57 Responses to “Screenwriting Structure Part 17 The Midpoint”

1. Mike Scherer on Friday: 1 August 2008|1628

   Midpoint. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Where Act II transitions into Act III (yes, folks, THE FOUR ACT STRUCTURE!).

   At the beginning of Act II Hero wanders/explores his new world – seeks information, tools, mentors – seeks a resolution to the External Conflict. He has yet to acknowledge his Internal Conflict (flaw) and the story question remains: Will Hero resolve the External Conflict?

   By the end of Act II, Hero has tried to resolve the perceived story question (false goal) by taking the path of least resistance. The easy way out. He fails. Hero discovers the real Story Question (true goal). Realization: What I know doesn’t work. Emotional defeat turns into a commitment to win.

   Now Hero is ready to transition into Act III – The Warrior/Activist phase.

   Let the comments begin……. and,

   Keep Writing!

2. Susan P. on Friday: 1 August 2008|1655

   I’m beginning to see why 4 act structure can be really helpful however, since I’m working in 3 act bear with me. I DO know the difference between II and Mid Point (I stress this) but I admit that when I first completed a step outline that I found it hard to write the MP because it seemed so similar to the II. I felt like MP was really just upping the ante because “If the Protagonist doesn’t move forward or simply goes back home, we have no story”. :) I appreciate the referral to the potential of a huge high because I have always thought of it as an extreme low or threat only.

   As a quirky thing, if the guy or gal about to go over the waterfall threw everyone else out to safety because they were basically an adrenalin junkie and craved to go over the waterfall - it’s still a MP - right? :)

3. Mark on Friday: 1 August 2008|1741

   Susan said:

   “…[MP] seemed so similar to the II.”

   Often times you’ll see the MP in a film does not have the protagonist and antagonist facing off. The antagonist can still be involved. But in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK Vader lays the trap and arrests Leia, Han and Co. while Luke, the protagonist, isn’t in the picture. Sure, it effects him, but that’s the MP, whereas the Climax involves direct confrontation between Luke and Vader.

   In many hero myths, the MP occurs when the Hero obtains whatever it is that he or she will need to defeat the villain. Could be courage, could be a weapon. Don’t know. But it happens a lot.

   And I think it all depends on genre too. Let’s say you’re writing about a character that starts out good, and transforms into a monster, or vice versa. The MP can be when the character realizes they are growing up, learning, etc…then the Crisis comes when their resolve is tested to the extreme. In THE GODFATHER, the mid-point is really a sequence when Michael marries the Italian girl (shows him embracing his “family” ways) and Sonnie is killed off, making him the successor to his father and putting him firmly in the world of soon-to-be bad guy. The Climax then shows him orchestrating murders and lying to his wife…validation of what he’s become. In both cases, MP = realization/acceptance, Climax = confirmation.

   Wow, just thinking about it now, it really depends on not just the story, but the type of story you’re writing. Genre. All that good stuff. Not just MP either, really all story elements. Good stuff.

4. Susan P. on Friday: 1 August 2008|1805

   Mike, The Empire SB is a great example and I actually hadn’t really thought before of the protagonist not being central to that scene. That’s useful to consider. Cheers.

5. Unk on Friday: 1 August 2008|1825

   I haven’t seen EMPIRE in over 20 years but I suppose ONE COULD even say EMPIRE itself is the midpoint of the trilogy.

   A low point. Dark in tone yet characters learning and maturing.

   Interesting.

   Unk

6. AnnWesleyHardin on Friday: 1 August 2008|1840

   This is rather topical for me! I have a trilogy I want to start writing, but am struggling with the whole “trilogy structure” vs “single book structure” thing.

   Each work in a body has to have a micro-structure, but also a macro. I shall have to go away and ponder.

   Interestink. Veddy interestink.

   And, as always, a huge help!

   Thanks, guys.

7. Mark on Friday: 1 August 2008|1935

   Ann,

   I completely agree with Unk. I’m sure it’s been done many different ways, but typically the first installment is more carefree in nature. Think kids left alone at home for the first time kinda thing. The second film/book, whatever, you could describe as the dark night of the soul. The protagonist(s) realizes he’s up against things far greater than he could’ve ever imagined. The finale then completes the circle, and the hero either succeeds or fails.

   I hate it when people say if you’re writing a spec it better have a happy ending. If you’re writing a trilogy, the second movie should probably have a down ending. As long as you give the audience the expected ending, in a way that they don’t expect it, happy ending or tragic, it’ll work.

   Let’s compare trilogies vs. series. Series are generally not as deep, because the good guy always wins. Sure, shit might happen as the story goes along, but in the end, the protagonist triumphs. Think Bond, or Rocky (have to admit I haven’t seen ALL 34953 of them).

   Most of the Harry Potter books/films are like that too. It’s a series, and the early ones are all light hearted because the SAME thing happens over and over, just in a different way. Harry enters the picture, shit happens to him, he learns stuff, then he wins in the end due to an amazing amount of help and coincidence. It’s cute, but not exactly high art. But you can only do that so many times. Having read the last of those books, I can tell you the later ones are much better, because the same shit DOESN’T happen again. Worse shit happens. People start to die. And the hero’s fate is TRULY in doubt.

   That’s just human nature. Nothing is deep until the darkest nature has been exposed. I actually think if you WANT to challenge yourself as a writer, write something that has a HAPPY ending and still gives us the feeling we just read or saw something truly deep, that touched us right down to the soul. THAT is the rarest kind of storytelling. ALMOST all films with superb depth and emotion have tragic or ironic endings.

   That’s why in a trilogy, the MP or 2nd film is the most important. Because if it’s not any good, the 3rd one automatically fails before its even made. For me, LOTR falls into that category. I liked the 1st one a lot, although it’s faults really stemmed from trying to cram EVERYTHING from the hero’s journey into the plot when about a half hour’s worth of stuff should’ve been cut. But the “dark night of the soul” aspect wasn’t real for me in #2, it all seemed contrived. It’s like they tried to make up for it in the 3rd one, and made it even worse. Althought the leads were good, throw in poor secondary acting and you get disappointing movies. I’m sure some disagree with me, but that’s how I see it.

   Good stuff.

8. Mark on Friday: 1 August 2008|1957

   I just had another idea that hit me so let me get it off my chest. And tell me if you come up with others, but right now I can come up with 3 purposes a writer can have for a film. Entertainment. Art. Instruction.

   Entertainment films. They should have a happy ending. The MP is going to be much more concrete, visible, easier to identify. When I say this kind of movie is superficial, I don’t mean that in a bad way. I mean the whole point of the movie is to spend 2 hours laughing, remembering falling in love, being wowed, etc. It’s entertainment. Your job as a writer…entertain. The audience should walk out thinking, “that was fucking awesome!!” or “omg that was fo fucking funny!!”.

   Art. I don’t mean art film. I mean a film with depth. Something that gets the audience to say, “wow, that was REALLY good.” It might cause us to cry, to learn something about ourselves or other people we didn’t know. It has depth. The MP is going to have more to do with the characters, their inner demons. The end will almost always be tragic or with irony.

   Instructional. Documentaries, company videos, things like that will fall into this category. I REALLY hate it when I watch an instructional video where they try to tell jokes. You wanna know why they ALL seem corny? Because the purpose of the film isn’t to tell jokes. It’s to instruct. That’s how you get someone to see, damn, I thought it would be boring but they did a good job with it. Not by telling jokes. By teaching people what you want to show them, and doing it so that afterward they go, “damn, I get it now.”

   Purpose and expectation are almost as important as causality. Sorry, had to get that rant off my mind while I was making dinner. If you come up with any more, share!

9. Susan P. on Friday: 1 August 2008|2133

   Whilst I agree with the corny jokes I think entertainment underpins all three you set out Mark.
   This would hold true if you equate entertainment with engagement. An instructional film needs to be engaging and there is an artistry in doing that.

   Are you suggesting an instructional film or documentary has a MP? :)

10. boyer on Friday: 1 August 2008|2204

    I think that Unk is totally right on, as well. Especially his comment, “that up to this point the protag has been just been letting the river carry him/her along.” (sic)

    I would add that when the protag commits him or herself to the waterfall(and maybe someone else has pointed this out already), the audience KNOWS this AS SOON as they see it. They see it in the eyes, dialogue or body language of the protag. If the story is good, my response at this point is almost visceral — it makes me want to jump in that raft with them.

    Guess what I wanna say is, until I think my own protag is gonna inspire me to jump in his/her raft, I’ll have to go back and keep looking at all angles of the story, character, etc., so that at the midpoint “moment”(and I think it should be a MOMENT that happens in a blink of the eye — it may have a lead-in, but once things totally sink in, the protag and audience INSTANTLY get it), I’m saying “Fuck Yeah!.” Or maybe, “You fucking fool….” Granted, the movie can be more light-hearted, so my response may be more muted, but if I’m hungry, I hit pause, get a snack and come back. Then I hit play.

    Maybe I could sum it up as saying, to me, this is the definitive part of the movie, regardless of genre, ending, seriousness, etc.

    (yeah, I’ve had some cocktails, 420…)

    (and yeah, of course EVERY fucking word, scene, foreshadow, backshadow, character trait, character flaw, plot-point,catalyst, silence, etc., is definitive — guess that’s why I could be at a party right now, but I’m working on my screenplay on a Friday night).

11. Clive ($1,000) on Saturday: 2 August 2008|0106

    The transition from 2nd Act to 3rd Act… or the midpoint, depending on which structural tool you use, for me is about the protagonist’s commitment… so, for instance it’s not unusual for the protagonist to lose either an ally or their mentor just before the mid-point and for this loss to trigger a change in attitude towards the central adversary… whether that be a person or an inner problem.

    Basically before the mid-point they are reliant on others and driven by circumstances… after the mid-point they create circumstances… but at the same time pay an ever increasing cost for their endeavors.

    The other thing worth considering is that the mid-point is often an echo of the opening, in that the hero is re-orphaned and is made even more isolated… however, whereas in the 1st Act the hero enters the new world unwillingly… at the mid-point the hero steps into his or her power for the first time and looks the issue straight in the eye… which is the reason that so often the 3rd act is the act of heroic failure, which in many stories leads towards an inevitable wounding, either physical or emotional.

    Now, as a European film maker, the difference between the “art” and “entertainment” isn’t such a big deal, because in Europe we find art entertaining… however, the distinction made earlier isn’t that useful, art films aren’t necessarily deeper emotionally than hollywood entertainment… the main difference between most art films and standard Hollywood output is the attitude towards the audience. Art films tend to assume the audience is smart, mature and well educated… LCD Hollywood films assume the opposite. It’s a market thing, mass market films assume that the film has to appeal to an audience who isn’t educated beyond high school, doesn’t read books out of choice, couldn’t find Denmark on a map easily and whose world view is limited to celebrity magazines, Springer and possibly MTV.

    The problem for many screenwriters is that they are usually literate, well educated and interested in culture… therefore their natural milieu is art house, but all the money is in mainstream entertainment… which means dumbing down and doing the job.

    One of the reasons that structural form is so important in mainstream writing is exactly because it provides a comforting container for the audience… they know the story arc, even if they don’t know the story. The want to be entertained and amused, but they don’t want to be surprised or challenged. The best analogy is the rollercoaster… they want a thrilling ride, but they also want to know they are safe.

    In many respects the biggest difference between arthouse and mainstream is that there is no contract between the writer and the audience which guarantees their emotional safety… and if you don’t believe me about that, watch “Waltz with Bashir” and then figure out what the real limits are on what you can and can not do to an audience are.

    Hmm… should have written this as a post for the magazine! LOL … Unk, you owe me one!

12. Susan P. on Saturday: 2 August 2008|0326

    What ho Clive! Spare the hunters and hold back the stirrup cup! I’m not sure I can totally agree with your comparative discourse on arthouse vs mainstream.

    I am reminded of the manner in which some people wax poetic about the artistry of nouvelle cuisine and condemn the pedestrian shepherd’s pie when, in the wash (pardon the partial pun), what is on the NC plate IS after all a curl of a cucumber, a wink of a salmon and the moue of celeriac.

    I consider half of the arthouse I have seen self-indulgent, trite extolations of ideas that the writer seems to think are ‘new’ and that anyone over 35 who is well read thought through 15 years back.

    I am aware I am showing my bias and, of course, European arthouse does I admit have its success stories - and a very important place is media - as do (I would contend) South African films that would fall into this pool. BUT, I cannot agree that across the board mainstream films fail to challenge. Many do not of course because not everyone who goes to films wants to be challenged and I actually support that. Escapism and movement into fantasy and suspension of reality has its merits (to my mind).

13. Susan P. on Saturday: 2 August 2008|0328

    Erratum blast it. :) ‘in’ media

14. Mike on Saturday: 2 August 2008|0448

    Clive,

    You said something I found intriguing:
    “…The other thing worth considering is that the mid-point is often an echo of the opening, in that the hero is re-orphaned and is made even more isolated…”

    Never thought of it in that context, but I completely agree. Hmmmmm. Have to go back and take a deeper, longer look at the Four Act Structure and see what other recursive features it may contain.

    Thanks for the ‘light bulb’ moment.
    Keep Writing!

15. Susan P. on Saturday: 2 August 2008|0519

    That was an interesting point indeed. “Re-orphaned” was an interesting term choice. When I thought about it I could see that midpoint is a major trade off point for the protagonist isn’t it. He or she is totally jettisoning their past in many ways. It is a true re-birth but, once again, within that there are multiple losses but yet the promise of becoming who they can really be without being held back - any longer - by the mind shackles of their wound. The bitter sweet movies have the person dying just after the (almost) end peak moment.

16. Ryan on Saturday: 2 August 2008|0726

    You did a great job on onomatopoeia. See… You’re post aren’t just a one-hit-wonder. You reinforce your posts in the following posts to come. Nice!!!

    Waterfalls. LOL
    If there’s a movie that’s in the jungle or a forest or anything wild… Dried-up no water anywhere for countries Sahara for crying out loud. You can count on a waterfall scene. LOL

    Keep up the great work Unk!

17. Mark on Saturday: 2 August 2008|0803

    Clive,

    I didn’t say art house film, just art, something with deeper meaning. If you’re into painting, think…

    Entertainment = Monet
    Art = Da Vinci
    Art-house = Dali or Picasso

    That’s how I look at it anyways. All good in their own different way.

18. Mark on Saturday: 2 August 2008|0804

    And just so everyone knows, this whole waterfalls thing has that TLC song stuck in my head now.

19. Clive ($1,000) on Saturday: 2 August 2008|0927

    That’s the problem with analogies, they often don’t map into real world situations.

    So, for instance a film like “Absurdistan” by Veit Helmer is definitely film art… it’s a ninety minute movie which has a total of 12 lines of dialogue, which has been DI colour corrected to look like 1950’s 8mm stock… and yet the film itself is an ultra-light weight comedy, which doesn’t even attempt any depth of character.

    And a film like Woody Allen’s “Shadow’s and Fog” which parodies Brecht is definitely art… but it’s got less emotional depth than say “Driving Miss Daisy” or “Crash” or “Million Dollar Baby” or “Bringing Out the Dead”… all of which are pretty mainstream.

    I know what you’re saying and it’s a commonly held view, that Hollywood films fail to have real emotional depth in comparison with film as art… but the truth is the “film as art” scene moved on from all that hand wringing and navel gazing about fifteen years ago… and even then it was an American Maverick preoccupation rather than a European one… and since the studios bought up and destroyed the American independent film scene there are only us Europeans, the Australians, The Asian’s and the Indian’s left to bang the gong (so to speak).

20. AnnWesleyHardin on Saturday: 2 August 2008|1347

    Hey, no fair for making me think even harder!

    In Romance, each book has to have its happy ending. This can be achieved within the romantic sub-arc in each book of the trilogy, while maintaining the classic structure of the epic arc.

    Therefore, it’s ok and highly doable to have the dark moment of the soul in book two, as long as I give readers their HEA in the subplot.

    This is what I’ve been struggling with! You guys are awesome. Problem solved!

    I gotta start coming back in here more often.

21. Mark on Saturday: 2 August 2008|1443

    Clive,

    I’m pretty sure you are misunderstanding me completely. Because I said art, you associated that with art film, film noir, renegade, anything in the art film umbrella.

    But that’s not what I was saying. I said there is a different kind of artistry involved in more emotional movies. That artistry is depth. And it’s completely independent from the things that make up art house films.

    I’m not in the category of people who believe “Hollywood films fail to have real emotional depth in comparison with film as art.” I’m simply delineating 2 subsets of films into 3. Usually, people like to think in terms of entertainment and art film, with the extremes being your typical popcorn flick and the existential cine that can probably only be understood inside the filmmaker’s own mind. To me, that third category in between the other two are the films with depth. Sure they are entertaining, but they aren’t casual, and they’re not beautiful works of abstract (again, I’m talking about just the extremes there).

    Nobody would call films like THE GODFATHER PART II, CHINATOWN, and RAN art films, nor casual entertainment. They stir up deeper emotions. So how should they proceed? How should they end? They should most definitely have a different kind of Inciting Incident, MP, Crisis, Climax, etc. than films like say KINDERGARTEN COP, SAVE THE LAST DANCE, or ANIMAL HOUSE. Should Michael Corleone quit the mafia, forgive his brother, and retire to a golf course at the end of PART II? Once Evelyn tells Jake about Katherine, there’s no way Chinatown can end up with Cross getting arrested and Gittes and Evelyn together sailing off into the sunset at the end.

    Let’s go back to the STAR WARS example. The first STAR WARS is a popcorn flick, a really good one. A whole planet gets blown up and millions or billions of people die. But you don’t see Lucas cutting away to an emotional shot, and he doesn’t linger on it. Because the emotions behind such a thing have NO PLACE in a movie like that. Sure, the EVENT can happen, even on screen. But it has to be treated completely different than say soldiers dying in THE THIN RED LINE. Therefore it stands to reason that there’s no other way to end the movie than for the heroes to save the day, with none of the main good guys dying or having anything bad happening to them. Notice how Kenobi doesn’t get killed and die off, instead he allows himself to be killed and there’s a hint he’ll come back. On the other hand, in EMPIRE, the heroes really do go through HELL and the audience is taken to a much deeper and connective reality. It stands to reason that bad things need to happen to the main good guys, that the film needs to end with irony and on some down notes.

    To surprise you, I don’t think that ANY of those categories are better than the others. They’re all equal, as long as the movies take that emotion to the max. It might be artistry, it might be excitement, it might be heartbreak or redemption, whatever field the film falls into, that’s how its story should be dictated.

    That’s why I said, if you’re doing an instructional video, instruct us, don’t tell jokes. It’s not the purpose or the expectation and that’s why it always fails. If you’re doing an entertainment film (and by that I mean light nature) then entertain us, and you better do it without waking up too many deeper emotions. Audiences don’t get into a movie like that with the expectation they are going to be in touch with darker nature. I honestly haven’t seen Hancock, but I heard the 3rd act was not right at all. Maybe that’s where it went wrong, it got all serious? I don’t know, again, I haven’t seen it. Finally, if you’re writing a scipt for a film with lots of irony, deep emotional impact, etc. then that dictates the direction of the story in the opposite way. Not everything can wind up sunny and roses. It’s not the expectation.

    If I was confusing, my bad. That certainly wasn’t the intent. I think I was pretty straight with the delineation, although perhaps I shoudn’t have used art and art house, maybe two more distinct categories.

22. James on Saturday: 2 August 2008|1520

    Just to jump on the Star Wars band wagon —

    Empire totally is the MP, Unk. Not just because it is Number two. But because it houses the central Ordeal, Luke’s main crisis within it.

    Early in Star Wars, Luke makes a statement, “I want to be a Jedi, like my father.”

    To which we respond with the central question, “Will Luke become a Jedi, like his father?”

    Isn’t the twist in Empire perfect for this question?

    Luke is trying to become a Jedi to be everything that is good in the world. He aspired to be of greatness like his father — only to find out his father IS the most evil dude in the galaxy.

    And the central question changes — Not in wording — but in meaning …

    “Will Luke become a Jedi like his father (the most evil dude in the universe)?

    And then Return of the Jedi starts with Luke in ALL black, claiming he is already a Jedi. Is he? IS he like his father? And the climax of Return answers that question.

    Now, in terms of a trilogy, Star Wars (the first movie) pulled a little sleight of hand. The ambiguous nature of what a Jedi Knight truly is, helps to propel the other two movies. Had this been a tale of knights of the Round table and a young squire, the first movie would have ended with Luke being knighted (and if he wasn’t the audience would have felt cheated). Instead, the end ceremony takes the place of this, and it isn’t until we see the second movie that we realize Luke isn’t really a Jedi Knight yet.

    The problem with The Matrix as a “trilogy” is that Neo has become complete at the end of the first movie.

23. James on Saturday: 2 August 2008|1531

    I actually don’t call, Vader taking Han and Leia hostage the midpoint. Seems more like lead-up to the Split into Act 3 (Syd Field style Acts~) if you ask me.

    To me, the midpoint is when Luke faces Vader in the tree on Dagobah only to find out it’s himself. A whole lot changes for him as a character at that moment. Also notice, Luke draws his weapon before Vader does in the tree — this thing has so much foreshadowing in it.

    Then Luke has his vision of his friends in parell and has to choose whether to save his friends or continue his training. This furthers the vision in the tree —

    – If you do not stay to train, you will become like Vader.

    Luke’s choice propels Act 3 (Again, Syd Field style — Act 4 if you’re doing 4 acts).

    And man, that act pays off whether or not Luke has the potential to become like Vader in spades.

24. James on Saturday: 2 August 2008|1534

    I also call being tractor beamed onto the Death Star the MP in the first Star Wars.

    What I find funny about that, is Unk’s analogy of the waterfall works very, very well lol.

    I can see arguments for later, when Luke has to persuade Han to save Leia. But it’s that general area, and being sucked into the belly of the whale… er Death Star, that typically marks the midpoint in most adventure stories.

25. Mark on Saturday: 2 August 2008|1535

    Ann,

    Good to hear it! I often get insights hanging around here too.

    I’ll need to think on it more to explain the differences in MP between lighter movies and deeper ones. I was just thinking about the Inciting Incident though, and there are clear differences. Let’s look at STAR WAR and EMPIRE again, and THE GODFATHER.

    In STAR WARS, light hearted sci-fi adventure, the inciting incident is simple enough: Luke gets the droids with the hidden message. Notice, there’s no depth there. The Big Event that takes us from Act I to Act II: the sequence where his aunt and uncle are killed, and he and Kenobi decide to go to Alderaan. O.K., so people died? How is that light? Well it’s light because we know very little about them, or their relationship with Luke. It’s not that these movies have NO depth, it’s that they only scratch the surface. Without the background music, who knows if Luke is devastated, or maybe secretly happy that their gone and he can fly off anywhere? We don’t know, because we know very little about them. And that’s how it should be with lighter movies. A little bit of depth, o.k. and sometimes makes the movie better, but too much…no.

    THE GOFATHER. Inciting incident: Vito Corleone gets shot. Now, this is where we need to look VERY closely. This is a darker, more emotional film. Just having the protagonist’s (Michael) father shot doesn’t work. That’s not good enough, unless the movie is lighter. This is serious now. We need something better. That’s why Vito Corleone is treated like the main character until he gets shot. After that, his role in the movie dramatically diminishes. So why is he treated like the main character in the beginning? So that when he gets shot (the inciting incident), we take it very seriously. Having Mike as the main guy from the get go would seriously take away from the impact of the film. On to the Big Event here: Michael kills Sollozzo and the crooked cop. O.K., he comes from a mafia family, so what right? Wrong, that’s why we see him in love with a girl, wearing a uniform, as a proud patriot and all around good guy at the beginning of the film. So that him KILLING 2 people really hits us hard.

    THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. The inciting incident: the probe droid finds the rebel base. The Big Event: The Empire attacks the base, kills a bunch of rebels, and forces everyone to evacuate (and if you want, you can argue that the Falcon initially flying into the asteroid field is part of the Big Event sequence). EMPIRE is different from both of the other two films, because it’s neither a sci-fi adventure like STAR WARS, nor an intense drama like THE GODFATHER. It’s kind of in between. It’s still a sci-fi movie, and its predecessor was as well. So it needs to have that light high adventure character, or the people that loved STAR WARS and paid money to see its sequel will be disappointed. But being the 2nd part of a trilogy, it needs to be darker too. Hence, you have an amalgam of depth concerning the plot points. The inciting incident with the droid, pretty simple. The battle scene, we see more depth. At the midpoint sequence, which to be fair I didn’t include the whole thing earlier, it really is a sequence that starts right before the allies are arrested and includes the part where Luke fails to raise the ship, and Yoda has to do it for him. Things just got even deeper than the earlier plot points, because we see our hero as a failure in over his head, and his friends in jeapordy of losing their lives. At the crisis we see Han put into carbon freeze. Things are even deeper now. Technically not dead, Han isn’t really alive either. To keep the whole thing from being too deep though (back to that lighter sci fi part) Luke isn’t in any personal trouble really at that point. In the Climax, Luke doesn’t just fight Vader like in the first movie and win, he loses to him, gets his hand cut off, and finds out the most evil person in the universe is his father. That’s pretty bad. At least Leia and Lando, while being chased, have nonetheless somewhat escaped by that point. And again, the final dramatic moment comes when R2, the little robot, saves the day. This film is really complicated because it’s trying to please both the adventure and drama nature it embraces. Not bad.

    Let’s see if we can come up with more analysis on the differences in the MP specifically. Can’t wait to hear what everyone comes up with.

26. Mark on Saturday: 2 August 2008|1542

    James, I can see where you’re coming from on the MP. I guess that ones tricky. You’re right about the face-off in the cave, and Luke learns a lot from it. But I think that’s the key word, he’s still LEARNING. After, he learns even more when he fails to raise the ship and Yoda has to do it for him. As long as he’s still learning, according to the 4 Act Structure (explorer), he’s still in Act II short of the MP. That 3rd Act, past the midpoint, comes when he’s not learning anymore. He makes up his mind and goes for broke (point of no return). It’s after he fails with the ship, and leaves to go save his friends. Activist.

    That’s how I see it anyways.

27. Susan P. on Saturday: 2 August 2008|1752

    Hmmm..ok..MP matters aside…entertainment, art house and instructional don’t embrace a raft of films. SCHINDLER’S LIST for example, or, OF MICE AND MEN. Now, the hand held camera approach of SL certainly offered a cinema verite atmosphere and I guess one may argue that is art. But the content, in my mind, doesn’t lend the film towards falling into an art category as such. I don’t label it entertainment per se either. The same with OMAM. There are so many films that are so brutally about the human condition and that lead us into critical awareness about human choice - where are you placing them in terms of categorisation?

28. Mark on Saturday: 2 August 2008|1958

    Susan, I place those films in that deeper connective category. Clive managed to confuse me even regarding my own words with one of his posts LOL. At first, I was stating that I could come up with 3 kinds off the top of my head, and asked for others to come up with more. The first 3 I could think of were entertainment, art, and instruction. Art might have been a poor word choice, BUT…I said RIGHT AFTER that I didn’t mean ART FILM. Art films, as people usually think of them, can fall into any of the above categories. Or, as I suggested, they could be a 4th category. Somehow, my off hand sidepost got turned into a “man I hate shallow hollywood movies” vs. “man, I hate self indulgent art films” discussion. I hate those discussions because they are pointless.

    As you mentioned, I completely agree. Hollywood and shallow are not one in the same. Entertainment films usually include super hero movies, sci-fi, horror, thriller, suspense, cop and criminal movies, on and on. These movies usually only scratch the surface of deeper emotions. They like to pretend they are truthful, but they are really just a band-aid on how we see society…and that’s ok. A lot of times, we go to a movie and just want something fun. We don’t need or want a deep film thrown at us. We’ve got enough problems that particular day LOL.

    Then there’s movies like SCHINDLER’S LIST, THE GODFATHER PART II, SEVEN, that intentionally try to get us at a deeper level…and that’s ok too. Human experience time and again shows that its our nature to enjoy watching these movies, because they connect with the most powerful emotions we have–negative emotions. Yes, they are more powerful than the positive ones. They resonate more. Holocaust survivors didn’t boycott SCHINDLER’S LIST because brought back so many bad memories, most WANTED to watch it. Old WWII vets didn’t shy away from the D-Day scene in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Time and again, human experience teaches us that these films are more powerful than any other.

    And just to finish up, it’s the difference in the two types of films we’re talking about here that also determine how they are structured. Including the MP. Someone once had an idea for a Superman movie where Superman died at the end.

    Got that?

    Superman doesn’t die. That’s the end of that discussion. If you’re writing a romcom, and you structure it the same way as almost all other romcoms and then all of a sudden at the end the couple DOESN’T wind up together…hear that sound? Yeah, that film just tanked. Big time.

    In THE GODFATHER PART II, don’t even try and tell me that Michael might just decide to quit the mafia one day, forgive his brother, and go Bob Hope on us. Fade out. LOL…there’s no other way for that movie to end.

    Doesn’t mean all deep movies have to have bad endings. A lot of them end with irony, that is some good notes with some bad notes as well. But I don’t think it can be happy. Because you’ve just spent 2 hours in a real-life like film with the audience. You’ve taken them through hell and joy, exactly what real life is. Now, at the end, you tell them…”everyone lived happily ever after.” That’s the most insulting thing you could ever do. That’s not real at all.

    And if you’ve got an entertainment film, where you’ve just spent 2 hours giving everyone laughs or joys, maybe even a little sadness, etc., you MUST end the film with a happy ending. After 2 hours of playing make believe, you can’t just throw reality in their face and expect them to be happy.

    And if the ending depends on whether your film is meant to entertain or meant to move, can’t we assume the MP and other plot points depend on it too? I think so.

29. Susan P. on Saturday: 2 August 2008|2053

    OhhhhKkkkk..but..none of this discourse alters this set that Unk posted does it? That a universal set of principle exists that serve deep, entertaining, minimal dialogue et al movie scripts? The way a movie ends doesn’t alter this set either does it.

    * Revelation
    * Reversal of fortune
    * Point of no return
    * Change of direction
    * Protagonist’s full committment to goal
    * Burning of the bridges
    * Could be a huge HIGH
    * Could be a huge LOW
    * Protagonist “thinks” he or she knows everything they need to know
    * Brings up a completely new Central Question
    * Protagonist ceases to be pushed around
    * Protagonist has a new plan
    * Protagonist begins the shedding his or her flaw(s)
    * Glimmer of hope for the Protagonist

30. Susan P. on Saturday: 2 August 2008|2128

    BUT, having said that, I can’t see that a MP always changes the central question even while accepting that there are shifting and adapting questions all the way through. To me the MP simply brings the overriding CQ into clear focus.

31. James on Sunday: 3 August 2008|0102

    Susan, if the midpoint doesn’t change the audiences expectation of the central question (the question itself can stay the same) then it is a weak midpoint.

    It is really that point in a movie that says to the audience — “Well, we’re here. Are we (the protagonist(s)) up to the challenges that face us?”

    The real trick of the Midpoint is that it is the force that propels the third act. It sets up either, how impossible this task is going to be, or how easily it was overcome when it was thought to be difficult.

    The end of Act 2 is usually the mirror image of your Midpoint.

    WALL STREET has a very up Midpoint. Bud Fox has become exactly what he set out to become at the start of the movie. Everything is peaches and cream in his business life. But what has he sacrificed along the way to reach this goal? Ultimately, that is what spins the 3rd Act and leads to Bud and Gekko’s ruin.

    Alternatively, ALIENS, the midpoint is a group of cocky space marines attempting to kill the aliens. Really, the whole half of the movie is setting up how badass these characters are, how little phases them, what a cakewalk this should be for them.

    And then –

    they get their asses handed to them. We see what they are REALLY up against. This is one of the greatest low midpoints in action cinema imo. This makes the victory in the third Act over the aliens all the sweeter when they eventually triumph.

    That is really what the MIDPOINT is.

    It is the moment where we (the audience) gets to see how difficult the task for the hero truly is going to be.

32. Susan P. on Sunday: 3 August 2008|0140

    James,

    I appreciate the points. I’ve not seen WS but I have seen A but it was so long ago that I can’t remember the details enough to debate.

    I was looking at this issue from a slightly different perspective. Can we look at the CQ from a different perspective and refer to it as two stranded - one is based on obvious action, in this case will the marines beat the aliens or will they be defeated, and one is overarching (not directly pegged to action), in this case will good triumph over evil? Not all films necessarily climb to lofty heights BUT, if they do, then I’m not sure the midpoint shifts that philosophical position point as such; not for all films anyway.

    Now, I can immediately see an argument against that latter point I’m making. In one section of the film it may be = selfishness vs altruism and then fear of realisation vs freedom from realisation. Then again, I guess philosophically one could consider that above these, once again, sits one overriding point about the human condition..but..for the sake of discussion, point well made James.

    Films where there is a dramatic twist ending however don’t reveal the question elements until the end - when the audience, shocked by an ending they could never have potentially expected, look back and consider choices, motivations and so on.
    Certainly there is a behavioural choice MP. I am not arguing against that, but the essence of what an audience takes away as it considered the questions of life, I suspect, from time to time, are different than what a writer proposes as the MP. That is just a catalyst.

    Hmmmm..thinking thinking thinking. :)

33. Clive ($1,000) on Sunday: 3 August 2008|0337

    Mark

    I understood the point you were making… but, the problem is you can’t just use words like “art” in way that suits you. When you talk about film as art then you are talking about a very particular group of screenwriters/director/producers and distributors… not only that you are talking about a very particular strand of film history.

    The point that I’m making is that film as art exists not merely as a concept in your head, it exists in the real world as people actually writing and making films. The points I made were all about how these writer’s and director’s approaches to the story arc differs from mainstream “purely for entertainment” film making.

    Now the problem with is, if someone just uses the term “art” to mean any film that isn’t facile, then they are changing the nature of film history and the current economics of film production from what actually exists into a mythical fairly-land where anything is possible.

    At that point discussion becomes impossible because you can never be sure of what anyone means… because any term can be used to mean anything.

    One of the biggest problems in the indie scene at the moment is the mis-use of terminology. So, for instance, indie filmmakers who insist on calling their movies “low budget” when they only have a budget of “$350,000″ which in the industry is now referred to as micro-budget (low budget is $2M-$7M)

    Now, the truth is the split between the “film as art” and “film as business” is very, very important to understand for any screenwriter attempting to create a career in this business.

    Screenwriters in the US who don’t understand the realities of these distinctions win competitions but never see their movies made… screenwriters in Europe who don’t understand the distinction don’t win competitions and don’t get their movies made.

    Oh, and can we please, please, please have a rule on this site that bans the mention of Star Wars… please … I mean I don’t even know what to do with a conversation that goes from art movies to Star Wars in a single breathe.

    By the way… I know Unk suggests reading screenplays as a key to becoming good screenwriters… I’d like to add to that a couple if suggestions: Watch some new movies that require you to read subtitles, get to some major film festivals and read some hardcore film magazines… either “Cashir du Cinema” or “Screen International”

    http://www.cahiersducinema.com/site.php3

    http://www.screendaily.com/

    It’s just basic market research to understand the current trends of the industry you’re attempting to work in.

34. James on Sunday: 3 August 2008|0832

    I actually do think movies are very, very two stranded.

    A movie has to fulfill its plot objectives and its character objectives. To me, the character objectives are where you find the meaning of the movie. And personally, from a writing standpoint, that’s the juicy part — that’s the stuff I like to write.

    However, if the plot isn’t up to par, you can easily end up with a soap opera. With a character that is a sad pathetic lump of do-nothing-ness. You also end up with relatively low stakes.

    And, in general, entertainment value takes a huge hit, as well.

    IMO, movies (and “story” in general) are a balance of these two factors: plot and character.

    On a little bit of a tangent…

    I’m not so sure the Central Question is two-stranded…

    I only make this distinction, because I believe the central question is forged from who the protagonist is — and ultimately the CQ is a result of that characters journey and only indirectly effected by the plot.

    (I mean, Star Wars is a great example. It’s 3 movies — with 3 very different plots — all with basically the same central question. Each incremented slightly by Luke’s growth).

35. Susan P. on Sunday: 3 August 2008|1734

    Clive, I DO so agree with this:

    “Screenwriters in the US who don’t understand the realities of these distinctions win competitions but never see their movies made… screenwriters in Europe who don’t understand the distinction don’t win competitions and don’t get their movies made.”

    In Australia I think the second is very much true for people who are essentially creating art-house script but think they are mainstream. They are additionally hurting their cause by taking on expert reviews from people who have had a singular minor success in mainstream BUT with a cult style film.

    Now, to that word cult. How do you see that Clive. CLOCKWORK ORANGE for example, would you consider that a cult film? I don’t see it as art-house or mainstream. Indeed, I have thought over the weekend of shifts in perception of what category movies fall into. What about KLUTE or MIDNIGHT EXPRESS?

    I have found reading scripts - both produced and developing really useful from a few directions. Understanding what changed and why between the final draft and the shooting script AND how engaging and what a flow read you obtain from a ‘good’ script. In a bad script you continually falter and sometimes need to back track to pick up something about a character etc. A busy producer would not pick up the option on that script (or I doubt it).

    This said, I don’t agree with a vocalisation I saw here from a writer (poised to take their script to US studios) admitting their final draft had problems BUT that the shooting script changed so much that those issues didn’t matter. That’s not the way I view the process at all and nor would I personally be satisfied with that outlook.

36. Clive ($1,000) on Monday: 4 August 2008|0412

    I think “cult” movie is a tag that earned, because it’s an audience decision and often flies in the face of conventional industry thinking.
    Attempting to make a “cult” film is a bit like deciding to become a genius… you either are one or you aren’t… no amount of deciding is going to change that.
    One of the real problems facing US writers at the moment is the decimation of the independent distribution sector… actually this also applies to the UK as well.
    In the last few weeks we’ve seen Artificial Eye go under in the UK… and the studios in LA have bought up and systematically bankrupted the major indie players.
    What this means is that the US market is being drive ever further and further down a dependence on $54M plus, star driven, blockbusters…
    Making anything else is getting harder and harder.
    In the next four years I expect to see Sundance dominated by the Europeans… with maybe some micro-budget US films breaking out.
    Scary times to be a screenwriter in the US right now.

37. Susan P. on Monday: 4 August 2008|0449

    Clive, I suspect that the next ‘wave’ will be movie to series. We’ve seen the translation in the other direction multiple times of course.

    I also think the marketing machine is becoming a ruling force but, like any field, sooner or later the audience becomes sick of a particular saturation and looks for something different. The problem is, the arc of this cycle is going to be long and slow.

    If the major indie players had been as ruthlessly fiscal, they could have potentially gathered force and dealt with the cannibalism with more resistance but the very aspect that makes good indie SO good is often its downfall.

38. Clive ($1,000) on Monday: 4 August 2008|0707

    I don’t agree… the downfall of the American Indie has been because there is a real lack of talent in the marketing departments of the major studios these days.

    They’ve become a one trick pony.

    The next major development is going to be the star/writer/name director project… where name actors move into producer roles to push through personal projects… Garden State leaps to mind as the model… or some of Clooney’s more leftfield outings.

39. emily blake on Monday: 4 August 2008|0737

    I don’t know about this whole discussion going on here, but I do know that when Julie from The Rouge Wave asked me what the midpoint of my screenplay I was all like “Ummmm uhhhh I…. maybe… uh….”

    And then when she made me figure it out my script got eight thousand times better. And had more guns in it.

40. Susan P. on Monday: 4 August 2008|0751

    Clive.. Hmmmm..I suspect we are debating slices of perspective or each looking at slightly different angles of the prism.

    I do however tend to agree with the last point.

    Emily, your experience proves that investigating and knowing structure is invaluable! You’re lucky that the other party took the time to help you consider.

41. Ryan on Monday: 4 August 2008|1415

    These comments are probably more of a personal opinion. I like blue… You like red. Yada yada yada.

    Emily I had that same feeling when Unk posted this. I was like: Huh… Interesting. So much for that bloody British competition that’s coming up.

    Just when I think I see the light at the end of the tunnel. Unk’s gotta some how turn the damn light off.

42. Vince DC on Monday: 4 August 2008|1810

    Keep ‘em coming, UNK. Never a dull moment and always invaluable tips.

    Some of your readers may remember a blogger by the name of Olaf Legend. He unfortunately “passed away” some time ago. However, I suspect he might be up to his old tricks again under a new pseudonym. This has little to do with screenwriting but lots to do with comedy — fucking hilarious. Anyone who needs to kill a few minutes away from the keyboard, please check out the following. You will not be disappointed.

    http://docmarga.blogspot.com/

43. Susan P. on Monday: 4 August 2008|2112

    Nice new site look Unk. Thanks for doing the work on it.

44. David on Monday: 4 August 2008|2247

    The Midpoint also often give the audience a glimpse of the resolution to the problem established in Act One. In 40 Year Old Virgin it was Andy walking across the street and asking the gorgeous grandmother out on a date. In Empire Strikes Back it was Luke battling his inner Darth Vader in the tree cave (this last one occurred several pages after the physical midpoint, but since Luke is the Protagonist, I think it still may be the midpoint of the story. Just a late one.)

45. Clive ($1,000) on Tuesday: 5 August 2008|0506

    “These comments are probably more of a personal opinion. I like blue… You like red. Yada yada yada.”

    All comments, all articles are essentially opinion, especially when they are about a subject as amorphous as screenwriting, where every opinion is held as idiotic by someone else.

    However, the fact that they are opinions doesn’t devalue them, except in your eyes… so, they don’t interest you, but why do you need to share that? It doesn’t add to the debate, but is merely a technique used to control what others should or shouldn’t say…

    I mean, I personally think all talk of Star Wars should be banned, because I find it tedious in the extreme… but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

46. Christian Howell on Tuesday: 5 August 2008|0918

    Wow, this has been a long discussion. I personally feel that the major problem with modern cinema is a lack of study of the original neo-realists.

    Several famous directors made livings on the banal of human existence and talk of structure only seeks to maintain an “expected” process and outcome.

    Nowadays, they are no new stories so film has to take on a new meaning, going from the spectacular to the regular. Look at the success o last year’s Oscar pool. None of those movies fit the mold of modern cinema: Setup, buildup, payoff.

    Juno was the most boring topic but it used personality and regular life to expound upon a point. “People make mistakes.”

    No Country had the main protag killed off screen and the bad guy gets away in the end, while the “hero” found he had no country (place where things make sense to him).

    Even There will be Blood used pure imagery for the first part.

    In most of these cases, you can see that the deepest movies take place over months or years. The Die Hard method (takes place over a few hours) only works for action movies with no real “cultural message,” though a small movie about something that happens in a few hours (like a delivery) could possibly work.

    The key beyond structure is the use of visual elements. Every genre has expected elements. Comedy requires a pratfall, drama requires poignant speech, action requires close-calls, etc. Once you begin to write so that you don’t rely on MPs or CQs, you will write more visual scripts. These will find themselves.

    As an example, I got feedback from a production company that harped on the ease of “seeing” where things were happening, even though they didn’t buy it. They did ask for other scripts though and that was the script I knew was the least commercial of my current projects.

    That, I think is another area where modern cinema fails. People try to be too clever and have too many plot threads or reversals when the average viewer wants to see pratfalls, poignant speech, close calls, etc.

    That’s why there is a need for true cinemaphiles in positions of power. There would be less flops or under-earning movies. They would understand that “nobody knows nothing” and the banal is the fruit of life. Your base actions will also conflict with someone else. Just the way you drive may cause a major problem. Taking a cab can become a nightmare ordeal if you jump into the wrong cab (hey wait, that’s a good idea).

    I recommend everyone on this thread read Cinema I and II by Deleuze. It goes beyond structure to content and why images affect us the way they do.

47. Mark on Tuesday: 5 August 2008|1306

    No Country was one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. When it was over, some of us looked around and laughed, half mad that we had just wasted two hours watching that. The other half had lost interest and were no longer paying attention. They didn’t notice the movie was over until the credits had been rolling for about 20 seconds. The epitome of a talking head movie, where the people’s actions don’t follow any rationale or well set up explanation.

    Per Star Wars, I think it gets referenced a lot because basically everyone has seen it. Other movies too. Some of the very best movies that would make better examples aren’t citable because a lot of people haven’t seen them. Citing those movies would be a pointless exercise.

    The EMPIRE midpoint is a sequence when Luke fails to raise the ship and Yoda has to do it for him, along with Han, Leia and company being arrested and Luke deciding he has to go save them. When Luke is in the cave, he’s still learning. When he comes out, he’s still learning. There isn’t an act change there. After the ship incident, he leaves Degobah and becomes an activist, heading off to save his friends. That’s an act change.

    Just one man’s opinions.

48. David on Tuesday: 5 August 2008|1428

    Mark, I think that could also be considered a midpoint moment. However, it occurs even later than the tree cave scene, and isn’t particularly significant. To me, it’s a minor failure, unlike the foreshadowing of the battle between Luke and his father. And I believe there are at least two scenes between Luke’s failure to lift the X-Wing and his departure from the planet.

    I don’t think a midpoint necessarily needs to be a hard act break. It can be an image or an exchange within a scene or larger sequence. Since there’s really no such thing as a “midpoint” per se (other than the precise middle of a script of film), I think a midpoint is whatever it means to you. And that might change (probably should change) from screenplay to screenplay.

49. Ryan on Tuesday: 5 August 2008|1523

    Clive you are correct BUT I was responding to Emily’s comment. This whole thing is based of opinions.

50. Susan P. on Tuesday: 5 August 2008|1938

    Christian, One of the point you raised had resonance for me. I read a script where the symbols were so multiple I became really confused - particularly when those symbols did not interlink. Those then worked to cloud many structural aspects. I mean, if every character introduced in a story has one or two material symbols..err..what the!

    Speaking of Juno, I’ve heard few positives about the screenplay here.

    Mark, I accept your point about citing movies few may have seen however, I regularly go and grab a movie mentioned to me in discussions. Extending our viewing repertoire can be really helpful but yes, for an immediate discussion it can be problematic. I am with Clive on this though in the sense that if Star Wars becomes the singular reference point, that can confine consideration of other choices and ways of doing.

    Maybe we need to have a film club (like a book club) and pose a film a month ahead and then discuss its structure. ;-)

51. Clive ($1,000) on Wednesday: 6 August 2008|0547

    What’s the point of being a screenwriter if your cultural references don’t stretch any further than “long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.”

    If a screenwriter isn’t just as comfortable discussing: Some Like it Hot; Breakfast At Tiffany’s; “Seven Year Itch”; “Easy Rider”; “The Odd Couple”; La Dolce Vita; or, Last Tango in Paris they probably shouldn’t be writing screenplays.

    And that’s the baby screenwriter list… if you want to get semi-serious you need to tag on: “Ikiru”; “Hidden Fortress”; “Wings of Desire”; “400 Blows”; “The Battleship Potempkin”; “Wild Strawberries”; “Poor Cow”; and, “Don’t Look Back”

    Actually, they’re all pretty light weight as well… and I’ll say up front “Yes, I know the Hidden Fortress choice is a very, very mean film to put on that list.”

52. Susan P. on Wednesday: 6 August 2008|0618

    Oh well, I’m a baby. :) Though I could insert at least one rather out there Japanese film.

    I thought this interview re STOP LOSS worthwhile watching for new screenwriters - great points about research and I think, also, the gusto of pursuing your vision. At the very least I admire her drive:

    http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s2316182.htm

53. Christian Howell on Wednesday: 6 August 2008|1316

    CLive,
    I think that’s the point I wanted to make. Classic film was not afraid. It experimented. It broke molds. It tried to describe life. Nowadays, fart jokes and sex has diluted the message of cinema.

    The Philadelphia Story is a good example. For those who don’t have time, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND Cinema 1 and Cinema 2.

    Every filmmaker should read those. It justified my use of dreams as both back story and visual content to reveal personality or feelings about a subject.

    It’s too much to put in a post but read it, keep it next to your bed. It reviews some of the greatest films and philosophizes their meanings.

    Plus, it will give you something to talk about when smeone says “optical-sound” or dramaturgy.

    I love cinema.

54. Sarah on Friday: 8 August 2008|0116

    Unk, I love your bitter little LOLs. Just wanted to say. x

55. Clive ($1,000) on Friday: 8 August 2008|0133

    Christian… recommending Delueze as bedtime ready is ultra, ultra naughty! LMAO

    I did my degree in linguistic philosophy and even I struggle with Delueze… LOL

    And, I’ve always found a sock full of wet sand is the right comeback to anyone who drops “optical sound” into the conversation. LOL

    But, where I am completely with you is in your description of contemporary american cinema in comparison with classic american cinema.

    In fact, you only have to go back thirty-five years to see that there were more risks taken, more innovation and more interesting films made.

    This is the reason I love being a European screenwriter/producer at the moment… sure we don’t have the big production budgets, but the scene here does still revolve around the idea that films can be good, innovative and interesting.

    What’s really weird is that when a US maverick does turn out a great movie… like for instance Julie Delphy’s “Two days in Paris” I’m more likely to see it in Europe than you guys are in the States.

    But, top marks to you for dropping Delueze into the conversation… has given me the biggest laugh of the last month… easily.

    :)

56. That Mid-Point Thing | The Story Department on Monday: 1 September 2008|0522

    [...] UNK’s publication of his post on The Mid Point and to the benefit of the students in my recent HERO’S JOURNEY workshop, I have updated my [...]

57. That Mid-Point Thing | The Story Department on Monday: 8 September 2008|1552

    [...] Under Premium Content  Following UNK’s publication of his post on The Mid Point and to the benefit of the students in a recent HERO’S JOURNEY workshop, I have updated the [...]

Leave a Reply