Screenwriting structure Part 13 The Protagonist’s call to action dilemma
You may or may not have heard about this… Most of us have heard about the Protagonist’s “call to action” which is followed by “refusal of the call.” And I personally believe in the Protagonist’s call to action — refusal of the call but what about right before the call to action? Remember the inciting incident? Remember how it totally kicks the Protagonist off that balance beam we call his or her ordinary world?
Well right after we make him or her lose their balance and take that fall, they’re stunned. They weren’t expecting this to happen to them. Their ordinary world is now disrupted to the point that they’ve got to stand back and take a breath… They don’t know what the fuck to do…
Time to regroup.
The Protagonist is going through a call to action dilemma. No, this ain’t the big dilemma that you might want to throw at your Protagonist later on down the line… This is a small one but to me, it’s really important. In fact, I look for it in every script and guess what?
I rarely see it.
Most books and gurus never seem to mention it but don’t let that keep you from understanding it. Most scripts that I read definitely have the call to action — refusal of the call and wow… They seem to slap that right in our face, don’t they? It’s almost like the screenwriter is saying, “Look Ma, I’m using the Hero’s Journey!”
In other words — it ain’t too subtle. No it doesn’t have to be but it just happens to be one of my pet peeves.
Oh well.
The Protagonist’s call to action dilemma is your chance — early on in your story to show us how fucked up your Protagonist is… Or maybe how fucked up your Protagonist, ain’t. That all depends on you and your Protagonist.
But make no mistake, showing us how your Protagonist handles this dilemma is important stuff. It helps clarify what kind of person your protagonist is. It’s okay to show us how fucked up your Protagonist is before the call to action dilemma because now you can redeem him or her if you’ve a mind to.
Or not.
Sure, we almost always see the Protagonist refuse to get involved in a new adventure… Geez… At this point in our lives and with all these movies — haven’t we pretty much come to expect it? They can’t get involved because they’re needed at home. They can’t get involved because it’s not their job. They can’t get involved because their pee-pee hurts.
Ho hum. Fine. Then all of a sudden their pee-pee doesn’t hurt anymore OR what the hell… Even though it still hurts like a motherfucker, they’re gonna go.
Sever that predictability by concentrating a little more on the actual dilemma that the inciting incident brings to the game. Take this opportunity to let us learn more about your Protagonist. His or her real fears and flaws. Now’s the time to show us. Now’s the time to tell us if this guy or girl is worth our investment of time, popcorn, and soda.
Don’t pass it up.
Unk
Comments
72 Responses to “Screenwriting structure Part 13 The Protagonist’s call to action dilemma”
Leave a Reply
Unk, this is great stuff. I’m studying 3:10 TO YUMA by watching it as I read it. I keep thinking of after Dan Evans barn has been burnt down and Ben Wade had robbed the stage coach.
Both of them are talking alone in the saloon and the posse comes in. Dan gets offered $200 to take Ben to the 3:10 to Yuma. After that he tells his wife he’s goin’ and she doesn’t really agree, but this takes him out of his comfort zone by risking life and all.
“Take this opportunity to let us learn more about your Protagonist. His or her real fears and flaws. Now’s the time to show us.”
At this point we learn tons more about Dan’s life. About his leg, how much debt he owes, what he wants in life, and etc…
Damn… I’ve gotta reconsider some things on my own script.
Clearest illustration that comes to my mind is the first 10 minutes of Oldboy. Oh Dae-su kicks, screams and begs for months before he even sees the choice laid before him.
And while it might not be fair to compare a man being locked in a room for 15 years to another man getting dumped by his slutty girlfriend, it’s certainly more interesting.
Thanks Unk
wow - this post made me want to throw up. sorry, but breaking down a story like this may make sense, but just sounds revolting. how hideously formulaic.
Ryan,
You mean it doesn’t seem “hideously formulaic” to you? LOL.
Calcium,
I know I’ve seen it but for the life of me — drawing a blank.
christopher,
Dude… I won’t keep you from upchucking… Do what you gotta do. The trick is in keeping it from being formulaic. Apparently, you don’t understand that.
Unk
I recently watched “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”.
Remember when the old man is telling Indiana about all of the bad things that has happened to their village after the stone was stolen by the evil cult? He didn’t give a shit because he didn’t believe in that bologna. He wasn’t going to go and risk his life for a random village that means nothing to him.
However, once the old man told Indiana that “they took our children,” the situation changed for Indiana. He couldn’t turn back from these people now, knowing this. He had to save those innocent children, even though his “pee pee still hurts” regarding the magical crap.
On an unrelated note, the movie was pretty bleh. lol
wow, way to be an ass. i highly doubt im the only person who would find this kind of dry academic analysis of storytelling distasteful. it’s not a stretch to believe someone following this scientific an approach might have a hard time coming up with anything original. no need to insinuate that im not intelligent enough to understand the mana your doling out.
Dear UNK,
Just when I thought my script is ready for the world, you post something like this and I think, hold on a mo!! My hero’s call to action dilemma is a little unclear.
The inciting incident BANG is right at the start of my script and although there has been a passing of time before the hero takes up the call to action, that real dilemma is missing. Given the hero’s character, I think I need to show this and re-introduce a scene I threw out because I’m a follower of the start late, end early rule.
Time for yet another re-write on this particular project, methinks!!
Thanks UNK!!!
“They don’t know what the fuck to do…”
Well, I’m pretty sure I have this call to action dilemma in my script. I even write of the protagonist “he has no clue what to do.” then his choice sets the table for the gist of the story.
Though, his call to action occurs not when his ordinary world gets out of whack, but when it returns with a vengeance. It pushes this moment out to about page 30, but I think it works.
Great post, thanks UNK.
And as far a Christopher’s “formulaic” comment. Don’t think of it as a formula, but as elements of a good story. I bet if you’ve written any half-way decent scripts, you can go back and find a moment like the one UNK is describing above. You may not have consciously used a formula to put it in there, but if it’s a good story, odds are it’s in there.
Hell no Unk! Lol
If this was “hideously formulaic”, then wouldn’t everyone be doin’ it?
All this makes sense cause this is a side that we could never see from the protagonist.
This is something that the audience can see the protagonist struggle with. It’s a way that we can relate to. It’s a way to perfect our protagonist. I like it.
Christopher. If you don’t know the difference between “formula” and “good screenplay structure” then you may need to do a little more homework.
Try writing a script without this little shadow behind the inciting incident and see how much is missing.
Then write a real script with it included and see how it works.
Screenwriting is structure. Bad screenwriting is formula. Use the structure properly and it works.
Or go write a novel instead.
Is anybody else laughing at how Christopher’s blog is called “Deep Structure”?
Lol
Hey Unk,
I’m sure you’ve seen SEA OF LOVE . . . I just watched it again today and I was dying to ask you about it, heh . . . what do you think about that structure? Ellen Barkin doesn’t enter in until 43 minutes into the flick, heh-heh.
So you say you don’t often see a refusal of the call in the scripts you read, but when you see a refusal of the call, it’s rather hamhanded and formulaic, right? And you’d want more character motivation, so it’s more (warning, heavy LA word here) organic?
Like in THE UNFORGIVEN, when Eastwood has to be talked into going and killing those cowboys for money at the beginning . . . he doesn’t want to do it, but he’s dead broke and a pig is sick, right?
I wondered, though, don’t you think the protag’s call to action depends on the type of film one is writing?
Dramas have differing demands than satires, romances differ from thrillers. I can see what you’re saying perfectly with something like THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR (frigging excellent flick) but with MASH? Or WHEN HARRY MET SALLY? DAZED AND CONFUSED?
And especially BRUBAKER - Man, I love that movie. But Redford doesn’t come out (heh) for a good half hour or so. And he never refuses the call, nor backs down.
And then there’s THE BREAKFAST CLUB, a culture until itself, with FIVE protagonists.
I ain’t trying to “peck a fight” as the man said in BRAVEHEART (William Wallace had a refusal of the call, I’d note, a great one, he wanted to raise some crops and, god willing, a family) - I just want to open up the discussion to hear your extended thoughts on the matter -
Scott -
A lot of good novels have excellent structure, too. They simply don’t need to hit the same bullet points all the other great novels do, the structure only needs to be exactly the most efficient form for that individual novel.
Until some studio buys it, of course, and hires someone to put the studio bullet points in. But sometimes, as well, the novel’s structural base is kept and the movie works anyway.
But hey, I ain’t complaining. I like it when they hire me to adapt their books, heh.
Carlo,
I admit… That Indy was definitely bleh… LOL.
christopher,
Dude… I don’t even know who the fuck you are and you come over to my site and draw first blood and then call me an ass?
Too funny…
On top of that, you jump to the conclusion without reading anything else that I am proposing that everyone write their screenplays according to some formula.
Which means…
YOU DON’T KNOW SHIT.
This is the kind of shit that gets me into a funk because it’s people like yourself that fail to actually read what you’re reading. Rather, you jump to some conclusion and assume you are in fact correct when in fact, you are not.
Scientific approach? Are you fucking serious, DEEP STRUCTURE?
Pardon me while I go ice-pick myself to death…
Marty,
Now you know the secret “SCIENTIFIC FORMULA!” LOLOLOLOL.
Tom,
Be careful… If you actually have it in your script, you might not be doing anything ORIGINAL since it is hideously formulaic. And of course, the WAY YOU WROTE it absofuckinglutely supports that thesis… Correct?
Scott,
OH NO! NOT YOU TOO? YOU’RE USING (GULP) STRUCTURE? But let me ask you this…
Are you using DEEP STRUCTURE?
I wasn’t before but you can bet your ass I want to now…
Carlo,
I saw that first thing… What I want to know is this… What the FUCK is DEEP STRUCTURE? Is it…
1) Just a phrase…
2) Just the name of a blog…
3) A hideously formulaic way of being original…
4) A way to get traffic to a blog…
5) All the above…
I guess I’ll have to actually read the shit to find out…
Josh,
You said, “So you say you don’t often see a refusal of the call in the scripts you read, but when you see a refusal of the call, it’s rather hamhanded and formulaic, right?”
Nope.
I said that I don’t usually see what I call, “the call to action dilemma.” Most screenplays never include anything like it but I happen to think it’s a great way for us to get to know the Protagonist in a real short amount of time.
But yes, when I do read and watch the refusal of the call in scripts and movies, it does seem fairly IN MY FACE most of the time. As if someone is actually using “hideously formulaic” structure in an unoriginal way.
And yes, the call to action absolutely depends on the film… And yeah, you can probably write a screenplay without it but I think you’re missing out on a MAJOR structure element that most if not all the audience demographic can identify with and specifically helps them invest in your story.
As long as the way you write it isn’t “hideously formulaic.”
I think BRUBAKER is an outstanding film and to me, he does refuse the call… His call to action is to reform the prison. Jane Alexander wants him to “do it” in a politically correct way but he ain’t built that way and does it his own way…
And in the end, the prison suffers for it because it goes back to the way it was.
As for when Protagonists come into the story and when things happen and all that shit… Yada yada yada…
It all depends on the story but there’s nothing wrong with starting out with a good solid structure to help you get STARTED.
That’s ALL I’ve EVER been trying to get across anyone’s mindset.
Mr. Deep Structure jumped to the conclusion that I promote unoriginal writing… That’s not true at all. Writing is WRITING! Writing is where each of us has to fucking SHINE to get the break we need to work in the business.
And… If you start out with a good solid structure to build your story on, then it is very fucking likely that by the end of structuring your story, all your fucking structural elements will be there. All the structural elements required for an audience or someone reading your script to mentally invest in your story and ride the train all the way to the end.
Nobody said you couldn’t move things around to fit the story even better… Nobody said that your characters couldn’t continuously take detours from said structure and explore new twists and turns that can be added to said structure. Nobody said that you should hunker down and write a screenplay like connecting the fucking dots.
And finally… At least for this comment… LOL. I’m talking SPEC SCREENPLAYS.
Give me a book like:
ACCOMPLICES TO THE CRIME: THE ARKANSAS PRISON SCANDAL
–and I’ll try to keep as true to the book as I can which means following the structure of the book AND making sure that certain movie structural elements are included.
Unk
*EDIT: Just logged into my email and found an email from DEEP STRUCTURE that said:
nice censorship. figures.
christopher,
Just so you know… And so you no longer have to keep jumping to inaccurate conclusions… I have this site set to allow ALL comments. They may not show up immediately but that’s simply because I get between 2000-3000 spam comments every day. I use a lot of different words and phrases in my BLACKLIST SECTION to assist in capturing the actual spam comments…
Appropriately, WordPress detected your comment as SPAM… LOL.
To make sure that I don’t accidentally delete some asshole’s comment — like yours, for instance — I have to manually go through all the spam comments and DE-SPAM them.
Your turn…
Unk
Wow. I leave for a few days and all hell breaks loose. Who the hell does that Christopher guy think he is?
Anyway, tell me what you think of this:
A virgin who dances like a stripper. She has parties, EVERYONE has respect - her brother’s a psycho. She goes to college and some drunk guy (never would have been at her parties) grabs her ass. Later, there is an attempted rape.
So she now has to decide if she should change or not. Like dancing is a bad thing - it usually happens fully-dressed. I think it’s a serious sociological question. Is it the victim’s fault?
Anyway, I like to write certain movies so that everyone thinks something different. I think that’s the mark of a good character drama. The movie above got FIVE different analyses from five different readers. I MUST GOT GAME. That was my goal.
Anyway, keep up the good work. And don’t mind assholes. At least you don’t live in NYC.
And mostly,
Keep writing as writing is the revealing of the soul.
Christian,
All asses and assholes are welcome… LOL.
Hmmm. Virgins. Strippers. Rape. Change.
Sounds great to me…
Unk
Thow in some lacrosse players, and you’ve got a hit!
Okay, call to action DILEMMA, which sometimes is a refusal and sometimes something else . . . that makes total sense.
Cool. And yeah, I guess that moment of Dilemma IS in Brubaker IS in it (doesn’t that movie just rock most awesome?) . . . though it happens well into it . . . I totally get it . . . it’s not a refusal of the call, but a refusal to do things in any way other than what Brubaker thinks is right (I love how his character essentially stays true to himself throughout the whole movie, though he acts as an agent of change on everyone else).
Okay Unk. Got it.
You know me . . . I’m obsessed with semantical specifics.
I don’t want this little gang to sound too offensive towards Christopher. I’m all for hearing opposing arguments, but it seems like he’s jumping to conclusions about this post too quick for his own good.
The vibe I’m getting form him is that he doesn’t like people treating the art of writing as a science project, and I’d agree with that on it’s own, but we’re discussing structure in the grande scheme.
Whe Unk talks about structure, he isn’t talking about doing the same Hollywood plot over and over again, in a “connect the dots” fashion. He’s talking about structure and plot points as a part of the story as a whole.
I can understand that you, christopher, would read some of this post and think “Good stories are more than connecting the dots”, and you’re right, but that has nothing to do with what we, and Unk, are talking about here.
Read the post again. If you get the same vibe, then argue against us in a way that doesn’t sound like you’re simply trolling.
@Unk
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was pretty good. I was surprised at how a lot of the dialogue fell flat, though. Also, the scene where Indy says “All I have to do is squeeze” and Elsa says “All I have to do is scream” felt ridiculously contrived.
Do they expect me to believe Indy would have beheaded her, and that the fact that she would scream deterred him from doing so? That’s ridiculous. There two lines of dialogue were obviously thought up and put into the script because they provided drama and tension. And hey those two lines rhymed too. That’s always a plus. LOL
THESE are the things you need to avoid when dealing with structure. These lines of dialogie may seem clever and tense at first, but they aren’t in the grand scheme of the story.
It’s just like how, in Temple of Doom, they kept forcing the girl and Indy to kiss. They obviously hated each other, their relationship had no charisma, but they made them kiss anyways to add an element to the movie’s structure.
It fell flat, however.
Our responsibility, as writers, is to realize what does work and, more importantly, what doesn’t work and apply them to our writing.
Remember the last scene of the movie where the girl is cussing at Indy? When she’s telling him she genuinely hated what he put her through? And how she hated him for it? And how she wants nothing to do with him? And then she starts to walk away, furious?
And then Indy whips her around her waist, grappling onto her belt, and pulls her to him to have a “romantic” smooch-smooch?
Puhlease.
Unk,
Took a spin over to DEEP STRUCTURE….
Didn’t find anything on screenplay structure at all. Hmmmm. And unbelievably this guy gets fewer hits on his blog than I do on mine LOL.
After reading his ‘log line’ for his screenplay,
“Borrowed Heaven”, I would give anything for him to send you his first ten pages for a critique. On second thought…
A challenge to you Christopher … post your first ten pages on your blog … let’s see if you ‘have game’.
Unk, you gotta have a stainless steel constitution to put up with folks like this.
Regards,
Mike
Hey hey, this isn’t a lion’s den. No reason to be so hasty in chewing people’s balls off.
Christopher has a link to his short little movie on his blog. I thought it was alright (though I didn’t understand the end in it’s entirety, largely due to not being familiar with the content at hand).
Tom,
Cool… And we’ll call it:
Baaga`adowe
I like it.
Josh,
Semantical speficics aside… I am and am always talking about SPEC screenplays.
Carlo,
I pretty much agree with you on the Indy stuff… Sometimes trying to be TOO CLEVER can ruin an otherwise great story or screenplay.
Mike,
My experience with “ARTISTES” — notice I did NOT say, ARTISTS is that their structure is so fuckin’ deep we never see any.
You think that post is bad?
You should see my inbox… But recently, I learned a neat little trick. You right click on an email and a little menu window pops up. You slide your mouse on down to this cool little word…
DELETE.
Unk
Bahaha. Upon reading my post about Indy, I’ve realized there are so many typos. Some funny ones too, like “dialogie” and the embarassing “there” instead of “they’re”. Bahaha
Carlo,
Holy shit… You’re human.
Unk
Shh, don’t tell anyone.
Personally, I love screenplay structure. And I feel that the true talent of a screenwriter is creating a great story and fitting it into a great, solid structure.
Leaving the other 98%.
Because always remember that screenplays are structure. Always have been, always will be. And yes, I mean especially SPEC screenplays. Once you go over 50 million domestic with one of your scripts you can write a script with the structure of the phone book.
But until then, you should be doing 2 things:
- Mastering screenplay structure
- Mastering high concept story creation
My opinion. Maybe it’s not yours, but it’s mine.
Sometimes,
This
Rad
Unk
Character
Truly
Unveils
Real
Education.
See, structure’s fun!
I saw Diablo Cody at a book signing in West Hollywood a few months back. She said, “I think too much is written on the subject of Structure in screenwriting.”
I agree.
Because back before I sat down to write a script, I read Mckee’s “Story” and Trottier’s “Screenwriter’s Bible,” and they totally fucked with my writing.
Too much structure too early can be a bad thing for an aspiring writer. It’s a headache - trying to incorporate all those rules that don’t make any sense yet.
I recommend Joe Eszterhas’ “Devil’s Guide to Hollywood” to all beginning screenwriters. He emphasizes Character over Structure, and Common Sense over Scientific Theory.
Ah, but common sense can only go so far when you see that there are sages who’ve spent years in the trenches, mastering their trade. That’s why I come here, or go to the Mystery Man’s site - to take in those old school rules.
And they’re starting to make sense.
But we should still strive to break all the rules (without getting caught, of course). I mean, shit, what successful artist ever respected authority?
A great story ALREADY has great structure, Scott. You don’t need to fit it into a structure if you know the story, you simply need to get out of its way.
There’s much more to screenplays than structure. That’s not to say that structure isn’t important, not at all. I believe structure is important, though I believe Aristotle and especially Goethe told us more than McKee ever would about story.
Screenplays are stories. Pure and simple. Some stories require complex, intricate structure and some do not.
People go to movies for the stories, and in particular they’re interested in the characters within those stories and what happens to them. What structure does is ensure that the above happens in the most efficient manner possible. That’s what structure is.
People don’t line up to see films because of its good structure. In fact, oftentimes they go in spite of it (CLERKS) . . . they go for the characters and what happens to them.
You can have a perfectly structured film that is terrible as well, if we don’t give a damn about the characters within (see MENACE, PHANTOM).
Which is why I often state that for me, character is story, in a way.
Those of us who write other things such as novels, plays and graphic novels are not unfamiliar with structure . . . it wasn’t something invented for the movies - it’s a tool to used to streamline your story.
That’s my opinion, for better or worse, and maybe no one else’s. But it is mine.
And in some ways, every script written is speculative until it actually gets shot. Every single one.
Wow, now I’m not so sure I want heavy traffic to my blog. I have very little patience. But I am gad I found this blog. It has been instrumental in helping me with what I don’t want to do in a movie. Not that I don’t agree wholeheartedly with you on most topics. I just like to be as different as possible.
That’s why I LOVE female-driven dramas. That’s about as different as you can get nowadays.
This post has helped me clarify one of the sticking points in my screenplay, thank you. I was on the right track, just not trusting myself.
I am completely baffled as to why someone would name their blog “Deep Structure” if they have a beef with actually looking at the common elements of structure. I mean, I do understand the argument against strict adherence to a formula, and the problem that many people have with the overly-rigid application of one specific type of structure… but… but… *sigh* Yeah, well.
I did appreciate the post about female stars in the Deep Structure blog. Seems it’s the same for women actors as it is for directors and screenwriters. How have there not been lawsuits?
Unk,
I’m still learning so bear with me. I just wanted to see if I’m following you right. Basically what you’re saying is give a little more insight into how the inciting incident is or has affected the protagonist?
Are you referring to something like in Jurassic Park when Hammond asks Grant and Sattler to come to his island? They initially say no and Grant tries to give excuses not to go saying they just dug up a new skeleton. So is the new skeleton (or the work their in general) the little dilemma that Grant and Sattler go through?
The inciting incident - Hammond asks Grant and Sattler to visit his island
Inciting incident dilemma - Grant and Sattler would have to leave pressing work behind (the work is important to them)
So they Refuse the Call until more money is thrown at them and they relent because the money will allow them to continue work several years into the future. (again, the work being the reason behind their choice.)
Thanks for any help!
-Chris
I totally agree with you Joshua. For me characters are the most important thing in a storytelling. And I’m not just talking in terms of screenplay only. But the WHOLE writing process itself. NOVELS, PLAYS, STORIES and every writing that requires a storytelling. Characters drive the story because their stories are their lives. Their personalities and their actions are the only thing that will determine what’s gonna happens in their lives till the end. Without a great characters you’ll have for sure a really bad story.
Now here is where structure enters and that’s where I disagree a little with you Joshua. A great structure its a must in a storytelling… in ALL STORYTELLING. Because structure its the only thing that its going to help us, THE WRITERS, to develop and create an environment, physically and emotionally speaking, for our characters move their lives in an AMAZING and EXTRAORDINARY way. And no one can’t make that better than us, THE WRITERS, because we are the only one who know our characters deeply than any one else.
Now when I’m referring to structure I’m not talking about 3 acts structure, 4 acts structure, lineal or nonlinear plots SHIT etc, etc etc. Structures are ELEMENTS we need to use so our story looks great. Our characters are gonna drives the story but we are gonna make it in the most fucking hilarious and amazing way.
For that reason I think we are the only ones who have to determine the appropriate structure to our story. Which are the ELEMENTS that’ll work in your story, which not? YOU only know.
Every Storytelling needs a structure. Its fucking pits me off the people who say that novels don’t have a structure and that’s BULLSHIT!!! If you read a novel… and when I say read, I mean to read it well… you’re gonna see a lot of elemental structure all the way till the end.
Structure isn’t the way we write. Structure is the ELEMENTS we use to tell the story in the most incredible and effective possible way. It isn’t the 3 acts structure. A beginning , middle and an end its gonna be in all stories. It’s not if is linear or non linear. That’s not structure. That just ways to tell the plot. Structure is more than that. It’s something we most have in present when developing a storytelling.
So UNK, what you are doing its FANTASTIC. Because you’re are talking about the ELEMENTS of the structure. Inciting Incident… Call to Action Dilemma… Reversals… etc, etc etc. That’s structure.
P.s. UNK MEMENTO its one of my favorite movies of all times. I’ve seen it like a THOUSAND times. I just don’t get the point you say that it’s similar to THE LOOKOUT. Sorry to get back that theme again. Its just that I don’t get it. Maybe you’re talking about the protagonist, because of his ill. But the story runs completely different to MEMENTO. I’m gonna see it again to see if I get what you mean.
Don’t let people like Christopher funk you. You have a lot of writers here that fucking appreciate what you’re doing. We are learning a lot from your posts. THOUSAND THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey Josh, from what I see, audiences that go to see movies already know the structure of a movie. Not to the point that screenwriters do, but enough to expect something. And when it’s missing, the movie doesn’t feel right.
Fomr many conversations, people who are not into the working side of films (writers, actors, directors) NO COUNTRY was not a good film. The viewers were waiting for the big second act plot point and it was anti-climactic because they never saw Llewelyn die. And then it switched back to a different point of view other than that of whoi we had been following and invested in for the last 45 minutes.
I remember when the credits rolled in the full theatre I was in. Many mumblings of, “What the f%@$?”, “That blew”, “What happened to Josh Brolin?” Etc.
It may be brilliance, but the Cohen’s also directed the thing themselves and they’re a little off in their own world as well.
All’s I’m saying, is that audiences also know structure: The fact they’ll see an interesting opening hook, a good guy and bad guy, obstacles, a major turning point about 25 minutes and then again at 75-80 minutes, and a righteous climax where the good guy beats the bad guy, changes, and gets the girl, money, or fame.
Structure. Expected. Characters are just as important. But a script filled with characters and no structure is not going to have legs.
And Clerks was basically a film-school project made by a pothead for potheads to laugh at while doing their usual thing. Funny, yes. A good example, maybe not.
All semantics.
Audiences have expectations, which is different from knowing structure, Scott.
You exceed those expectations, regardless of whatever plot point you made at whatever minute mark, and they’ll love you for it . . . enough people loved both NO COUNTRY and THERE WILL BE BLOOD to make them both profitable and award-worthy. They both defied expectations. And many folks loved them for it.
On the other hand, 310 TO YUMA, a movie I enjoyed very much, followed the expectation map point for point right up until the end, and is thought to have under-performed, despite having bigger stars in it.
I could go on and on, I could list many examples, but you get the idea. Screenplays are stories, and people are drawn into stories by the characters and what happens to them.
Hmmm… two interesting posts by javisiete and Scott. I agree with javisiete on structure being more the elements of a good story rather than a kind of outline or formula.
And I think, Scott, you’re maybe talking more about formula than structure when you say audiences expect certain things. or maybe so many films use similar structures that they become predictable? No Country has a structure, just a different one than most films. It wasn’t conventional.
I think genre films like rom-coms and thrillers tend to have a set formula where the audience can pretty much decipher how the film will play out half-way through. In a rom-com, they know the mad dash across town is coming. doesn’t mean it won’t be entertaining or can’t have a new twist, though.
In a thriller, they know the protagonist is going to get the bad guy at the end… but they keep watching to see HOW he does so as well as what the consequences of that HOW are.
SPOILER
No Country is different because it’s a story in which evil triumphs over good. The bad guy wins. Most crime dramas or thrillers end would end with the sheriff killing or arresting the bad guy… he may lose something in himself or someone close to him along the way, but he’s still “triumphant.”
So it’s not that No Country didn’t have structure, it was just a different structure than that of most films.
“But a script filled with characters and no structure is not going to have legs.”
I call shenanigans on that statement. first off, EVERYTHING has structure, even CLERKS had structure, though a sloppy one, it was there. Even reality shows have structure.
Everything has structure. What you appear to be saying, films which don’t follow industry standard structure you deem great, right? Films which don’t use that structure, but are filled with great characters will not have legs, that’s what you’re saying?
Bull-hockey.
Completely and utterly.
There are many movies with a structure far from the industry norm but loaded with characters who have had GREAT LEGS, including NO COUNTRY, a film which you deride . . . that film had legs. Are there people who didn’t care for it? Sure! And many people hated THE TITANIC as well, when it won ten years previous.
I can think of so many films which don’t follow the standard structure and had legs, I can’t even begin to . . . NAPOLEON DYNAMITE, for one, no stars, no real antagonist, no real story, per se . . . kept on making money, weeks after it opened.
And had everyone quoting it.
Funny, I remember CLERKS doing the same thing in 94, playing and playing for weeks and people kept lining up to see it, even though it was sloppy and goofy and the guys who made it partook of the herb - it kept playing, kept making money.
That’s legs.
I’m sorry, Scott, but your statement listed above is simply not true.
Joshua, you must have missed the part where I said SPEC screenplays. Napoleon Dynamite - made after a short by the writer directors / Clerks - made by the writer, film school type project that got picked up / Titanic - James Cameron and not his first.
Am I making my point.
If anyone read those scripts as SPEC’s, no way they would be picked up - which is what I meant by “won’t have legs”. It’s the actors and characters in those first two films played out on screen that made them funny and memorable, not what was on the page.
I mean, if you try to sell a SPEC screenplay like those, good luck, it’s gonna be a hard sell as far as I can see.
Feel free to disagree with me if you want to, but it makes sense.
And javisiete, yes, elements are a great way of putting it. Which all put together make up a solid structure.
I didn’t miss it, Scott, as I noted, everything is speculative until it gets made.
In fact, I’d note that the success of movies who do deviate from your standard is also an argument against it.
Your point is also further obscured since you used NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN as your example, which was based on the novel, and wasn’t written as a spec script alone, by itself, and written and directed by a very seasoned and popular pair of brothers.
Though I agree that it was certainly a speculative venture in the beginning, even for Academy Award winners, but it sure paid off.
Screenplays get made into movies because whomever reads it is so moved by it, they have to make it at all costs. In particular I’d note actors play an important part in getting films made, as do awards. Tom Cruise can read a script and decide right then and there if it gets made into a movie.
So right then and there I’d put character above structure, if you had to bet me. But I think that everything about a script is important.
What I’m going to say, and will say, is you bet structure is important, of course . . . but a story is NOT structure, they are different things . . . Story is what happens, Structure is how tit happens . . . and each story has its own differing demands regarding structural elements.
If I have to put anything out there (and let’s face it, I do that a lot anyway, heh) I’d state that one cannot understand structure unless they understand story. I run into quite a few folk who read a few books on screenwriting, have the markers down and figure they know how it all works.
The thing is, you can have your pings and pieces all hit right where they’re supposed to, you can have your inciting event hit on exactly the right page, the act breaks, everything, and it still may all not work.
And there may be another script which does everything the exact opposite of expectations and for some reason it all works.
Each one is structured, one per the playbook, one the opposite . . . why does one work and the other doesn’t? Because there’s more to it than just structure.
That’s why you lost me when you state that screenplays ARE structure - I sure disagree on that diagnosis because for me, screenplays are stories, and good ones are structured well dependent upon their intent and bad ones are not structured well to their intent.
I’m not arguing against what Unk’s sharing with us, bear in mind . . . I think there’s a lot of good stuff to get to . . . but I think there’s more complexity to it than simple structural bullets points, and maybe Unk believes that as well, which is why he asks us in the post to focus on the actual dilemma rather than having our protag suddenly decided his pee-pee doesn’t hurt any more (I kept forgetting to reference that throughout all my comments here, but it really made me laugh out loud) and bang, go to it.
SPOILER
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is a great film because the Coen’s chose the proper elements according to the theme and the characters of their story. Well… half their story because is an adaptation but they made it well.
Eventually this its no a film for every one. I think I’m the only one of my friends that like that movie, because its way different to conventional films. And that’s what I look for, when I see a movie. Something different but well made.
No Country does has a great structure, you just have to see it in terms of its theme. The power of money over mankind. Its effect in men hearts. That’s what this story its about. And you’re gonna see it in the whole movie. In every scene and dialog. The theme its constant all the way through. And they made it in a magnificent way.
You see a killer who only trust in the money. He’s only real friend is the money itself. And man you can see that in the scene when the killer enters a store and say “call it” to the owner. All the dialogs they have there and many other scene proves this. There it is, the power of money over mankind.
You see a Llewellyn who its given a chance to save his wife. But no, the power of money fill his heart. All the way through, the theme its well reflected.
Oh, and you have the sheriff who its against this. He its not after a killer metaphorically speaking. He goes against the power of the money over mankind. In fact he wants to protect Llewellyn to keep falling into that trap.
Here no one wins, neither the goods, neither the bads because the power of money destroys people hearts. If you analyze Llewellyn character. He was a good guy, he was a good husband, he loved his wife, but the power of money took him.
You can tell me now if the Coen’s brother didn’t have this element in mind when they wrote their script. It doesn’t have all the existent elements of a structure. But it does have the necessary ones. And that doesn’t make it a bad movie and less an intelligent one, because yes it is.
oh man and the end was so fucking awesome. The bad didn’t win here. The Killer almost fucking die in that car accident. Then to children come to the killer, they offer their help. He offers them money. One of them say NO, because he sees that the man is a fucking mess. But one say “Yes, lets take it. To fuck him”. This in my own words of course’ LOL. But there it is the power over mankind all the way till the fucking end. This is so hard to do in a film. And Coen’s brothers made this masterfully.
i wasn’t going to bother responding to the incredibly immature barbs thrown my way, but this vid from a boing boing post perfectly illustrated what i was trying to say about this type of analysis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96TyAQ7KnVQ
I personally hate it when people think people disliked NCFOM just because the ending was “different”. It’s not like that.
The movie, as a whole, didn’t flow to some people. I’m fine with endings where the bad guy wins, but I’m not fine with endings that have 2d characters blabber about the author of the novel’s next book, which has nothing to do about the movie’s story.
It didn’t build up properly in order to do the last 1/3 of the movie emotional justice.
A lot of the people who I find who truly think NCFOM deserved “best picture” are those who enjoy dialogue that has a lot of “fuck” in it, because, you know, “fuck” makes dialogue realistic.
I’m all for great, different, non conventional movies. But I HATE movies that rely on “what if” moments that do the story and characters little to no justice.
NCFOM was well made in terms of cinematography and dialogue (for the first 2 acts at least), but the writing and execution of the story was done sloppily, and I’ve seen this in many other movies. The Big Lewbowski is one of them, which I recently watched a couple nights ago. Great characters, but piss poor structure.
Again, unconventional plot twists and so forth are awesome, but NCFOM didn’t do it right. Some people liked it simply because it was different, but, like I said, these people usually just like a different kind of “conventional”, and it’s just as easy to please (if not easier).
Also, no need to write an entire post that praises NCFOM unless you’re going to critically discuss the structure, which is what Unk’s blog post was about.
Excuses for my bad English. I’m still learning the language.
Also I want to say that this is a great page to learn from everyone. Everyone has something to offer to the field of screenwriting. I think everyone views are right because it is the way we see it. Something I cannot see, someone else could helps me to see it, and understand it. So I think everyone are helping each other here. If certain thing couldn’t be of my help, could be of help to others. So let keep sharing or views. ‘Cause the most knowledge we retain the most easily for us to succeed in our dream. Hugs for everyone.
Now Christoper you seems to be the only immature in this site. While everyone here are sharing their views you seems to be imposing yours. That isn’t right. And maybe you have some reason in what you say about screenwriting but you don’t have all the answer about the topic. What every one says here has its senses and you don’t have the right to say who the hell is right or who the hell is not. So if you don’t like what you are reading here. Why do you keep on making absurds comments like that last one, telling us immatures when you’re the one that seems to be a little child. If you have all knowledge you need to write a script well write it with what you have but don’t impose us something like you’re doing. you can share it and we’ll hear you. But in that attitude in which you pretend we hear you, you won’t go to any place.
jajajajaja… Sorry for laughing but I just saw the video Christopher post and I just don’t know what the fuck the paintings have to do with screenplays. You should have see my face. I was like DUH!!! He he if you want to laugh with a good comedy see that video. LOL
Being a Belgian in Sydney (AU), I must thank you, Christophe, as I would have never heard of this “famous Belgian painter” if it weren’t because of his bizarre YouTube reference, which I didn’t quite understand either. Would you like to demonstrate how you can’t quantify art?
Now, I don’t think anybody on this blog is professing we should all apply these structural principles.
All we are saying is: these principles WORK. You do with them whatever you like.
Thank you to Christopher for bringing the ‘famous Belgian painter’ in the YouTube video to my attention. Being a Belgian myself, living in Sydney (AU), I had never heard of the man.
I don’t get the point of this reference, though. Are you trying to say that art can’t be quantified? Like stories can’t be ’scientifically’ structured?
BTW: Nobody is saying you or anybody should use what you call a ‘hideously formulaic’ structure.
As McKee put it: structural principles are not RULES. They just WORK. Up to you to learn them, apply them, challenge them or ignore them.
And I don’t see anything ‘revolting’ about people discussing the core principles of their craft.
I’d like to comment on BRUBAKER’s first act. In my memory it is a great movie but an exception in that it doesn’t have a clear call to action (on the screen). After half an hour of hiding his true identity (also exceptional for a protagonist) Brubaker immediately starts pursuing his goal. Do you think this structure would still work today? It may feel like a longish setup.
I’m gonna have to go with Javisiete on this. Everyone has their opinion and everyone welcomes it, but Christopher went too far on this. Share your opinion but don’t call anyone an “ass” or go off on their opinions are dry and formulaic.
Plus that movie Christopher posted. I couldn’t even finish it. I couldn’t stand it. The music sucked and from what I saw… It had nothing to do with screenwriting. I came on here to learn about screenwriting and not paintings. Freakin’ paintings???
Forgive me, Unk, but I’m still unclear on the difference between the inciting incident and the inciting incident dilemma. A little clarification?
(Sorry, I dozed off and dreamed your board was hijacked by a Napoleanic narcissist beginning his own Hare Krishnatopher movement.)
Jesus, I’m gone for a few days and look what happens… LOL.
So where are we?
Carlo… I won’t.
Scott,
I will have to agree with you… For years, I turned my back on structure instead, opting for the run and gun method of screenwriting. Write the characters just as they come to me. Hell, I figured I knew them so well, that simply writing what came out of them just HAD to end up creating a better screenplay than anyone else… The kind that gets optioned and sold.
Uh… No.
Now don’t get me wrong… Even christopher the ARTISTE probably uses some kind of structure. My thinking however, is that he’s just like I was once long long ago in a land far far away… He might not want to write it down. He might not want to decipher, translate, or boil down what he utilizes as structure to something that the common man can understand.
Once I started OUT with a good solid structure as simply a baseline — a place to come back to whenever I got stuck… Magical things started to happen and guess what?
Not one bit of FORMULA.
I spoke with William Goldman one year at the Screenwriting Expo. He was just standing around waiting to speak in front of a crowd… He and I were leaning against the same rail so of course, I went over to him and we talked screenwriting for over 20 minutes. Now I know he’s famous for saying SCREENWRITING IS STRUCTURE but guess what?
He REALLY BELIEVES IT.
And so do I… And guess what else? I sell screenplays and fix screenplays for a living.
Me happy.
That is not to say that one cannot have a differing opinion… NOT AT ALL. In fact, Elver and I had nice discussion about NO COUNTRY and THERE WILL BE BLOOD over on his site and I still absolutely believe what I will say right now.
Let’s say you’ve got TWO screenwriters. One is an ARTISTE. He or she doesn’t go in for the structure garbage. They just wing it. They’ve seen thousands of movies. Mom and Dad were also ARTISTES so this makes the process of screenwriting even EASIER… LOL. Hell, they’ve come up with these great characters that do all kinds of interesting shit so why in the fucking world would they every need to adhere to some kind of structure? But alas… They’re not 100% sure of themselves. Something’s missing from their writing. Nobody wants to buy it. It’s almost good enough but just not quite fucking good enough. They begin to WONDER if they do in fact know how to write a good story and screenplay… They begin to wonder if maybe… Just maybe, there’s SOMETHING to this structure shit.
Naah. The ARTISTE in them just won’t let it go… They want to be SPONTANEOUS. You can’t be spontaneous with structure… They want things to SNAP! Just come to them. Hell yeah… It doesn’t matter if a third of what they write really doesn’t need to be in the screenplay because it’s so fuckin’ quirky that any producer is going to fall all over themselves to buy it.
So here you have a screenwriter who let’s just say… Believes in his or her METHOD or PROCESS around 75%
Then you’ve got somebody like me who believes in their process a 1000%.
Who do you think is going to sell screenplays? It ain’t no different than two people running a foot race. The one that believes in himself 1000% is the one who’s going to break into the business.
Does that mean an ARTISTE can’t break into the business? Of course not. Unfortunately, many wannabe artistes simply do not believe in their shit 1000% and until they do, FUGHEDABOUDIT.
What I’m saying is that you’ve gotta find your process and then you’ve got to master and milk that process for all it’s worth. If you’re unsure even one minute particle about YOUR PROCESS, I urge you to do whatever it takes to either get fuckin’ sure, take up another hobby, or change your process.
Zane,
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t buy the fact that there’s been too much written about structure and in fact, my opinion is that not enough has been written about it.
I will admit that there’s been a lot of the same shit written about structure and I would tend to agree with that.
Josh,
You said, “A great story ALREADY has great structure, Scott. You don’t need to fit it into a structure if you know the story, you simply need to get out of its way.”
Hmmm. What if you don’t have a great story? What if your story is missing something? What IF a lot of it is good but it’s just missing a few things to make it great?
A great story becomes a great story because it has great structure… And even IF that writer didn’t write that structure down and follow it, it’s in their mind’s eye somewhere.
What if you simply start off with a great concept but there really IS NO STORY?
Yet?
What would you propose a lowly spec screenwriter to do? Just talk to his characters? Kick them around a bit to see how they react? What if doing this doesn’t work? What if doing this makes the story worse? I absolutely believe that characters are story. We agree on that. But some writers HAVE TO WORK DIFFERENTLY. Some people need to create extensive outlines and KNOW every Goddamn beat in their screenplay before they can write FADE IN. Does this make them formulaic? Does this make them any less a screenwriter than anyone else?
Nope. It’s simply THEIR PROCESS and isn’t THAT what a lot of us are doing here? Trying to fit the pieces of the puzzle together. Your piece might not be the piece I need but it works for you so USE IT!
If you or anyone is the kind of writer that wakes up one day and BAM — has a great story and can simply OUTPUT it in screenplay format — I applaud you. Most of us ain’t got that kind of talent. I like to think that I’m good at coming up with a great concept FOR A STORY but that’s simply when the REAL WORK starts for me.
You already know that I basically have my own structure that I use. I developed it for ME. I have no problem sharing it with anyone and even if they get one shred of a piece of THEIR PUZZLE — me happy. Yes, it’s ONE STRUCTURE but I guarantee you that IF you read all the screenplays I’ve written around that ONE STRUCTURE, none of them would read formulaic. None of them would read anything like the other screenplays written around the same structure. You wouldn’t be able to guess what happens next.
I can’t actually say that about some writer’s screenplays when it comes to characters though… LOL.
Notice I say, “written AROUND that same structure.” Nobody ever said that you have to follow a specific structure BEAT BY FUCKING BEAT — however, that is, in my opinion, exactly what’s wrong with a lot of movies today i.e. they do follow a formula… Morever, they’ve developed their structure INTO A FORMULA and they just write and hit all the marks.
That shit is always gonna happen… But that’s not what The Unknown Screenwriter prescribes to, christopher. If you were familiar with this site at all, you would have known that already and more than likely, passed on your bullshit comment.
I say that you can in fact start out with ONE KIND OF STRUCTURE just like a framer can walk onto the construction site with his toolbelt. They use their tools until something comes up that REQUIRES them to get creative. None of the tools in their tool belt will work. This is a special piece of construction that requires not only special tools, but some OUT OF THE BOX thinking.
Then by the time you’ve done all the work to finish several drafts and end up with a screenplay that can actually SELL and compare it to that ONE STRUCTURE — GUESS WHAT? It ain’t the same NO MORE. LOL.
Funny how that works…
Christian,
I’m gone for 3 days and my inbox is crazy with email. So far here’s the score:
ARTISTES: 3
ARTISTS: 17
Laura,
If even one thing here helps just one person, then it’s always worth it.
Chris,
Yup. Normally, there’s some inciting incident that propels the Protagonist into some kind of call to action… What I’m specifically talking about here is the immediate dilemma that it may or may not put the Protagonist in. All I’m saying is to consider this as an opportunity to show us what your Protagonist is made of. I am NOT saying you have to show us some wimpy Protagonist who can’t make a decision on anything. I’m not saying you can’t have a Protagonist who begins the story with a noble philosophy and maintains that philosophy throughout the story. You can, as a matter of fact, have ANY KIND of a Protagonist go through a dilemma. I call it the CALL TO ACTION DILEMMA because most Protagonists have to figure out what the fuck they’re gonna do. This decision will be easy for some — hard or maybe even impossible for others.
THERE ARE NO RULES.
Hmmm. Déjà vu! Yes, christopher… THERE ARE NO RULES once you know them backwards, forwards, sideways, and all ways.
And sorry… I was never enamored enough with JURASSIC PARK to be able to remember anything but the dinosaurs… LOL. I apologize for that.
javisiete,
Couldn’t have clarified it any better… As for THE LOOKOUT reminding me of MEMENTO. Uh… I thought it was kind of IN MY FACE i.e., the kid writing himself notes to remind him how to handle certain things. The kid having to read the notes to remember or relearn how to handle certain things. Don’t get me wrong. It was an okay movie but it simply reminded me of MEMENTO because of the kid’s short term memory. His actions seemed to be similar to those actions of Guy Pearce in MEMENTO so in that way, the movie let me down.
To steal a line from Josh that I really love to use now…
“I’M JUST SAYIN’…”
Scott and Josh,
I think audience knowing structure and having certain expectations is simply splitting hairs… I kind of know both of you from certain things we’ve communicated about in the past and I can honestly say that you two are two totally different kinds of writers — each with their own process and YOUR PROCESS obviously works for each of YOU.
This ain’t right or wrong… It’s the process… THE PROCESS. Whatever that means to YOU, know it as best you can and never stop adding to it. Never stop taking away from it.
The problem with 3:10 TO YUMA — simply to be fair here — a bigger star that cost twice as much if not more than either NCFOM or TWBB. Also remember that Westerns do not do well overseas and that is a huge market to miss out on. A lot of risks were taken with 3:10 and I think in the end, it will outgun TWBB when it comes to DVD sales and rentals.
Tom,
I don’t necessarily think Scott is talking about formula because trust me when I tell you he does not write in a formulaic way.
Having said that… I do think that a large percentage of today’s audience has been somewhat CONDITIONED by the shitmakers to expect formulaic structure.
The trick is to knock them off their socks so they no longer expect the same shit over and over… Unfortunately, I don’t see this happening in our lifetime. Most producers don’t like taking risks — plain and simple.
Josh,
I tend to agree with you that every story has structure even if it’s SLOPPY. LOL. That seems to be the case most of the time.
I’m just sayin’…
Scott,
Agreed. Nobody would have bought CLERKS in my opinion. And you know what? Kevin Smith fuckin’ KNOWS IT! Here’s a guy that’s smart enough to know that HIS PROCESS caters to a specific audience so he markets to that audience. He’s more of anomaly… And I didn’t line up anywhere to see it… And even when I watch it today, I get bored really really fast. And guess what? That’s okay! Kevin didn’t write that for me. But here’s a guy that anyone could easily create their own model from. He writes HIS way. He makes HIS movies. He knows his process and he knows that he has enough of an audience to get things moving boxoffice-wise and he sure as HELL knows how to market to that audience. Combine that with making a movie on a very low-budget and you can’t miss.
Josh,
I also can’t agree that everything is speculative until it’s made. There are movies that ARE FUCKING GOING TO BE MADE even though no screenplay has even been written. Happens every fuckin’ day. There is no speculation. There are enough heavy players in this game that simply tell the money people, I have an idea for SO and SO. The money people cut the check and the heavy player is off and running. To many of these heavy players, the screenplay is the last fucking thing they worry about because they know they can always have somebody bang out something they can hold in their hands as a decoy. LOL.
But I’m just sayin’…
christopher,
Watched the video. LOL. Now I know you’ve never read anything else on the site. What I got most out of this video was from Amy Cappellazzo, Head of Contemporary Art, Christie’s… “He’s very restrained. He’s not obvious or simplistic or reductive in his message. There’s always something subterranean, below the surface that lurks — that has tremendous moral gravitas…”
You’ve absolutely misinterpreted what I’ve said here. You’ve somehow gotten it into your head that structure is formula and I will admit that structure CAN BE FORMULA if one uses it as a formula to hit all the marks but for the fucking life of me, I can’t ever remember typing that, let alone saying it anywhere on this site.
I used to be a Painter and I sold my works of art for pretty decent money believe it or not and I intend to get back to it one day. Having said that, as a Painter, I made my own canvases. I sketched out my subject over and over until I came up with what I wanted to paint. I used specific colors for specific elements in the painting that had more to do with my STYLE than reality because I wasn’t trying to paint reality. Guess what? All those tools were MY structure. Without them, I couldn’t paint the way I wanted to paint. In fact, when I stopped painting back in the late ’80s it was because I could at that time, no longer paint the WAY I wanted to paint. I couldn’t continue with MY PROCESS — MY STRUCTURE… So I quit for a while.
So really, all that video did FOR ME was solidify my opinion… Thanks!
Carlo,
For what it’s worth… I loved and still love NCFOM. It’s just the kind of film the audience needed to kick them in the ass.
karel,
Welcome! Great comments…
Yes, I think a similar structure like BRUBAKER would absolutely work today… As long as the story WARRANTS it. You’re right that Brubaker doesn’t reveal himself right away but when he does, is it not apparent what his call to action now is? And think about it… If Brubaker had simply come on the job and started witnessing all the instances of hunger, brutality, grift, etc., and then tried to do something about it — would it have worked as well as the way it WAS done? In my opinion, NO. But again, this was adapted from a book and from what I understand is HOW it supposedly happened. Not too many newly appointed prison wardens (in my humble opinion) would have ever dared to try something like this to get the bird’s eye view of what’s really happening in a prison they were about to take over. Which is WHAT really helps make this a great story to begin with.
MaryAnita,
I may have answered that above somewhere… I’m just BLASTIN’ away at this stuff. But for even more clarification…
You have an inciting incident for lack of a better phrase for that particular story element. This inciting incident causes a dilemma of sorts for the Protagonist. As I said above, this is what I CALL IT. It doesn’t have to actually be a dilemma. I call it THE CALL TO ACTION DILEMMA because calling it that reminds ME that this is where it might be somewhat opportunistic to flesh out the Protagonist a little more. That could be in a bad way, a good way, any way. Maybe there is no actual dilemma and that’s just fine if the character and story warrants it. Just show us how the Protagonist handles it. There is no specific way. Of course the Protagonist may or may not refuse the call and then accept the call. Hell, maybe he doesn’t accept the call and actually runs away from it but he just can’t escape it — whatever — that’s a given as far as I’m concerned.
I’m talking about how the Protagonist handles the news. Show us The Protagonist’s reaction. Maybe outwardly to the people he or she knows, he acts brave and noble but when he’s alone in the dark, he’s scared as hell. Maybe he or she wants to commit suicide because of the news. Maybe they want to run. It doesn’t matter — what matters is to not cheat us of a little inside glimpse of that character so we can invest in him or her a little more.
Whew. That was a marathon comment or at least it felt like one. Got it done in just under 20 minutes… LOL.
Good stuff everyone and I do mean EVERYONE! We all learn from this.
Thanks!
Unk
I’m now convinced that Unk is inhuman.
Just a side note - I believe THE LOOKOUT was written much earlier than MEMENTO - it was Scott Frank’s first script that opened doors for him, and it took a LONG time to get made, so the story goes.
As far as the other stuff, I ain’t saying nothing, I’m just sayin’.
Heh.
Josh,
I’m aware that Frank carried THE LOOKOUT over from sometime in the early 90s and it WAS actually going to be made several times but things always fell through.
Unfortunately, even though THE LOOKOUT was written before MEMENTO, the sad truth of the matter is that CONCLUSIONS are going to be drawn. I have not yet done this myself but I would be willing to bet that if one were to perform a simple search on Google… Something like:
The Lookout Memento
One is going to find more than a few reviews that compare the two films… Hence, is the nature of the beast i.e., a film that contains any major plot points in a relatively new film that share similar plot points with a well known film — comparisons are going to be drawn — plain and simple. Additionally, it could easily be THOSE COMPARISONS that doom the film… And this might just be the case with this film since it died at the boxoffice and will have to perform fairly well to get its money back in DVD sales and rentals.
Again, I’m not saying THE LOOKOUT is a film not worthy of our time… Not at all. Watch it! You will be entertained but I can also see the comparisons and from having seen those comparisons, I can also understand how others drew those same comparisons.
*NOTE: There’s a lot more comparisons to MEMENTO than even I thought there was… LOL.
Unk
Give a crumb to cristophe - his comments sparked the best online discussion I’ve read in months.
Many thanks Unk; your site remains the smartest spot on the sphere. Keep it up.
UNK,
I watched The Lookout tonight and found it quite different from Memento. It aspires to telling its story in a conventional narrative structure, but the first act has a problem with POV. We can tell miles ahead there is something fishy about the character of Greg but from the protag’s pov NOTHING HAPPENS. The call to action to assist in the bank robbery doesn’t occur until half an hour in. Any mystery and suspense created until then is entirely through dramatic irony.
I really believe the lack of empathy in this film - to enjoy what happens, we don’t need to enter the protag’s mind - has an adverse effect on audience participation.
That said, I agree it is an entertaining (or perhaps rather: intriguing) movie but IMHO the character of Chris would have benefited from a stronger objective, earlier on.
Oh, I completely agree that’s how the shit’s perceived, you bet.
What was it Nathan Bedford Forest said? “He who gets there firstest with the mostest, wins the battle.” or something like that.
Ironically enough, I liked both films but preferred THE LOOKOUT, myself. But that could be because I’m from flat country where it is set, and I really like Joe Gordon Levitt.
And I really like Scott Frank’s work.
Zane,
As I replied to both of christopher’s emails… His comments are welcome anytime — you just gots to be ready for what comes after.
Having said that… I hope christopher doesn’t take any of the comments personally… I know that’s hard sometimes but in the end — we all learn.
karel,
I understand where you’re coming from… All I’m saying from the business aspect of the business is that you hold your destiny in your own hands when you release a movie that can, in any way, have others — especially movie critics draw comparisons to other, more successful movies.
Scott Frank can easily get away with this… He’s more than established enough to take chances on something like THE LOOKOUT.
I guess my problem with the movie is that because of the comparisons critics did in fact draw between THE LOOKOUT and MEMENTO, it was not able to make its mark — stand on its own and be judged on its own.
My next problem with it is that I would think one would have had to known this would happen. On one hand, you can applaud his risk-taking venture and had it been all his own money — I would definitely applaud it.
But if THE LOOKOUT wasn’t made with only Frank’s money, then as a producer, I’d have to shake my head and wonder why the movie was greenlit when it was obviously going to be compared to MEMENTO. Good, bad, indifferent, many reviews of the movie compared it to MEMENTO.
Could the parts that we can so easily compare it to MEMENTO have been tweaked? Most certainly but somehow, I get the feeling that this was one of Frank’s babies he didn’t want anyone to fuck with… That actually came through to me on the screen.
I could be wrong.
Josh,
Unfortunately, you had the minority point of view here… I like Frank’s work but I liked MEMENTO more than THE LOOKOUT.
MEMENTO will stand as a cult classic for years to come… Another reason you don’t want to draw comparisons unless your flick blows the cult classic away.
I’m just sayin’…
Unk
“Having said that… I hope christopher doesn’t take any of the comments personally…”
lol. the majority of the comments against me were direct personal attacks that had nothing to do with my point, so i do indeed take them personally. and it started with your first one unk; “The trick is in keeping it from being formulaic. Apparently, you don’t understand that.” the first part of that is a valid response and something i would have responded to. the next is a conceited, uninformed and completely unnecessary attack on my faculties.
my initial comment, though strongly worded and obviously a button-pusher for many, never personally attacked you or this blog. i even admitted that “breaking down a story like this may make sense.” the comment reflected my personal gut reaction to the post. others may not share it, but nothing they say will invalidate it.
what i would have said had the discussion remained civil is that i understand structure and i don’t equate it to formula. formula is codified structure and this ever more reductionist approach to arranging a screenplay according to a pre-arranged template is most definitely formulaic. although that doesn’t mean the resulting screenplay will necessarily be “formulaic” in the pejorative sense of the term, the further down that rabbit hole you go the less likely it is that the screenplay you produce will be original.
christopher,
You PRESUME to tell ME how I took YOUR COMMENT or how I SHOULD HAVE taken your comment. LOL. Come on Dude… Not even YOU are that good.
I think it was VERY REASONABLE for me to take your first comment and reply “IN KIND.”
I did that, and now you’re whining…
All you gotta do is NOT come here anymore…
Or…
Get with it.
Unk
Christopher -
I think the “personal” attacks on you represented other people’s “gut reactions” to what you had written. I know that when I read stuff like “this post made me want to throw up,” it makes me want to spit back some vile bit such as:
“Dude, you’re a douche-turd…” But that would be rude, de-constructive and stupid.
From what I’ve gathered, not too many people post their “gut reactions” as responses to posts in this site - when someone does, all hell breaks loose … I’m for it, as long as the process helps us become better writers (and as long as we don’t have to hate on each other too too hard).
christopher,
Come on, look at what you wrote:
“wow - this post made me want to throw up. sorry, but breaking down a story like this may make sense, but just sounds revolting. how hideously formulaic.”
I’ll do what you did. You said this post wanted to make you throw up. How would anyone not be able to take a comment like that personally?
I thought it was handled quite deftly by everyone since as Unk said, you definitely drew first blood. Once you made your dumb-ass comment without any real qualification as to “why” you almost threw up, I feel that you opened yourself up to any hostility that was thrown your way.
We’re all trying to learn something here and this guy is trying to feed us those “pieces to the puzzle” that no other screenwriter seems willing to share. I’ve been to the other sites, even yours. I can honestly say that I learn more here on one post and the comments that follow than I ever do from reading any other site.
So why don’t you just go back to “deep structure” and let us learn something.
aislin
Christopher,
UNK merely decoded your subtext.
And you can’t deny it was there.
Not on a blog for screenwriters.
Oh yeah and the big decision our heroine has to make is do I press charges and do I start a “safety group?” It’s kind of an experiment in reality - which can be as harsh as the most outrageous story.
The Lookout
The new thriller from writer/first-time director Scott Frank (he wrote the screenplays for Get Shorty, Out of Sight, and Minority Report) has been compared to Christopher Nolan’s landmark 2001 film Memento. The comparison is unfair to The Lookout and frankly, it’s not all that accurate.
Yes, The Lookout and Memento are both mystery/thrillers with characters who have sustained head injuries and have some difficulty remembering things (although Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s character in The Lookout is not in quite the bad shape Guy Pearce was in in Memento in the memory department). However, that is where the similarities end. Memento was a meditation on the elusiveness and deceptiveness of memory, the futility of revenge, and the ways in which all people lie to themselves in order to get through the day. The Lookout, on the other hand, is pretty much a low-key character study centered around a bank robbery. It’s not as good as the classic Memento, but it is still a well-written, well-acted, compelling little film.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Chris Pratt, a rich kid who was seemingly on top of the world as a hockey phenom at his high school when, because of carelessness/negligence on his part, the car he was driving crashed at high speed. Two of Gordon-Levitt’s close friends were killed in the accident and he was left with a brain injury that makes it hard for him to remember simple tasks and remain organized. He’s roommates with an older blind man (Jeff Daniels), but other than that, has no real friends.
Until one day at a local bar, Gary (Matthew Goode), a man who went to the same high school as Gordon-Levitt, approaches him and befriends him. Soon, Gordon-Levitt is spending more time with Goode and even becomes romantically attached to one of Goode’s friends (Isla Fisher). After a short time, however, Goode reveals that he wants Gordon-Levitt to help him in robbing the bank that Gordon-Levitt works at as a night watchman/janitor.
In the wrong hands, this could all easily turn into an overly gimmicky thriller, but thankfully, Frank is an excellent screenwriter and favors the low-key, character-driven approach. Frank’s script makes the audience understand how incredibly frustrating Gordon-Levitt’s condition must be - not just the memory lapses, but the interactions with strangers who are often patronizing and unwittingly insensitive to him. Most crucially, Frank’s screenplay shows the audience how lonely a person with such a condition would be. This is the most important part of the script because it explains why Gordon-Levitt would allow himself to be suckered into a robbery plot against his better judgment. He wants friends and wants to belong again to a group. Indeed, Frank’s script should serve as a reminder to beginning screenwriters that even plot-driven films should have a strong grounding in character.
As the lead, Gordon-Levitt once again does solid work in a noir film (he was the lead in last year’s Brick). Jeff Daniels and Matthew Goode steal the film in supporting roles. Daniels has been very good for a long time and his role as the kindly but wary blind man makes me wish he appeared in more movies. Goode is quietly proving himself to be a very versatile actor. He gave an accomplished performance as a callow rich kid in Woody Allen’s Match Point and was the only bright spot in Imagine Me and You, where played a cuckolded nice guy. Here, Goode strikes the right balance between charming and malevolent that his role needs.
It may not be a classic, but The Lookout is strong, confident filmmaking that is well worth seeing.
http://themovieguys.blogspot.com/2007/03/lookout-and-blades-of-glory-reviews.html
I never said it was better than Memento, because it isn’t. And when I say that it have no similarities to Memento I wasn’t referring to the characters of both film, but instead about the story. I think its completely different to Memento. And I also think it is a great story. For that reason the film received a Spirit Award nominee.
And also, like the post I paste in here. Both characters suffer from some kind of memory loss. But first they illness are way different and they both seek different purposes. it’s obvious that someone with memory loss have to write on something the things they forget ’cause they need to remember them. So the protagonist in The Lookout needs that.
but like you say, “I’m just saying…”
javisiete,
LOL. You really don’t have to defend THE LOOKOUT. I liked the film but you also have to understand that I’m a producer. I couldn’t help but let my producer mindset creep into my judgment of the film.
I would be willing to bet money that I can find a review that is completely opposite from the review you found and I can keep on finding them…
Why?
Because the plain and simple fact is that I am not the only one who drew comparisons between THE LOOKOUT and MEMENTO. Lots of others did just based on the one short search I made.
As a producer, you really have to weigh the risk in putting out a movie like this because it will most certainly draw comparisons to similar movies with a reputation.
Again, that’s simply the nature of the beast and it ain’t gonna change any time soon. In fact, I have to wonder if one of the reasons THE LOOKOUT wasn’t made SOONER was in fact because of MEMENTO.
Methinks that SOMEBODY thought that enough time had finally passed.
If you read my comments above, I even say it’s worth watching and I meant that. I don’t like it better than MEMENTO however.
Its boxoffice tells the tale…
Unk
hey thanks UNK that has clarified my mind very well and it’s true. Christopher has also suffered that. He wrote a script about Howard Hughes and he can’t make the film yet because of THE AVIATOR. It has to be painful ’cause he says it is the best screenplay he ever wrote. I hope I can see that movie some day. I’m a huge fan of Nolan’s works and I want to see every thing that his mind has to offer. Take care.
I agree with Javisiete on the limited similarities between the two films, but your ‘producer considerations’ make a lot of sense, UNK.
I guess the lesson from all this: it goes to show how fundamentally different your movie should be from anything that has been done within memory (excuse the pun).
BTW: what did you all think of Blake Snyder’s comments on Memento in Save The Cat?
I just finished watching The Lookout and I must say… it’s nothing at all like Memento. I mean, sure, the similarities are there — the guy has trouble remembering things and whatnot, but it doesn’t really play out too much in the plot. I was half expecting a revelation at the end (when he’s at his parent’s house getting the guns) where he’d put the plot together in the correct order… but that didn’t happen. Turns out the plot was linear, like an ordinary story.
It was a good movie and, while Memento is better, I don’t see the similarities. Even the subtle producer-worrying ones (other than the protag having trouble remembering some things, which didn’t affect the plot).
the protagonist call to action is indeed an important part. it is even in my super awesome badass script I once mentioned to Unk but havent sent it to him yet. hehe. if you dont know how to put that dilemma in your script, chances are your character doesnt have enough flaws or character.
my young protag has a character flaw that is also part of the theme of the story.
I think the more dilemmas you put in your story the more satisfied a smart director gets with your story. at least I would pleased as a director. If you look at Leon - The Professional. There are several situation where the protag has to decide. One at the beginning where he has to decide whether on to take in the girl (suspense is intense in that scene) and he has only a really short time to think about it. Luc Besson stretched that scene to a maximum. The bad guy starts to suspect there is something wrong with that girl knocking on the door and Leon still thinks. He eventually takes her in in the last second. This sets off the story.
I think the more personal a dilemma is the better you can relate. Just to save the world because it is right to do that is not enough. It is flat out boring. To save the world because it saves your girlfriend a lot more. still generic but better. now to save the world because your girlfriend is pregnant with your baby makes it really personal.
what makes Die Hard so great is that John McLane doesnt start off shooting the terrorists down one by one. He first tries to set off fire alarm, calls Police on the radio and even shoots at a police car. He does everything in his power to get help. He only actually kills the first few terrorists in self defense while trying to get help. Only later he grows to be John Wayne, larger than life character. His call to action had to grow to him.
javisiete,
Cool… Now you understand. LOL. Remember, I never said THE LOOKOUT wasn’t a decent flick. I never said it was a knock-off of MEMENTO. I simply said it reminded me of MEMENTO and if I have learned anything about this business, it’s this…
If you want to release a movie that will obviously draw comparisons of a well known movie, release it on DVD and the budget better be fucking cheap as hell… LOL. Under a couple of million at a minimum. This way, you don’t get too hurt financially and if you can pull it off for under a mil (like many direct to DVD flicks are), the COMPARISONS can actually help when it comes to profits.
However, if you’re going to release a movie that is definitely going to see theater play/boxoffice that will obviously draw comparisons of a well known movie, it also has to be made very cheaply and the majority of reviews better say it’s BETTER than such and such movie that it’s been compared to. Unless you can create a huge — no, make that MASSIVE buzz, the numbers say it just isn’t worth it. If you can make it for 2 mil and under — then maybe you’ve got a slim chance to get in the black but again, it’s those comparisons that will often dictate that.
Of course the same thing can happen with a shit movie that you cannot draw comparisons with a much better movie.
We already know this — happens every week just about. So KNOWING that and releasing a movie that will undoubtedly have comparisons drawn to a movie with a great reputation — well let’s just say that movie better fucking ROCK.
THE LOOKOUT doesn’t ROCK.
It’s not bad. I can tell that Frank loved the concept. I could tell he really knew his characters… I’m SURE it was a very well written screenplay and of course it’s well directed. With ALL THESE PLUSES, why didn’t it ROCK? Why didn’t it make BANK?
You tell me… LOL.
karel,
I haven’t read SAVE THE CAT in a long time so I really don’t remember what he said… But the lesson you mention is correct.
Carlo,
First you said: “I just finished watching The Lookout and I must say… it’s nothing at all like Memento. I mean, sure, the similarities are there — the guy has trouble remembering things and whatnot, but it doesn’t really play out too much in the plot.”
So you did see the similarities… Correct?
But then you say: “It was a good movie and, while Memento is better, I don’t see the similarities.”
So which is it, my brother? LOL.
Just playing with you… I think I know what you mean because then you say: “Even the subtle producer-worrying ones (other than the protag having trouble remembering some things, which didn’t affect the plot).”
Let me just tell you this… Our production company wouldn’t have released it as is. Plain and simple and because of those tiny similarities. Too much money at risk to fuck it up with something that can be taken care of beforehand.
Thomas R.,
I agree… Dilemmas, if played correctly — salt and peppered throughout the story — force the Protagonist to MAKE DECISIONS.
These decisions gotta hurt whether he chooses one way or another… The more they hurt and WE SEE that they hurt, the more I’ll invest in that story.
Unk
Unk,
I hope you can forgive how nonsensical that post just was. Having watched the movie 1 minute before writing that post, I was still putting together what I thought about the movie. On top of that, it was 2:30 in the morning eastern time.
Let me restate my post:
The Lookout didn’t take advantage of the protag’s memory-loss situation nearly as much as Memento did. Memory loss didn’t become a huge player in the story. However, I understand that simply having the character have memory problems causes people to compare the movie to Memento. Isn’t that what I was doing in my earlier comment? lol
In fact, I think the fix would’ve been very simple. Remove the notebook and the time-sequencing bullshit, and make Prett slightly more crippled in the limb department, and all would’ve been fine. Instead of being a character with many random problems, including memory loss, he’d simply be a cripple with slight brain problems. Forget the memory loss crap. If it’s not going to be a huge part of the story, and if it draws similarities to other, superior flicks, then it can be disposed of for the movie’s own sake.
I’d feel otherwise if I felt like they handled the notebook and time-sequencing well, but I don’t feel that way. Like many others, I feel like Memento did a better job at handling this — The Lookout treated memory loss as a trivial tacked on character quality.
So yes, I’d have to agree that the movie shouldn’t have been released as-is. Memory losit surely wasn’t worth enough to harm the movie’s success.
Carlo… I was just yankin’ your chain a bit… LOL.
It’s ALL good.
Unk
I can see you’re hard at work on your new site. :P
You should see the surprise I got last night on my Google Reader.
Actually, it’s a LONG story that I won’t get into but yeah, Elver emailed me about the Google Reader. I host several of my buddy’s sites in exchange for him taking care of my server every once in a while. We’re in the middle of migrating sites from one server to another and every time we migrate 2 sites over at one time, some of the data gets meshed together.
Weird… I’ve never had that happen before. You may see more weird stuff so be prepared. LOL.
Unk