One Trap?

To appease your conscience you will make scene level tweaks. Lots of them. You will call it draft two, three, thirteen. The reality: this is still draft one. You will finally get sick of the script and move on to the next Great Idea. Years go by and many scripts may come from your hand but none will ever get made, let alone reach an audience.

Did you just recognise someone you know in the above description? Perhaps yourself? Do you really believe, off all the readers of all the blogs in all the world I'm trying to convert you? No. The above was taken from a promotional blurb I wrote for a two-day story workshop at Metroscreen.

The course will be partially about the foundations of screen story and partially about practical ways to apply them to your work. You may not need those foundations for draft one. The first draft is all about "Don't get it right, get it written." But then comes draft two and reality kicks in. If you haven't written your first draft yet, you still need to be aware of the elements that will come into play further down the road.

Successful feature screenwriters don’t cherish that first draft. They know it is crap so they won’t show it to anyone let alone shop it around, except for advise on how to move to the next draft ASAP. Successful screenwriters listen to the honest constructive criticism from industry professionals and follow a process on the way to a wonderful, radically different Draft Two.

For these writers the second draft is an easier and more important leap forward than any next draft of the script. This has to do with the 'law of diminishing returns', but more about that in a later post on this blog.

Apart from making sure you will not unknowingly fall in that Draft One Trap ever again, the Metroscreen course will focus on most of those issues I have come across in unsuccessful scripts during my six years as a producer. The second day of the two-day course will show how to implement a writing process that may significantly speed up the development and create a genuine opportunity when pitching your projects to producers, directors or funding agencies.

If you are interested in this course or would like to know more, send me an email or contact Metroscreen. Or just download the enrolment form and send it in! If you're not a Metroscreen member, you can sort that out using this form.

But enough about me and my course.

TRIBE OR TRITE? STONEKING'S MANTRA

At a recent AWG NSW event poet and AFTRS teacher Billy Stoneking performed a short version of his 'tribe act'. Many in the audience were confused. And yes, over the years some have questioned the contribution of the national film school to Australian screenwriting culture. But rather than fueling the controversy, I would like to give Stoneking credit where credit is due.

Stoneking's 'tribe' theory focuses primarily on the writer's connection with both the material and the audience. If you think Stoneking has a purely artistic, individualistic approach to screenwriting, think again. He pays ample attention to the importance and the meaning of 'drama' and he acknowledges that a good movie is made for an audience. And not just 'an' audience: it must be the audience you have - in some way or other - a connection with. Do read the article here. Being a poet, the man masters his language in a way I can only envy.

If on the other hand you would like to see the entertainer Stoneking, you might be lucky enough to still find his Sony Tropfest videocast of the 'tribe act'. Have fun!

HOLLYWOOD VS. OZZYWOOD

As you may have noticed from earlier posts on this blog, Creative Screenwriting Magazine is a personal favourite. It was recently named "the best magazine about screenwriting" by the Los Angeles Times.

Their 'Story Department' (photo above) web forum opened in April 2006 and since then they have received 42 posts from writers all over the world.

Closer to home, four months ago some passionate story consultant opened a little forum on the bulletin board of the Australian Writers' Guild (photo left) to answer questions from writers.

The writers dropped by ... and they keep coming back! If you're an AWG member you should be able to check it out here. If you're not, perhaps you should become an associate? The benefits are surely worth it.

WRITING FOR ACTORS
(Or: why writers should win the Best Acting awards)

Until recently I was only a producer and story consultant. I can now add 'writer' to my credits. Well, in spirit that is. The credit will never be on the screen. It was a rewrite-for-hire job and although in my humble opinion the story is now 200% better, the original writers will get the praise, if any. In any case, it is exciting to know after my rewrite the script was deemed ready for consideration by a Hollywood Studio (Fox) where it is at the time of writing.

But all that is beside the point. The project in question is supposed to launch the career of a particular actor, which I could hardly believe after reading the draft I received. The actor's character was NOT the story's protagonist, he had limited screentime and worst of all: he was given the most unspeakable dialogue.

Which set me thinking. How do you write dialogue for a beginning actor? You don't. You write emotion. And emotion the actor will not need to perform. I have had this conversation a dozen times over the past month so I apologise in advance for those who have heard me preach about this before.

Let's go back about eighty years (or ten blogs) to the work of Lev Kuleshov (Photo: The Extraordinary Adventures of Mr. West in the Land of the Bolsheviks, 1924).

Kuleshov took unedited footage of a completely expressionless face [...] and intercut it with shots of three highly motivated objects: a bowl of hot soup, a dead woman lying in a coffin, and a little girl playing with a teddy bear.

When the film strips were shown to randomly selected audiences, they invariably responded as though the actor's face had accurately portrayed the emotion appropriate to the intercut object.

As Pudovkin recalled: "The public raved about the acting of the artist. They pointed out the heavy pensiveness of his mood over the forgotten soup, were touched and moved by the deep sorrow with which he looked on the dead woman, and admired the light, happy smile with which he surveyed the girl at play.

But we knew that in all three cases the face was exactly the same." (from David Cook's splendid A HISTORY OF NARRATIVE FILM.)

These results are known today as the 'Kuleshov effect' and it explains why often actors win awards for performances they didn't give. When Russell Crowe broke onto the Hollywood scene with his nomination for THE INSIDER, it had IMHO nothing to do with his acting skills but everything with Eric Roth and Michael Mann's terrific writing, which effectively projected the feelings we share with the Jeffrey Wigand character onto Crowe's blank face.

A more recent example is the late Ulrich Mühe's performance in THE LIVES OF OTHERS (Das Leben der Anderen), which won him numerous best actor awards including at the European Film Awards. The second half of the movie is an emotional powerhouse, yet the actor's face is near blank.

Conversely, great actors have been blamed of bad performances where the only culprit really was the screenwriter. The actor could have avoid the blame by politely passing on a screenplay that was not worthy of his attachment.

Bottom line: if you want to write great drama for any actor, irrespective of the experience level, don't describe the emotion you want to see on the actor's face. Make the audience feel the emotion before the character has to respond to it. Great drama does not have visible emotion; it makes you, the audience feel it. If you must, write a tear on an expressionless face.

Hitchcock would say: "I need actors who can do nothing well." He understood perfectly that it was the writer's job to convey the emotion, not the actor's. He also perfectly understood the power of the Kuleshov effect and consequently: the power of editing.

Great actors are not those who can be express sadness, anger or desperation better than others. Great actors are those who can pick great scripts.

AUSTRALIAN FILM: FRANK COX AND ERIC BANA

Frank Cox of Hopscotch can help greenlight a feature film. He is one of the 'good guys': he looks at films that don't necessarily fill the multiplexes. Better even: he reads those screenplays. But that doesn't mean he will be betting the house.

"I ask 'Who do you think the film is for?' Some of them say 'Frank, I make movies for myself, because I'm an artist and the audiences will follow it if I do something fantastic. I've got a vision." "And I'm going 'Good on you, if you've got the stuff to do this and you find a market, fantastic. But if you're not going to talk to me while you've got these ideas, then don’t come to me at the end and get disappointed if I tell you I don’t know what to do with it.'"

I had to think of these words tonight while I was watching a freshly shot Australian film (I'm bound by secrecy as it's not out yet). Multi-protagonist, not done badly but just not good enough. Another case of "I've got a vision"... In today's market, anybody with a brain would steer away from multi-protagonist for a first feature. But what I found completely baffling was the fact that a government agency had put money in the project, both for development AND production. What are we doing? Anyhow, where does Frank Cox see the current Australian cinema?

"Australian films are a bit of a question mark." The talent is certainly there, proved by the success of Australian industry people overseas, but "It seems to me that most projects in Australia are hurried. In other words, the development process lacks, the stories are not fully developed, and they don't reach their optimum because everyone seems to be in a hurry to put their film in development and then production." It's a familiar story; the problem is understood throughout the industry."

Thank you to ScreenHub for the kind permission to re-publish. You can read the full interview here. here.

Recently a good friend and fellow Belgian interviewed Eric Bana in Rome for his latest LUCKY YOU (another Eric Roth screenplay). My friend asked his opinion about Australian film and I have a funny feeling he would not have given this answer to a reporter on Australian soil:

"It may sound weird but working in Australia is not that important to me. It can even be dangerous to a career."
[...]
"I know an 'international name' can help, for instance if you want to get a high budget film financed or if you want to launch a difficult project. But as I said, there is a real danger. You receive a lot of scripts that aren't ready. The producers then believe a big name will solve the problem. So I am very careful"

THE STORY DEPT.: FROM IDEA TO PRINT

My preparations for the Metroscreen course explain why it's been a bit quiet in The Story Dept.; for the other reason behind the temporary silence I have to profoundly thank many of you, the readers of this blog! Over the past months I have been increasingly busy as a story consultant, both on projects in development as some films in post-production.

Indeed the principles of story don't stop with the shooting script. From a story perspective the assembled footage is a work that hardly ever reflects the story beats exactly as they were intended in the script. Or if they are, sometimes a better option becomes apparent in the editing suite.

For a team that has laboured over the same movie for months or years, it is hard to make far-reaching decisions without being consumed by feelings of insecurity and doubt. Fortunately there may be a guiding light as the principles of story still apply! If areas of the story don't work for the outsider, sometimes the reasons can be found in a breach of (one or some of) those principles. Enter the story analyst!

Next to the consultancy work I have been happily producing the short animation ACID SUN (photo) by writer/director/animator Rodney March. The third OZZYWOOD short film is also the first one rigorously co-developed in terms of story and I am hopeful this will bear fruit at the film festivals once it will hit the screens later this year.

As a matter of fact the validity of my mission as a story consultant (see 'about us') has been proven repeatedly over the past year. It's been a wonderful ride and I hope my clients agree even if it has been rough at times. I have seen filmmakers look at their works with professional and passionate scrutiny, think outside the box and at the same time question the reasons and motivations behind their stories. In most if not all of the cases we have improved their works, sometimes immensely, resulting in a marketable draft, a re-energised development process or at worst: an improved insight in the mechanics of story structure and the dynamics of our film industry.

THE QUIZ

If you have taken the quiz before and failed miserably, try again. Most likely it was not because you can't see the difference between a main plot and a subplot but ... you only had 3.7 secs to type in your answer. That has been fixed, so you can now improve your score!

To pass you need to answer 14 out of 20 questions correctly. The quiz is definitely not for beginners but most of the answers can be found somewhere in the articles of this blog. Click through to see your score and the right answers. Finally you'll be guided back to the OZZYWOOD web site. Good luck!

http://ozzywood.com/quiz

A Good Read

2007-06-01T17:38:00.001+10:00

Recently I had the privilege and honour of reading a script by one of the most hyped young writers in this country, face on covers of magazines and all that. My expectations were high and yes: it delivered! I spent an amazing two hours reading it as the characters really jumped off the page and the writing was beautiful. Then I put the script down and I knew the movie would fail.

What I had read was a great short novel. Brilliant prose, lively detail and sharp dialogue. But the story didn't work because we would not care for the protagonist. This is a typical mistake: confusing a good script with a good story. Beware of the 'good read'. Or as my best friend Chris always says: "Armaggedon was a good read too." In the case of this Australian hopeful, the story was told from a protagonist without any clear objective. Ironically, a character close to the protagonist would have much better fitted that role without the need to significantly change the premise.

The joy of the 'good read' is truly a danger and one of many reasons why you don't rely on friends for script feedback, even if they work in the film industry. I have heard of aspiring screenwriters asking advice from assistant directors, decorators production managers. Although like everybody in our industry, these people SHOULD have a notion, in reality they hardly ever do. (As a matter of fact, a lot of decision-makers don't have a clue either.I could give you a recent example of a script where even the writer admitted 'there was no story'. Still he got the money to develop it. Develop what? The novel? I won't name the example or I would be dead. Fact is that the writer in question ironises about this reality when he says that "to get your hands on delicious development money you don't have to have a great script, it only has to be a little 'better' than the norm. And if you can do that with no story...good times."

THE WISE AND THE NOT SO WISE

As somebody who takes the craft very seriously, I'm sometimes frustrated to see how people who should know better send out confusing messages. Now take this quote, which I found on a web site claiming to give story advice and tips to writers:

"As for the content of your screenplay; structure counts, usually. Have a clear Act I, II, and III. Try to hook the reader on the first page! Make the first five (or ten pages at most) be Act I, wherein you introduce all the main characters and show the reader the who, what, where, when and why of your story. Notice that I said SHOW. Telling is not so good. Film is a visual medium and you should actually be writing a FILM, not a script. Act II is the rest of the story, where you build on what you started, and it climaxes at the clear end of Act II. Act III should be five or ten (max) pages, where all loose ends are tied up and all conflicts are resolved."

I must admit I had never heard of the Ten Minutes First Act. And the second act being "where you build on what you started". How can you be more vague? You know what is REALLY frightening? The person talking is the director of an internationally renowned film festival. And as for: "structure counts, usually"... The festival director is probably hoping of getting the new KOYAANISQATSI.

Let me counterbalance the nonsense with a solid quote from Chris Vogler, the man behind The Writer's Journey. This time not about the 'big structure' or the Journey Stages but about scenes:

"A scene is a business deal. It may not involve money but it will always involve some change in the contract between characters or in the balance of power. It's a transaction, in which two or more people enter with one kind of deal between them, and negotiate or battle until a new deal has been cut, at which point the scene should end. It could be the reversal of a power structure. The underdog seizes power by blackmail. Or it could be the forging of a new alliance or enmity. Two people who hated each other make a new deal to work together in a threatening situation. A boy asks a girl out and she accepts or rejects his offer. Two gangsters make an alliance to rub out a rival. A mob forces a sheriff to turn a man over for lynching. The meat of the scene is the negotiation to arrive at the new deal, and when the deal is cut, the scene is over, period. "

THE POWER OF A PARADIGM SHIFT

Years ago a good friend returned from L.A. where he had attended a much hyped screenwriting seminar. The speaker made a point by asking the room who would visualise the scenes while writing. I agreed with my friend's astonishment when he reported that only half of the writers raised their hands. What were the others thinking? What idiots to believe you can actually write movies without thinking visually???

I have come to fundamentally change my view on this. Did Alan Ball necessarily think visually when he wrote SIX FEET UNDER? Or AMERICAN BEAUTY? The last boasts wonderfully visual scenes but most of the script's power lies entirely not on its visual level. We do indeed need visible elements to show character subtext, but not necessarily a visual context. Think about CRASH or more recently THE LIVES OF OTHERS. On what level do these movies make an impact?

Whether a movie works or not, is decided on an entirely different, almost abstract and non-visual level. Until a late draft, a screenwriter doesn't always need to visualise. And you can take this right through to very visual action flicks such as DIE HARD, THE FUGITIVE or even SPIDER-MAN. Visual elements such as setting, time of day, camera angles etc. could have been easily replaced without really changing the story. They might have even worked without the eye candy but they surely wouldn't have without the character drama underneath.

Recently I was recommended THE SEVEN HABITS OF HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL PEOPLE. Early in the book Stephen Covey speaks about the Paradigm Shift. (Beware: this Paradigm has nothing to do with Syd Field.) It's about looking at something from a specific angle and (not) seeing what others see. I found this concept very similar to reading text vs. reading subtext. I had been reading screenplays on the surface for years before it most literally 'clicked' in my head; it felt as if a 'sixth sense' had switched on, as if I was suddenly reading with an infrared eye.

Switching on the understanding of this subtextual level is a skill writers, just like producers or directors, need to develop before they can become successful. It is just as essential as switching on your desk light at night to read.

THE LOGLINE

"A logline is a one-sentence summary of your script. It's the short blurb in TV guides that tells you what a movie is about and helps you decide if you're interested in seeing it. It's the grabber that excites your interest." (-Scriptologis.Com).

The logline shouldn't be confused with the tagline (marketing one-liner for the poster) or even slugline ("EXT. KAREL'S OFFICE - DAY").

Once I believed you can only write your story's logline when you have finished your script and even the one page synopsis. Until then, it may not even be clear what the story is about.

Here are a few good reasons why you should start thinking of the logline earlier. First of all: a good logline is a good indication that you have a story. If after a few drafts you still can't find a logline that captures what your movie is about, you really need to think hard about the story again. Secondly: it will become an essential selling tool for your script. A strong logline will give you the confidence that you have a story: you'll be able to pitch it with passion! In both senses the logline does pretty much what I promote about the synopsis in my consultancy services: it helps you improve AND sell the story. All that with the economy of one simple sentence.

I am currently working as a consultant on an amazing high concept story with some major story issues. It is always nerve-wrecking having to break the news that to unleash its potential, a story needs to be significantly reworked. But when I found out the writer had already written a logline expressing exactly what I believed the story should deliver, I sighed: we were on the same wavelength.

The moment you find a logline expressing your intentions, you have found an invaluable tool to stay on track. It could be the road map saving you from disaster. If the logline is selling and you stay true to it during the writing of the draft, chances are you will have a selling story.

THE $5 SCRIPT SOFTWARE: ASHAMPOO'S TEXTMAKER:

I recently had a computer scare when it looked my four year old laptop was about to die. That would have been a disaster in a few ways, not the least because I recently bought a - legitimate - OEM version of Office Standard. I lose my laptop, I lose that.

No wonder I was interested when recently I received an offer to an elegant software program called 'Textmaker', which does everything I use MS Word for. Only for $4.99 only. And legitimate. If you are looking for a good quality text processor, which is BTW faster than MS Word and whose license won't expire if your computer dies, have a look here:

http://www.ashampoo.com

I believe the offers on these newsletters remain open for at least 1 purchase per customer.

BEATS VS. TURNING POINTS

While working on a step outline with one of my clients, it bothered me a number of scenes ended in the exact same way: the protagonist would respond to a situation by rejection or reluctance to respond.

None of these scenes really ended in a plot point, there was no hook nor change to the story's direction. So I didn't find the scenes' ending strong enough and almost suggested to cut them altogether. Still, the point the writer was trying to make about the protagonist was a valid one: it gave us important information we would need later in the story.

The solution we came up with: keep the protagonist's reaction as a scene beat but work towards a stronger scene ending by creating a new plot point for each in order to turn the scene, create anticipation and propel it into the next one. Not an easy task but ultimately better than cutting.

THE QUIZ

As part of a Google Adwords campaign I've created a quiz about the craft and - to a lesser extent - history of screenwriting. If one or two questions are a matter of opinion rather than fact, you will find the answers in The Story Dept. Twenty challenges, definitely not for beginners (and neither is this blog, apparently) but essential knowledge for whomever is serious about the craft. Anyway, if you consider yourself an expert, or at least intermediate level writer, you shouldn't be intimidated. Click through until the very end of the quiz and you'll land back on the OZZYWOOD web site after seeing all the right answers. Have fun!

http://ozzywood.com/quiz

That Mid Point Thing

2007-04-20T17:04:00.001+10:00

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.

Personally I don't like the "point of no return" approach too much, even though the otherwise very wise Michael Hauge mentions it. It's vague and not very practical in the writing. 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, Elliott 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.

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. The midpoint reversal forces him 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...

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.

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.

SCRIPT EDITORS SPEAK

Recently the Australian Writers Guild NSW organised a night with prominent script editors. If you're a Guild member, it is worth checking the transcript of that night as it sheds some light on common issues writers have in the various stages of writing and rewriting. And if you're not an AWG member yet and you are eligible either for full or associate membership, it's worth checking out all the benefits!

One of the questions to the panel of script editors was about the most common mistakes writers make and I found it interesting enough to list them below together with the ten most common problems I have recently come across.

Script Editors' Top Ten:

- long descriptions
- lack of practical insight
- too many characters
- too many subplots
- over-writing
- passive protagonist
- weak antagonist
- not enough obstacles
- absence of logic
- breach of genre rules

Karel's Top Ten:

- weak protagonist
- lack of conflict
- lack of subtext
- lack of turning points
- shifting point of view
- on-the-nose dialogue
- too clever dialogue
- camera direction
- lengthy scenes
- bad use of parentheses

KAREL'S FEEDBACK FORUM

Recently I had spent quite some time on the members bulletin board of the AWG and when I offered to visit it on a weekly basis with the intention of giving my personal feedback to members' story questions, the idea grew to start a dedicated forum. I'm honoured and proud to announce that last week we launched "KAREL'S FEEDBACK FORUM", so if you are a member of the Guild and you have any specific questions about story or script issues, feel free to post it on the forum. I will magically resolve all your problems and instantly catapult you to intergalactic fame! Well, I'll do my darn best...

FINALLY: THE BUSINESS PITCH

You may have digested all the books, read the top screenplays and attended some of the hype seminars, nothing will ever replace the fresh eyes of an external reader. If you're a novice or unproduced screenwriter, discussing your work with a story expert is the way to see all those principles applied to your own work and fix the weaknesses in your story along the way. After all, no matter how hard you try, you may never see the plot holes because of the so dreaded writer's blindness... That's the point where you decide to speed up the way to galactic fame and call in the help of the pro.

As the demand for my specialised story and script consultancy grows, I feel the need to reflect that on the OZZYWOOD web site. An honourable start was made last month by publishing my rates together with a brief description of the services available. The approach is simple and transparent and its uniqueness lies in two main sessions: the synopsis analysis and the step outline work session (details not yet uploaded at the time of publishing, but do contact me for the full info). The first one is designed specifically to identify major story issues at an entry level cost. The last explores in a collaborative way how the story's structure can be improved while staying true to your intentions and inspiration.

For novices or writers in need of full draft assistance, I offer a tailored service, which is a often a combination of the two sessions above plus full draft assessments and a polish. The cost of that is available on application but always in line with the going industry standard.

The Main Man (m/f)

2007-02-10T23:09:00.001+11:00

"Most writers work alone. They send in the script and it gets rejected. And they never find out why. The fact is, you can't succeed as a professional writer if you don't get professional feedback. You must find out the weaknesses of your story or script before you send it in." This is not me talking, it's John Truby (photo).

People who, like me, get to read a great number of Australian screenplays are astounded how poorly developed most of these works are. The ones that stand out are often the ones that have had and taken on board professional feedback.

Really baffling is how many writers seem to have trouble with the protagonist. Writing for the screen is ALL about the protagonist. You can mess with pretty much everything else, not with your hero. When script gurus talk about the structure of a story or a script, they almost always mean: the structure of the protagonist's journey. Before you can build a journey, you need a protagonist and that, so it seems, is not as simple as it sounds.

I have listed below six of what I believe to be crucial principles against which budding writers are often sinning in terms of their heroes. Although these principles are to a certain extent flexible and extremely skilled, talented and experienced writers have bent the rules with great success, you cannot ignore them altogether. If you take liberties on one, you must compensate on the others or your script will be rejected. Please note that I will be using the ecumenical pronouns "he, him, his" in a unisex fashion when referring to the protagonist.

0. Desire: Driver of all strong characters' actions and decisions.

Drama is based on character, desire and conflict (and if you have trouble with these, check out THE HERO'S TWO JOURNEYS, there is a link in the right hand margin of this blog). Desire is the central one as in a screenplay it defines both character and conflict. It is so important it precedes everything else: if your protagonist does not have a strong desire, whether internal or external, you don't have a movie. As a writer, you will need to know at any point in the story what your hero's objective is. To find out who is the protagonist, most of the time you only need to find out who has the strongest desire in the movie. And don't forget that it takes great obstacles (conflict) to prove a strong desire.

In HALF NELSON with Oscar® nominee Ryan Gosling the protagonist gradually shifts from Dan (Gosling) to Dray (Shareeka Epps), depending on who has the strongest desire or more accurately: with whom we share the desire. Interestingly this transition doesn't happen for every viewer in the exact same way as we don't empathise in identical ways. The writers keep tight control as we see how the movie's POV shifts with the centre of desire. These things are not coincidental. In a subtle and complex movie such as HALF NELSON, the understanding and careful manipulation of these elements makes the difference between an unbearable arthouse bomb and a quality indie with Oscar potential.

1. Single vs. Multiple Protagonist: Hardly a matter of choice.

Here are two questions for you. 1)"Are you an experienced writer with produced feature drama credits?" 2)"Are you targeting an audience of intellectuals?" Multiple protagonist stories are risky business but if your answer to either question was NO, it would be insanity to even contemplate going there. The emotional impact of multiple protagonist dramas is limited because empathy jumps from one character to the next, resulting in a more cerebral experience. The lovers of these movies will almost always be an audience of intellectuals. Think about directors such as Paul T. Anderson and Robert Altman.

2. Screen time: Stay with your hero.

It is not good to abandon your protagonist. This goes hand in hand with the principle that single POV movies have a stronger emotional impact than omniscient or multi-POV movies (see below). If you divert into a subplot, keep it lean. A great example of an amazingly tight subplot arc is the one of the executioner in QUILLS. On the other hand I seem to remember that the last movie in the Matrix Trilogy failed miserably, partially because protagonist Neo suddenly disappeared to make place for a gargantuan subplot diversion. The Wachowskis couldn't care less for their hero. What were they thinking!!?? By the time Neo returned into the story, the movie had flopped. A successful movie is all about the protagonist. Once he's gone, your movie is too.

3. Action: The protagonist drives the story.

Screentime is essential but not sufficient. While the protagonist is on screen, he should be driving the scene. Or rather: his desire/objective should be driving it. Any other character can be central to the scene but the objective should be related to the protagonist's. If this sounds too technical, try an example: say the hero's objective is to save her son from the hands of his kidnappers and a particular sequence is about finding the last person who saw him. A scene may show how the antagonist prevents the hero from finding that person. Though it may seem as if the antagonist is driving the scene, its purpose can be easily traced back to the protagonist's main objective. Action can also be: resisting strongly to act. Andie MacDowell's character in SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE is a good example of that.

4. Empathy: Share the desire

Most paying audiences want to forget they are watching a movie. They want to be absorbed by it. To achieve this, ideally you should make them feel as if they have moved into the hero's mind, as if they become the protagonist for the duration of the movie. This complete identification is ideal but not essential. Empathy is. Where lies the distinction?

Michael Hague (photo) has a five point test to create empathy with the protagonist: likability, sympathy, jeopardy, humor and power. Those elements certainly help but I believe the real test for empathy lies in the degree to which we share the protagonist's desire. If identification means wanting to be the hero, than empathy means wanting to be what the hero wants to be*.

(*Note after publishing: Rightfully, Jack Brislee points out although he loved KENNY, he did not share the ambition of wanting to be a top rate outdoor toilet contractor. He is right, but not until the credits roll. Until that point, you think and feel with the protagonist and you share the desire. Take DOWNFALL, about the last days of Hitler. Some perfectly sane people have told me how they felt sorry for the character in the movie, although that very character explicitly expresses how he doesn't care if the German people would be wiped out. If they can't win the war, they're too weak to deserve the Third Reich anyway. Wow... Why do we feel sorry for such a character? Because for (at least part of) the duration of the movie, we feel his desire and the pain of not being able to fulfill it.)

5. Point of view: Single vs. Multi vs. Omni

In his book STORY (link on the right) McKee says: "the exclusive Point of View of the protagonist is a creative discipline. [...] The result is a tight, smooth, memorable character and story." Seeing the world through the eyes of the hero often helps us understand his desire and therefore it enhances empathy. It makes it easier to plot the hero's main story arc and it guarantees ample screen time.

McKee claims "[single PoV] is the far more difficult way to tell story." Here I disagree. Not limiting yourself in this way will make it infinitely harder to write a story that works for the screen. Bottom line: if your story is in trouble, try rewriting it from a single POV. It may be a shortcut to resolving a lot of issues...

PARALLEL NARRATIVE: BABEL

Writer Arriaga bends the rules of screenwriting but compensates by telling each of the four parallel stories as a class example of traditional narrative: four protagonists with strong desires, major obstacles and a three act journey each.

Despite its nomination for best screenplay, BABEL's breaking the code has caused controversy. Just compare the top four 'external reviews' for the film (IMDb)! I found the Tokyo story's connection to the events in Morocco manufactured and to me it worked on a logical level but not on an emotional one. However, in this movie it's the only story about the search for love and therefore inevitably the most powerful of all four. No wonder its resolution concludes the movie.

STRANGER THAN FICTION

Great traditional narrative. When Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) finds out somebody is controlling his life, he wants to stop her from killing him. The conflict: antagonist Kay Eiffel (Emma Thompson) needs to finish her book and can't without doing exactly that. A beautiful example of a strong inner and outer journey for protagonist Crick plus an exemplary 'relationship line' around the Ana Pascal character (Maggie Gyllenhaal). As Michael Hague puts it: the hero needs to complete his arc in order to get the girl.

From the trailer I believed the antagonist would have had more screentime but this is another case of a story arc told with the greatest economy. Everything we need to know about Kay Eiffel is there in a handful of brief scenes. Instead the writer focuses increasingly on the love thread, which is the smartest way of getting an audience head over heels involved in the drama.

HAPPY FEET

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, but the ending left me confused. It turns out that I'm not the only one. Some reviewers hinted that Miller had reached Pixar levels of perfection with this film but to my taste this is not entirely so on a story level.
HAPPY FEET is a hugely successful movie, and deservedly so. Still I suspect the ending could have been more gratifying had Miller stuck to the Pixar way of developing story.

In case you have seen HAPPY FEET, ask yourself: What is Mumble's journey? What is his main desire that drives the whole movie? Does he want to fit in with his peers and be accepted by the penguin colony? Or does he want to prove that he is not the cause of the food shortage? From the first scene with Lovelace, I would have thought he actually wanted to resolve the mystery of the Aliens.

Of course it is a combination of all three and each has its own resolution in one way or another. But had it been set up more clearly, I believe we would have had a more satisfactory feeling at the end. Right now the ending is kinda cool and happy and euphorious and all that, but you somehow feel the climax is slightly off the mark. As a matter of fact, the whole third act felt a bit messy to me, probably because of the lack of a clear Act One Turning Point. I have never had that feeling with a Pixar movie.

I may be completely wrong here and I'll surely have another close look once the DVD is out. Meanwhile I'd love to hear some other opinions on this one!

Seizing the Sword

2006-11-18T15:01:00.001+11:00

Once past the Ordeal, the hero is ready to Seize the Sword, says Chris Vogler. In July we received development funding for THE MORTAL COIL. Next it was selected into SPAAmart and now the AFC is funding the production of the animation ACID SUN, after only one application. It sounds like OZZYWOOD Films is seizing the sword. What is the secret? And is the Ordeal now finally over??
I have just returned from SPAAmart, Australia's film financing market, where Wojciech and I pitched THE MORTAL COIL to twenty-four industry executives from Australia and overseas. It was only the second time ever I applied for this competitive market. One hundred percent hit rate. Luck? Possibly. But my recent string of successes cannot be ignored as an unusually high hit rate. An AFC project manager with impressive film credits recently told an audience how his applications used to be rejected at a rate of 8/1. No future for me as an AFC project manager, I guess...

If luck is one factor, what other factors are there? The talent of the writer, first and foremost. I have the honour and the pleasure of working with brilliant people. Without an interesting concept you can edit until the cows come home. THE MORTAL COIL has the support of Richard Taylor at the famous Weta Workshop in Wellington. Given the amazing track record of that effects house, their attachment is a major bonus and it helps convincing decision makers that this project will fly.

STORY VS. SCRIPT EDITING

There is no doubt in my mind that the story development approach is another crucial factor in those recent funding successes. I used to get sucked into reading, analysing and assessing screenplays. Most scripts have enough weaknesses on the scene level for a script editor to provide his money's worth in surface level feedback. The writer takes on board all the comments and does a - often completely useless - rewrite. My rejection rate used to be higher than average until I changed my development strategy. By focusing on the story, the writer doesn't touch the screenwriting software until the structure works. This sounds like a longer process, but the reality is just the opposite.

If there is an easier way, why do we keep getting caught in this trap? Why do we all give feedback based on the script? I believe that we are scared to tell you - the writer - to fundamentally review the story. What if you walked away to find yourself another editor? It would mean the potential loss of some hard-earned business. Will those essential story changes guarantee a movie that works? Of course not. The most quoted line in the movie industry is William Goldman's "Nobody knows anything." But a well-structured story will increase the chances that better people read your script and give you better feedback so you get a step closer to funding.

Once you have successfully applied the principles of story structure and you've made it past the Ordeal of story and script development, remember Vogler and don't confuse the Sword with the Elixir. I, too, am fully aware that the Final Confrontation is yet to come.

SHORT FILMS AND THE PRINCIPLES OF STORY STRUCTURE

The Australian Film Commission is paying $60,000 towards the production of ACID SUN, the first project I took on as a producer after becoming a father late 2004. Parental responsibility had brought with it a greater focus and a more radical selection of projects and short films just didn't seem to cut it any longer. “Short films no longer work as a calling card.” or: “Short films can’t move an audience the way a feature does.” "They don’t make any money". Above all: I believed short films lack demonstrable narrative principles.

My involvement in AEROSOL opened my eyes. It taught me the importance of rigorous story development, even for short films. AEROSOL, an outstanding directing achievement by Wojciech, was selected into more than twenty film festivals but it only captured one significant prize. Hardly a successful conversion rate. The film is heavily effects-driven and makes a beautiful poetic statement about the society we live in. How could juries all around the world be so wrong and not honour this gem with an abundance of prizes?

I joined the project after the initial producer was fired. The film had already received funding and the script was locked off, so I proceeded immediately to getting the film made without questioning the script. When it became apparent that AEROSOL was not winning any prizes I finally analysed the story's structure, which revealed another good reason why the first producer should have been fired: he didn't have a clue about story. The film lacks a second act.

AEROSOL starts with the ordinary life of a worker, whose routine is soon disturbed by an ant: the inciting incident. Then starts a cat-and-mouse game between the two, which lasts until a major reversal. In a classically told story this reversal would have been the First Act Turning Point, defining the protagonist's objective. Instead what follows feels very much like a Third Act, with the ant now being the more active character and the only one showing a visible objective. Finally, a poetic epilogue ponders over the things that matter in our society. The ending leaves our characters' journeys very much open.

Regardless of its structure, AEROSOL is a beautiful statement and many people have genuinely enjoyed the film as a wonderful piece, both artistically and philosophically. But emotionally, it does not fulfill our instinctive needs for a three act story.

Looking back, it was an obvious oversight of myself to not critically examine the film's storyline (and I shouldn't blame the first producer no matter how little he cared). But how many of us really do analyse the structure of short films? In the case of AEROSOL, even the FTO assessors didn't pick up on the story flaws although a rewrite would have taken a fraction of the effort it took to produce the film. And the film would have won prizes.

If you want to read more about structure for short films, you might check out Writing Short Films by Linda Cowgill, who came to the same conclusion, only seven years earlier.

RECOMMENDED: THE HERO'S 2 JOURNEYS

Last year I purchased POWERSTRUCTURE from the guys at WriteBrain and they offered a massive discount on a DVD box set called THE HERO'S 2 JOURNEYS. They explained it was voted DVD of the year or something by the Australian Cinematographers Society. I wasn't turned off the idea so much by the ACS reference - I'm about to believe our DOPs understand story better than our screenwriting teachers - but there is something very inconvenient about screenwriting theory on a video/DVD. I did end up paying the additional USD$$$ because 1) the discount was really huge and 2) I love the guys at WriteBrain, they know their stuff.

Lucky. This is pure gold. Michael Hague talks in crystal clear terms about what makes a good protagonist and what are the essential steps for an outer journey to work. Next, Christopher Vogler sheds some light on the workings of the hero's inner journey. In a strong drama the one never goes without the other, so it makes perfect sense to discuss the hero's 2 journeys together and this DVD set does it brilliantly. Finally the theory is applied to Steven Soderbergh's blockbuster ERIN BROCKOVICH. Another stroke of luck: I found a perfect way around the inconvenience of the medium. A software program called DVD Audio Extractor literally changed my life. I now rip DVD sound to mp3 and listen to it on my Creative Zen while walking the dog. The same way I listen to DVD commentaries. I recommend you do the same and keep THE HERO'S 2 JOURNEYS among those mp3s you never delete from your player (like Robert McKee's audio book version of STORY).

Just Ad Words

2006-10-12T23:35:00.001+10:00

No post in September as I had other matters to attend to (photo). If you want the whole story, you may have to brush up on your Dutch.

You may be set in your writing ways and happy with your Underwood or whatever other writing tool you are using. In that case you better skip to the DVD Commentary section. Otherwise, here are some tips to save you the money and frustration I sacrificed on my way to stardom.

Being a decent citizen, a few years ago I replaced my pirate version of Final Draft with a legit copy, hoping the bugs would go. Now I believe it was the equivalent of going to see THE DA VINCI CODE in the cinema. I was caught in the trap of some excellent marketing. But what should you expect from a screenwriting package? Let's put things in perspective.

The last time I checked, Final Draft cost AUD$569, or roughly the same as the entire Microsoft Office Suite. All that, while some simple MS Word macros or style sheets can achieve what Final Draft does? Plus: you have the wildest flexibility in terms of backups, tracking changes, spell-checking, saving online etc. If you don't have MS Office or you hate Bill G.: OpenOffice. Free.

If you're really dying to part with your money on a script package, explore Movie Magic Screenwriter (formerly: Screenwriter 2000). Cheaper than Final Draft and better value for money in my view.

But why pay? A new, totaly FREE piece of software is called Celtx. Still in its infancy but growing rapidly, with a smart development team behind it and community-oriented.

Celtx intends to go a lot further than just the screenwriting bits: it aims at becoming the central command post for your film's entire project management. If they manage to stay afloat, it may well become a filmmakers' software of choice.

Now, if you believe that any of the above will help you writing better scripts, you have fallen prey to the Film Industry's Greatest Con. These are all just word processors with serious formatting limitations. Jazzed-down versions of MS Word if you wish.

Here is my advice for the cash-poor: don't spend a cent on script formatting and save your money for software that helps you with the hard work. Instead labour on the story using Dramatica Pro, John Truby's Blockbuster or best of all: Powerstructure.

I prefer the last one, as it distinguishes itself from the others in pretty much the same way MM Screenwriter does among the script software. Powerstructure has immense flexibility, allows you to write full scenes, just one liners, or whatever in between you feel comfortable with.

You can customise it to your own favourite structure, be it three acts, sequences or Vogler's THE HERO'S JOURNEY, then export directly to a text file or into whatever script software you use. If you're a member of that circle of writers who first write their entire first draft before starting to outline, you can import your existing script to reshape its structure. Admitted, I've had a few quirks doing that but the PS support team helped me out.

Powerstructure makes a lot of sense, as it works in the way most movie decision makers think. It is being distributed by the wonderful guys at WriteBrain, where you can download a trial version.

Even better than burning your money on software: give it to a human story/script editor who could really make a difference for you. ;-)

DVD COMMENTARY: McCABE AND MRS MILLER

I found a downright great commentary on this unsung masterpiece by writer/director Robert Altman, in which Warren Beatty opens a whorehouse in the Old West.

Although thirty-five years old, this movie could be seen today alongside the razorsharp doco THE CORPORATION and - to a lesser extent - AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. It ultimately tackles corporatisation and if you wish globalisation within the genre of the western. And as the commentary puts it: Altman won't give you a John Wayne type of Western hero. No. Warren Beatty's protagonist will shoot you in the back if his life depends on it.

The voice recording of this commentary track is so crystal clear you can literally hear producer David Foster's watch ticking in the background as he explains why every man and his dog in Hollywood wants to work with this director. I agree: Altman has a vision and integrity that is so rare you won't even find it with masters like Scorsese. Unlike the latter, Altman will NEVER make 'one for the Studio'.

My favourite bits are the account of Leonard Cohen's musical collaboration, Altman's hilarious tirade about western's big hats and the master's view on dialogue:

"The dialogue in these kinds of films [...] is part of the character [...]. It is not the words that are important. [...] That's too related to theater, where you [...] advance plot with the words. When you have close-ups of people and faces [...], it's just better that the words come from the moment or from the actors themselves."

Altman makes this statement in the context of Beatty's soliloquies in the film. He asked Beatty to mumble to himself inaudibly before actually delivering the crucial lines in soliloquy. As a result, the audience is used to the character talking to himself in a more or less natural way. And here is the mark of a good commentary: the director sharing with us his struggles to make the movie work.

DVD COMMENTARY: ANTZ

Recently I consulted to a team of comedy writers, which was a completely new and refreshing experience to me. As I'm not a comedy expert, I focused on the (lack of) drama in the script and afterwards the writers were happy enough about the outcome to hire me again for a look at the next stage.

Comedies that don't work often still work on the scene level but they have issues with the overall story arc. Situations and dialogue may be absolutely hilarious. If there's no dramatic undercurrent, the audience WILL switch off.

I found a quote on the commentary of ANTZ that makes the exact same point about the input from Jeffrey Katzenberg (photo), who was uncredited producer (and the "K" in Dreamworks SKG):

"We added a lot of comedy kind of after the fact. It's one of the things that Jeffrey Katzenberg really pushes hard: get the drama to work because if you're rely on the comedy, you're gonna loose the audience's interest in the characters. So sure enough we really focused on the drama and afterwards we [...] ended up upping just the silliness of it, the humor of it."

This charming animation, in which Woody Allen voices the neuroses of the ant "Z", dates from the turbulent days when Dreamworks went head to head with Disney's A BUG'S LIFE. Ironically it was Katzenberg who had sealed the deal between Pixar and Disney.

Directors Johnson and Darnell don't deliver by far the cutthroat commentary we're used to hear from the Pixar guys, but they do give some insight in their struggles during the development. Notably their work on the character of Princess Bala (Sharon Stone) and her relationship with the protagonist are interesting from a story point of view.

Structuring The Facts

2006-08-21T00:35:00.000+10:00

Turning real events into a working screen drama is a hell of a challenge. Whether it be a historical movie, biography or docu-drama, the smart screenwriter remains true to the spirit of the subject rather than an accurate report of the events. Plus: the principals of drama must dictate how the story is (re-)structured. UNITED 93 turns out a phenomenal success on all fronts.

Have you noticed the almost unnerving consensus that this is great movie? The SMH gave it 9/10 in yesterday's paper, Roger Ebert hands out four stars, on IMDb it scores 7.8/10. Who believes that the magnitude of the events guaranteed the movie would work, should check out the TV dud "FLIGHT 93" and think again. I believe here's a hell of a great script at work.

I watched Paul Greengrass' movie last weekend and was truly impressed. When I had recovered from the emotional rollercoaster ride, something quite unexpected dawned upon me: this story boasts an amazingly conventional structure.

If you go with me that the protagonist in this movie is made up from the collective passengers of the flight, you'll agree the film reflects the following 3-act structure:

- ACT ONE: Boarding until cruise altitude; hijackers take control.
- ACT TWO/A: Passengers try to notify the ground.
- REVERSAL: News of the WTC attacks - this is a suicide flight.
- ACT TWO/B: Passengers prepare to fight back.
- ACT THREE: Attack on the cockpit and crash.

An important subplot dominates the first half of the movie and intertwines with the First Act: Ben Sliney's struggle at the FAA to stay in control of the US air space. Here I'd like to refer to my very first post and my structural note on SCHINDLER'S LIST and THE INSIDER. Both movies start with a major subplot, in the case of THE INSIDER possibly even a second protagonist. Once we're in the Second Act of the subplot, the main story kicks in. Same here: we're well into Ben Sliney's Second Act before the action on board United 93 starts.

For all above reasons - and I know this one is hard to prove - I believe the movie would have worked fine for anybody completely unfamiliar with the 9/11 events. While we sit through the relatively uneventful First Act (if you don't know what's coming up), we empathise with Ben Sliney whose air traffic controllers are steadily losing control.

You may argue that this structure is a mere reflection of the facts. Don't forget filmmakers have always made their own choices about how and which events are presented over the course of the available screentime. With this subject matter I don't believe Greengrass really had to be this rigorous in his structuring for the movie to have an adequate effect. Still he did. Why? To create maximum empathy with the protagonists. And boy it pays off!

It's waiting now until October to find out what Oliver Stone did with WORLD TRADE CENTER, but the rumours are positive.

Diagnosis: Obsession

2006-08-18T10:03:00.000+10:00

Occasionally I receive requests to read a first draft and even a first draft by a first time writer. I do indeed offer story consultancy but these are requests to read - for free - with the hope of getting a producer's attachment. With all due respect, but you've gotta be kidding. (Disclaimer: if you're allergic to preaching, better skip this blog. If you disagree with anything, you are invited to comment)

First-time writers sending out a first draft should get a grip. Get out of your hole and find out how competitive this industry is. But is the writer really to blame? Our industry itself has created a perception that writing for the screen is a fun occupation, a lifestyle thing that can be easily combined with any other job. And every attempt is to be taken seriously. Believe me, the reality is different. If you consider yourself a dilettante, your chances of breaking through are minimal. If your entire life doesn't revolves around movies , the odds are very much against you. Better get used to the idea or reconsider your future.

Like 'aspiring practitioners' in other industries where the stakes are high, screenwriters and filmmakers tend to love the success stories of those who've made it, hence the popularity of events like POPCORN TAXI etc. However, success stories are filtered, censored and jazzed-up versions of the boring, down-to-earth and painful true events they are based upon. Like their screenplay counterparts, true facts don't sell.

The six movies to which writer Andrew Stanton contributed, have made several billions of dollars worldwide, yet he calls his growth to understanding story: “MY JOURNEY OF PAIN”. Andrew is part of the Pixar team and more about that in a minute.

Unlike Stanton, most great examples usually provide handy tips 'n' tricks, common sense advice or even sheer nonsense. Mostly it boils down to: if you really want something, you can get it. It's great stuff to remove feelings of guilt (for not being serious about your business) and doubt (about your chances of ever making it).

Now here is something only a few honest - and therefore 'boring' - speakers will ever tell you: if you want to get there, you will have to make sacrifices. And your partner/family etc. will have to make sacrifices with you. Single? Your chances have just doubled. Still, the higher you want to reach, the greater the sacrifices.

Forget sports, hobbies, friends etc. Forget those success stories in Weekend Magazine about millionnaire business people who work out an hour a day, eat every dinner with the family and spend half of the year holidaying in Europe. Bullshit. Before they got there, they all went through divorce, mental breakdown, booze, suicide attempt or even worse: 18 hour days working for a boss!

You better be prepared as screenwriting is no different. To get through these horrible times of wanting but not getting, what you need is: obsession. It may or may not speed up things, but like drugs or alcohol, it alleviates the pain. Unfortunately it is just as socially unacceptable.

Here is a test. How much time do you spend on movies every week? Watching, reading, talking, thinking, writing about movies and the business of movie making? If you rate over 20 hours, I reckon you have a chance. Between 10-20 it may still work if you are an unusually smart person and/or have the financial resources to sit it out for a while. Under 10 hours you should stop kidding yourself: this is a hobby and you're not serious.

Aaah!! I can hear the geniuses object! Obviously I need to make a special exemption for you. The odds are indeed VERY different. If you are one, give up your dreams NOW as you'll have to die before finding recognition. Nobody will understand your genius touch anway.

I could go on for a while but it would take too many CAPITALS and italics. Boring.

Cut to the bottom line:

BE OBSESSED OR QUIT!

PIXAR STORYTELLING - SATURDAY 21 OCTOBER, L.A.

This October sees the fifth edition of the SCREENWRITING EXPO in Los Angeles. For the cost of an airline ticket + USD$140.95, you'll have the opportunity to hear the most successful working Hollywood storytellers, all in one day: PIXAR STORYTELLING.

For the first time to my knowledge, the people behind PIXAR's story department will speak about their craft in public. And if you're not convinced about their skills and talent, try coming up with any other studio matching their hit rate. For twenty years now, they have been churning out hit after hit, reaching the broadest possible audiences worldwide.

DVD COMMENTARY: PIXAR

If you can't afford the trip to LA, the least you can do is check out the commentaries on the Pixar DVDs. I mean: every single one of them. From the very first TOY STORY to their most recent THE INCREDIBLES, they are all diamonds of storytelling. Most of these movies have been written or co-written by the director and if they aren't, chances are the writer sits in on the commentary. As expected, a lot of attention goes to the digital work but the Pixar guys ALWAYS provide excellent comments on the specifics of their stories.

On MONSTERS INC., they go as far as calling up one of the writers during the recording to ask him why they cut Mike Wezowski's marriage proposal to Celia (answer: it would have diluted his 'buddy' relationship to Sulley). Here is your complete Pixar shopping list, to make sure you don't miss out on any of their gems.

The commentary on FINDING NEMO is definitely the most sophisticated as it jumps out of the movie into side tracks showing various aspects of the 'making of', with a total duration of well over the movie's running time.

LOOSE ENDS: PIXAR DOWN UNDER

It has just been announced that mid next year, the travelling exhibition PIXAR, 20 YEARS OF ANIMATION will come to Melbourne. Here's hoping some of the talent will come over with it.

And if you haven't already seen CARS (because some idiot told you it is a lesser Pixar), go see it.

OZZYWOOD GARAGE SALE + THE ULTIMATE TEST

If you recognize the first four pictures in this blog, email me the corresponding movie titles and you will be taken off my 'dilettante list' PLUS I'll send you a DVD*, VCD* or soundtrack CD* (*of my choice) if you're among the first five correct answers. And I will read the synopsis of your next work. For free.

Stop Reading Scripts

2006-07-15T17:23:00.000+10:00

THE DA VINCI CODE came and went, PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST came and stayed and our own dear THE MORTAL COIL receives development funding from our own dear AFC! But let's not distract from those other Things That Matter in the world of story and screenwriting.

According to respected screenwriting gurus, one of the most important things to do for an emerging screenwriter is to read and study as many screenplays as possible. It doesn't matter if the film was a success or a flop: you learn either way.

For years, I blindly believed this dogma as it seemed to make a lot of sense. Learn from good and bad examples. Don't we all do that in other fields? With hundreds of screenplays readily available for download from www.script-o-rama.com, www.imsdb.com and other sources, it is also a cheap way to improve your skill.

But does it?

I try to watch on average a movie a day, either in the cinema or on DVD. With the birth of my son late 2004, that became a bit more of a challenge. I found myself falling asleep in the second act. To remedy the 'early fatherhood syndrome', I would make notes, forcing myself to stay awake. As long as I had the discipline, I would even type them up into structural diagrams.

Suddenly this revelation: the more I liked the film, the easier it would be to find the Aristotelian three act structure and the principles of dramatic tension.

Revelation? Hardly.

What was truly phenomenal was that to crack the key to the film's story structure, it had taken me only the duration of the film plus a few minutes .

If I had read the screenplay instead, it would have taken me hours to read and take notes. Then the work would have only really started in order to piece the structure together from the notes. A finished film underscores the drama in many ways that help you identify the importance of the beat, scene or sequence: through music, fades or even the use of light and colour (Soderbergh's TRAFFIC).

With Wojciech - "Aerosol" - Wawrzyniak, I am developing a story whose structure is vaguely similar to Kenneth Brannagh's MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN (Thank you, Chris) so we decided to read the screenplay and watch the movie.

That's when the REAL value in reading screenplays became apparent: it allows you to compare script and finished film. It shows the areas where filmmakers struggled because things didn't really work the way they wanted.

Comparing script and film also reveals where directors made last minute decisions because they didn't believe the script worked, or more often: the money ran out. A great example is the Chicago Train Station climax in THE UNTOUCHABLES. Mamet's original Third Act had Capone's accountant going on the train, with a chase and shootout following. However, De Palma had blown the budget and was forced to improvise. For years he had been dreaming of shooting a hommage to Eisenstein 'Odessa Steps' sequence from THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN. Finally the opportunity was thrown into his lap because of a budget issue.

In my view, reading lots of screenplays is the hard way to writing good stories. But analysing one or two classics on language, style and formatting may help you find the right balance to turn your final draft into an easy read.

DVD COMMENTARY: TOTAL RECALL

Admittedly, Arnold Schwarzenegger is the last person you would expect to add value to a movie commentary. Well actually Paul Verhoeven does most of the job on this SPECIAL EDITION DVD, "innit?". Can you believe Richard Dreyfuss was one of the original choices for the lead role??? Lucky Verhoeven told Carolco to snap the rights to the script off De Laurentiis, who had financial problems at the time.

More trivia: Verhoeven pinpoints the scene in TOTAL RECALL that gave him the idea to cast Sharon Stone for Basic Instinct. More interestingly, the director elaborates on the philosophical aspects of the story and Philip K. Dick's original short story it was based on. It made me curious to hear his commentary on the controversial STARSHIP TROOPERS.

DVD COMMENTARY: STARSHIP TROOPERS

I find it brave of a director who claims his movie was very much misunderstood, to expressly deal with this issue on a DVD commentary. It probably helped that a few years had gone by and the initial frustration had faded.

Anyway, the dialogue between Verhoeven and writer Neumeier is interesting in the sense that it removes any doubt about the team's intentions. Yes, fascism is BAD. And those that preach violence as a solution are BAD PEOPLE.

But further into the movie, the concepts get a little bit murkier to the point where writer and director are almost - but entirely unintentionally - contradicting each other on the subject of whether or not an audience should be given what they want, even if they happily consume the fascist material without raising questions. As long as the filmmakers' intentions are pure... Hmmm. Not sure about this. Still: fascinating material to think and converse about!

LOOSE ENDS

What exactly is a synopsis? An outline? A treatment? If you are a writer trying to get your works produced or sold, it is important to know AND USE these formats. On the way to success, almost every writer will have to produce at least one of each for almost every work.

A while ago, the Australian Film Commission published an excellent document explaining the difference and the importance of these different formats. As unfortunately it lies buried deep somewhere within their extensive web site, I have taken the liberty to make it available for download here.

AN OFFER YOU COULDN'T REFUSE

I am a total JB Hifi addict, a foible shared by my lovely wife (phew!). But this time, I must draw your attention to the following AMAZING deals at EZYDVD (Australia):

Godfather DVD Collection, The (5 Disc Box Set)
Apocalypse Now Redux
Crash (2004)
Nicolas Cage Collection (4 Disc Box Set)
Searchers, The - 50th Anniversary Special Edition (2 Disc Set)
Wild Bunch, The - The Original Director's Cut: Special Edition (2 Disc Set)
Dead Again
Deer Hunter, The
Forbidden Planet

I have a nasty feeling HD-DVD and/or BluRay will be upon us soon...

The Indian's Journey

2006-05-20T15:44:00.000+10:00

"In “The World’s Fastest Indian” there is no character arc. Burt Munro is the same person at the beginning and at the end of the film," says Jack Brislee in a comment to the first post in this blog, NOT STORY.

I nearly fell off my chair when I realised I could not prove Jack wrong (which he knows I would have loved to).

The film has been a runaway success in New Zealand, received rave reviews all over the world and has done some pretty good box office for a kiwi film with such an awkward title. It seems like most people in and outside the industry agree: This is a good movie.

How on earth could such a strong, moving film lack an Inner Journey??

Well in fact it doesn't. There is even more than one 'Inner Journey'. Only not for the protagonist. Screenwriter/Script Doctor (and longtime friend) Chris Craps points out this is a "Christ Story". The protagonist doesn't change, but his intervention changes the lives of those around him. And look at it: pretty much each character Burt Munro meets, redeems itself in some way or another. From the petty neighbours, over the initially cynical transvestite to the unrelenting race officials.

Jack is right if he means you don't need to slavishly follow McKee to make a screenplay work. But what Chris Craps says is: if you don't, you need to know HOW to make it work in a different way. Without the 'Christ Story' approach, i.e. if Burt wouldn't have changed anybody's lives, this movie would have felt a lot less rich and endearing.

Burt may not go through an Inner Journey, he sure as hell does have an 'Outer Journey' and his obstacles are indeed 'seemingly insurmountable'. I do believe Roger Donaldson's screenplay reaffirms McKee's strong stance on the 'Forces of Antagonism': at about every stage Burt Munro is fighting increasing odds, from his lack of funds, the battle to bend virtually all the rules of the race until the ultimate test of his own fitness and his pain threshold. As a viewer truly engaged in the movie (and not knowing the 'true story'), I was indeed considering the possibility that Burt might not survive the race.

Once the DVD is released, I'll have a closer look and make an attempt to identify Chris Vogler's twelve stages of the journey as I have a slight suspicion Donaldson might have had them in mind for this story. And don't underestimate the development process behind this screenplay: nearly thirty-five years is a long gestation from documentary to feature film.

DVD Commentary: ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST

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 haven't seen this amazing movie or not for a while, don't hesitate and get the double disk release. Apart from the commentary it includes a 48-minute documentary featuring the actors, the moviemakers, and writer Ken Kesey recounting the history of the original novel to its stage and movie adaptations plus 8 additional scenes. Gold.

I have uploaded an audio excerpt with Michael Douglas about finding Chief Bromden and Milos Forman about his struggle with the film's duration. Hold the 'shift' key while clicking the link to the mp3 and this page will stay open. I apologise for the sudden ending of the clip, as this is how the DVD's chapter ends.

I have also included a link in case you want to check any deals for this DVD on Amazon. I will do this for each DVD mentioned in this blog as some titles may be hard to find at times.

From the same production house as SIX FEET UNDER comes CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM. If you like Seinfeld, Woody Allen or even Ben Stiller, it's probably worth giving it a try. I was told NINE aired it in Australia at some unholy hour but I'm not a television watcher so I caught the first three seasons all on DVD. Sofar I found the third season the strongest with the "Special Section" episode (featuring Martin Scorsese) my favourite, as it is generously pushing the boundaries of political correctness and good taste.

Larry David, co-creator of Seinfeld, built 'CURB' around his own persona but Seinfeld fans will recognize a lot of Seinfeld's George in the character. There is probably as much of the real Larry David in this show as there is of the real Woody Allen in his movies, but the confusion between reality and fiction works wonderfully well. And like Allen sticks to his Manhattan, CURB stays in Santa Monica and surrounds. The comedy is mostly verbal, jewish, self-conscious and hilariously far-fetched. Love it or hate it.

For more serious drama, world-class character development and high-tech plotting, check out THE WIRE (HBO, again). It came recommended by my above mentioned friend Chris and I would like to pass it on. The DVD box states ambitiously "The best show on TV" and I must agree, I haven't seen anything like this before. No series has ever succeeded in hooking me onto more than a handful characters, let alone dozens.

One example of the genius of creator David Simon and writer Ed Burns: the arc across the first season. Episode One introduces a murder case and one bad-ass drug dealer. We know he is guilty as hell and when he walks with a dirty grin, we want him dead. At the end of Episode Thirteen, you'll be rooting for this fellow. Nothing is black and white, there is no pure good or evil.

Season Two was released in Australia last week and after having seen four episodes, I cannot wait to recommend it to you all. But rather than looking for more superlatives, here's a brief review I found and which hits the nail on the head:

The Wire must be seen, heard, and absorbed to fully appreciate the way in which over 40 characters are flawlessly incorporated into a sprawling but tightly disciplined plot that deals, in the larger sense, with the deindustrialization of America and the struggle of longshoremen in a changing economical climate. Offering a privileged and occasionally frightening glimpse of the inner workings of shipping ports and cargo transports, The Wire is also a detailed exposé of organized crime and blue-collar corruption, and an authentic, well-informed study of political maneuvering among police and city officials. There's not a single false note to be found in the cast, direction, or writing of this phenomenal series, hailed by many critics as "the best show on television." With all due respect to HBO's other excellent series, The Wire tops them all.--Jeff Shannon

Disclaimers:
- DO watch Season One first.
- DO switch the subtitles on, you may learn some colourful slang.
- Do NOT check the organisational chart on the HBO web site. Though it may be tempting due to the insane amount of characters, the chart offers some unforgivable spoilers. To see cast and characters, rather go here.

GIVEAWAY

A while ago, I tried all Australian home-delivery DVD services and settled for Quickflix for its HUGE collection, including some obscure titles I had been chasing for a long while. Check it out for free: http://www.quickflix.com.au/. If you enter the promo code TX2030 on the home page, you'll receive up to 5 DVDs in your trial. THE WIRE Season One comes on five DVDs, so you can enjoy the whole season for free. Try before you buy!

A Director's Approach

2006-05-06T23:46:00.000+10:00

Following my post on SYRIANA writer/director Stephen Gaghan, I came across an interesting discussion on the necessity of rigorous structuring vs. a more liberal, visual approach to screenwriting.

Jim Mercurio makes the following point about Gaghan's comments in the notorious CS podcast: "Gaghan's comments are showing that he is evolving from a screenwriter into a filmmaker. "

With 'filmmaker', he undoubtedly means 'director' and with his quote he hits the nail on the head. However, Mercurio makes it sound as if this is a natural evolution, when he goes on to explain how his own latest script too is told with transitions. All of a sudden Gaghan is fashionable, and screenwriters are re-inventing Tolstoy. Now let's not forget the following facts:

1. Tolstoy was a novelist
2. Gaghan is NOT a meanstream screenwriter
3. Transitions do not stand in the way of proper story structuring

What everybody seems to be missing in this discussion is that transitions play on a shot level, or at best on a scene level. Story structure goes way beyond that. Whatever Mercurio may think, a screenplay written solely from transitions will most likely end up in the same tiny niche market as KOYAANISQATSI.

DVD: THE MANN SPEAKS

The same day I stumbled on the discussion above, I heard writer/director Michael Mann's commentary on the Restored Director's Cut of MANHUNTER.

Mann's comments focus mainly on the parallel psychology of the serial murderer and the cop, besides a few killer anecdotes about production nightmares. My favourite: the airplane scene with the little girl freaking out over Will Graham's bloody crime scene photos. The only way to shoot this was to book the entire film crew on a United Airlines flight from Chicago to Orlando without informing the airline of their plans, keeping all equipment as hand luggage. Mid flight suddenly these hundred or so people got out of their seats and started filming. No need to say that Mann could kiss his United air miles goodbye.

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.).

I don't want to get too theoretical here, but 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, I could easily build a case to prove that transitions are structure. I'll spare you that one for now. But isn't it remarkable that seventy years apart, two Russians were telling the world about transitions in their respective art forms?

To conclude: Mercurio is right when he says that Gaghan writes like a filmmaker. Like Michael Mann, he is already thinking of what he will do in the editing room and therefore writes his story from scene transitions rather than starting from an overall dramatic arc. This approach to script writing is indeed in many ways similar to that of Hitchcock or Mann but I am sure those last two went through far less drafts than Gaghan.

BTW: Don't rush out to get Manhunter from HMV or Amazon.com: unfortunately Mann's commentary only features on a rare DVD which has been out of print for a while, which limits your options largely to eBay. But as a bonus from OZZYWOOD, you can download the last four minutes of Michael Mann's director's commentary here.

LOOSE ENDS: The First Act Monolith

Recently I watched BRUBAKER, not knowing anything about this 1980 drama directed by Stuart Rosenberg. If you haven't seen the film but are planning to do so in the near future, don't read on as I will spoil the pleasure (and surprise).

The film strays from the traditional structure mainly because of its offbeat First Act. For the life of me, I could not detect an Inciting Incident, nor any significant protagonist characterisation. Instead we witness from Robert Redford's detainee character's POV how the most appalling injustice and brutality is inflicted relentlessly upon the inmates.

Over thirty minutes into the movie, Redford's character identifies himself as the new warden and announces in the same scene that he wants to force through some serious reform. Finally we have our 1st Act Turning Point. I am still trying to understand why the warden's identity was kept hidden from the audience all along. Apart from a sudden surprise, it doesn't add a thing. The use of dramatic irony (i.e.: the audience knows, but the other characters don't) would have been much more powerful and it would have allowed for the badly needed character development.

Leading US critic Roger Ebert wrote about this film: "There's no room for the spontaneity of real human personalities caught in real situations. That's especially annoying with the character of Brubaker himself, played well but within a frustratingly narrow range by Robert Redford. "

Redford's performance is rock solid given the material. BRUBAKER's real problem is its flawed structure: half an hour into the movie, we have run out of screentime to sufficiently set up the protagonist's character and potential internal conflicts. Redford didn't have anything to work with, which makes Ebert's comment rather unfair.

What the screenwriters did achieve quite well though, is the setup of antagonists and external obstacles in the way of the protagonist's objective. Perhaps this explains why the film did work for me.

It still beats me though why BRUBAKER was nominated for Best Screenplay back in 1980. Perhaps it was a fluke. In my view, this theory gains strength when we look at co-writer W.D. Richter's latest work: STEALTH...

NOT Story

2006-04-24T18:33:00.000+10:00

Last year I attended Linda Aronson's PLOT CONSTRUCTION WORKSHOP and was disappointed with her analysis of Michael Mann's THE INSIDER. Indirectly that disappointment would lead to the creation of this blog.

Rather than opening a dialogue about why THE INSIDER works for some people and not for others, Linda treated it as an example of a failed script. To her defense: it was only part of that night's workshop and time constraints didn't allow her to divert.

THE INSIDER not only put Russell Crowe on the celebrity map with a Best Actor Nomination, the movie was also nominated for another six awards including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay. That's a pretty good result for a 'failed script'. As a matter of fact, it smells a bit like my not so smart move to call WOLF CREEK a 'missed opportunity' in terms of screenwriting at the offices of Australia's Film Financing Corporation.

Linda Aronson's workshops got me thinking and inspired me to the idea of an online forum about issues like this and about story structure in general. Australia doesn't have a screenwriting culture which recognises the importance of story development as opposed to script development.

We have an abundance of script assessment services happily charging writers hundreds of dollars for a full screenplay assessment without assessing the story's overall dramatic structure first. Does any established producer / government funding body / Hollywood Studio read a full-length spec script without judging the story outline first? Right.

But enough of this sub plot for now. Back to the main story.

THE INSIDER - SCHINDLER'S LIST

I don't recall Linda's argument about THE INSIDER in detail as I have the arrogant habit to shut down when I am not allowed to argue my point. In essence, I believe the bottom line was: the casting of Al Pacino shows that the filmmakers considered his character the protagonist (Russell Crowe was pretty much a nobody on the international scene until that movie) but Pacino's character is too weak and underdeveloped to carry the movie for its runtime of over two and a half hours.

A lot of movie buffs (including members of the Academy) will agree that THE INSIDER worked, despite its slightly unconventional structure. Linda is right: the script does not follow a straightforward three act plot.

Instead I believe here are two main stories with three acts each, hooked into each other very much like SCHINDLER'S LIST in which we first follow Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley) who's objective it is to get as many Jews into the factory as possible. Once we are well into his journey's second act and over an hour into the film, Schindler (Liam Neeson) witnesses the clearing of the Krakow ghetto which demarcates his first act's turning point. Now his objective is to get the workers out of the factory and into safety. Think about it: the Schindler character doesn't really have a strong enough dramatic objective to get the story to that point. But Stern does.

Similarly, in THE INSIDER it is Wigand's (Russell Crowe) Second Act objective to get his inside information safely to Bergman (Al Pacino), at which point we're already into Bergman's Second Act, which is all about getting the information to the public through his television show. Obviously we are now only talking about what Vogler would call the Hero's Outer Journey, i.e. the 'visible desire'. But I believe the Inner Journeys of these characters very much follow the same structure.

I would love to hear your view on these (admittedly rudimentary) story analyses. To me these two movies illustrate that:

- it is a myth that a movie should have three acts.
- it is a must that major characters have three acts.

However...

SYRIANA recently scratched a thin layer off my confidence in the traditional three act story structure. For a short while at least. To say that writer/director Stephen Gaghan is not really a slavish follower of the Syd Fields and Robert McKee's of this world, is a bit of an understatement. Instead he learned from reading Tolstoy's diaries in which the novelist explains his four main driving principles, the first of which is NOT "story". Instead, in order of priority Tolstoy lists: Transition, Context, Story and Character.

McKEE vs. TOLSTOY

Clearly, this approach to screenwriting works for Gaghan who won earlier accolades with his script for Soderbergh's TRAFFIC. Showing structural similarities with the latter film, SYRIANA paints a multi-textured, multi-protagonist tapestry giving us a hint of an insight in the complex issues that govern the world of the oil trade and middle-eastern politics. If you dig it, it's riveting cinema and you'll want to watch it again. If you don't, you certainly have a valid reason for that.

SYRIANA is a brilliant piece of screenwriting but it appeals to the mind rather than the heart. Because of that, I don't believe this type of political manifesto will mobilise the masses any time soon. Audiences today firstly want to be emotionally moved rather than intellectually engaged.

The above consideration is only an introduction to what I find one of the most entertaining discourses on screenwriting I have recently heard. In a podcast of nearly 90mins, Gaghan talks to CREATIVE SCREENWRITING MAGAZINE about his journey to screenwriting stardom, about his writing process and of course: SYRIANA.

Go to CREATIVE SCREENWRITING to find out how to download this podcast as well as other Q&A's with the writers of CAPOTE, THE SQUID AND THE WHALE, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE etc. If you're having trouble with that, you can download the 80Mb Gaghan show directly from here: www.ozzywood.com/podcasts/Syriana.mp3

DVD COMMENTARIES

Not a lot of DVD's come with a commentary that is useful from a story or screenwriting perspective. Hence the excitement when we do find one that sheds a good light on the movie from the writer's pov.

Hitchcock's NORTH BY NORTHWEST comes with a commentary track by Hollywood legend Ernest Lehman. And although he doesn't go into a lot of detail about the actual writing process, he reveals a goldmine of facts and anecdotes about his working relationship with Hitch. Ironically, it's another movie that wasn't written following the screenwriting text books.

Speaking of which: a great analysis of NORTH BY NORTHWEST can be found in a work that I have been recommending a lot lately: Paul Gulino's SCREENWRITING - THE SEQUENCE APPROACH. This book offers only about twenty pages of theory, followed by a thorough dramatic analysis of such great and diverse works as LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, DINER, ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST and TOY STORY. The basis is the Aristotelian Three Act model, the principles of drama and anticipation as taught by the late Frank Daniel.

LOOSE ENDS (potential spoilers warning)

THE WORLD'S FASTEST INDIAN: Wonderfully crafted feel-gooder. The only problem with this movie is its title. A more appealing label would have drawn even more people to the Box Office and made word of mouth easier. Hopkins is sensational and most side characters go beautifully against cliche. Somebody on IMDb calls it "A Chick Flick for Guys". So true.

V FOR VENDETTA: When your name is Wachowsky, you don't have to worry about story structure or character development. As long as you have a strong concept, the fans will queue. I applaude the subversive concept of portraying Guy Fawks as a hero but I wish I could have loved this movie more. The story would have been helped with a more rigorous development of the V / Evey relationship. Also, the Wachowsky's have the bad habit of leaving their heroes for too long, one of the problems I seem to remember sunk Matrix III.

THE PROPOSITION (DVD): Now this one is out on DVD, I would recommend having a look at it from a story structure point of view. I sincerely enjoyed this movie until the scene when Captain Stanley (Ray Winstone) throws the keys to the jail in the sand. To me this marks the end of the second act, which comes way too early in the movie. It also takes the wind out of the sails of the Stanley / Martha subplot which up until that point had been really nicely developed.

KING KONG (DVD): If you don't like the 1933 original, you probably won't like this one either. After all you're expected to empathise with an ape and his consenting playmate. Despite the groundbreaking and breathtaking visuals in Jackson's KONG, the real action after The Longest First Act in Human History (that is not counting SCHINDLER'S LIST) starts with a dino stampede which just briefly looks downright clumsy. But I didn't mind it and the FX only get better towards the movie's phenomenal finale on top of the Empire State.

In terms of Jackson's (or rather: Fran Walsh's) structure and drama skills, I'd like to refer again to a great article in Paul Gulino's SCREENWRITING - THE SEQUENCE APPROACH in which the author makes a razorsharp analysis of THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. It shows weaknesses that have been largely ironed out in the later instalments of the trilogy and now also his version of KING KONG.

But I think I love this movie for a different reason. Peter Jackson is one of the very few living directors who can handle a colossal production like this and still retain a fresh, innocent and boyish feel. You forget the years of preparation and the sheer unmanageable machinery involved in getting this on the screen. It's the type of magic which George Lucas has long lost.