The Central Question Part 2
I was reasonably sure Josh’s question would get a lot of play and it certainly did… Time to throw a little more fuel on the fire.
I think we’ve comfortably established that the central question is capable of change.
Cool.
Why does it change? When does it change? Think about it… Methinks it’s reasonable to assume that the central question changes because the want or desire of the Protagonist changes. And WHEN the Protagonist’s want or desire changes, that can and often does change the central question of the story.
There, I said it twice.
There’s still something we’ve not yet discussed that is definitely worth discussing as part of the central question.
The Protagonist’s overall want or desire…
In the previous post, we more or less danced around the Protagonist’s immediate want or desire and how it changes and when it changes, so MIGHT the central question.
In what I consider some of the best stories and movies, the central question does keep changing… The Protagonist searches for an answer and in conducting that search, discovers his or her overall want or desire. They more or less SHED the immediate want or desire as they make their way on their journey into the new world and as they explore and learn what they need to learn in the new world, their immediate want or desire develops and grows to an overall want or desire that drives them through the rest of the story or movie.
This is another reason why we want to keep all these changing central questions related… The overall want or desire is usually directly related to the story’s theme — i.e., the overall want or desire that divulges your truth… One of life’s questions you want this story and movie to explore.
And whether you have a story or movie with a Protagonist that doesn’t actually transform but transforms the story OR a Protagonist that does in fact transform — this works very nicely. Even with Protagonists that do not necessarily arc — per se — we still usually see their noble philosophy become even stronger than it was in the beginning. That’s growth — and to me, that’s still a KIND OF CHANGE they go through.
Whew…
No emails, please… LOL.
But with stories and movies containing Protagonists that DO undergo a transformational character arc, this works even better. For lack of a better phrase — a kind of internal structure for your Protagonist if you will.
A requirement? Not at all. But does it make for a great story? Of course, as long as it’s done correctly.
At some point, the new and now defined overall desire can be your Protagonist’s jacklight. Not only does it offer him or her the ability and opportunity to resolve the story — whether he or she succeeds or not — it brings up theme and affords us the opportunity to ponder the question and or truth you want to let us in on.
It’s almost as if our Protagonist begins our story bleeding profusely…
Without stopping the bleeding, he or she will die (NOT change enough to resolve the story).
Each wound (if more than one) being one of his or her flaws… They move through the story trying to figure out how to stop the bleeding so they can heal and be whole again (change) — achieve their goal — ANSWER THE CENTRAL QUESTION.
Just thought I’d throw that in…
Unk
Comments
79 Responses to “The Central Question Part 2”
Leave a Reply
-
Find It
-
Recently Written
-
Categories
-
Screenwriting Stuff
- Script Secrets
- Word Play
- Screenwriter's Utopia
- StoryLink
- Screenwriting Expo
- Celtx
- Cinergy
- Zhura
- Scripped
- Plotbot
- Script Buddy
- StorYBook
- FreeThesaurus.net
- Mobysaurus
- Open Office
- Open Office Screenplay Template
- Abiword
- U.S. Copyright Form CO
- U.S. Copyright Form CO Instructions
- WGA West Registration
- WGA East Registration
- ScriptGirl
- Simply Scripts
-
Scribosphere
- 101
- Ann Wesley Hardin
- Bamboo Killers
- Borderline Inappropriate
- Brook Brannon
- Burbanked
- Carlo Conda’s Blog
- DanielMedley.com
- Dreams of a Nobody
- Fencing With The Fog
- Holy Embers Of Dreams
- I Write With Pictures
- If It Ain’t On The Page
- LAZY SCREENWRITER
- Living The Romantic Comedy
- ME
- My Excellent Adventures
- My Next One Will Be Better
- Mystery Man On Film
- Nicolle C. Jones
- On The Scene
- Our Man In Los Angeles
- Overheard Lines
- Paul Zadie
- Pimped Fiction
- Planet Pooks
- Pro Screenplays
- Red Right Hand
- Revealing Of The Soul
- Running Ahead Of Me
- Screamwriter
- Screenwriting For Hollywood
- Screenwriting Manifesto
- Script Notes
- Sex In A Sub
- Shouting Into The Wind
- Supergun Cinema SuperBlog
- The Moviequill
- The Poke Show
- The Scherer Joy Of Writing
- The Screenwriter’s League
- The Story Department
- The Unemployment Cafe
- The Word Demon
- Things They Won’t Tell You In Film School
- Think Virtue!
- Uninflected Images Juxtaposed
- Writer Joshua James
- Writing & Building
- Writing On Spec
-
Most Popular Posts
-
Monthly Archives
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
-
-
Unk,
Okay, let’s get this party started……
Here’s my two-cents. Our hero has a flaw, only he doesn’t think of it as a flaw (Internal Problem). To him it is a survival technique (eg. Gets drunk to forget). The Inciting Incident – External Problem — acts as a catalyst that gets our hero on the road to recovery (the Character Arc). Central Question: Can the hero solve the External Problem?
During Act II the hero continues to ignore his Flaw (Internal Problem) and attempts to solve his External Problem without changing. By the end of Act II he discovers he’s been chasing a False Goal – he still needs to solve the Problem, but he needs to change in order to do it. Central Question: When will the hero realize his true problem?
In Act III it begins to dawn on our hero that to solve the External Problem he must change – he begins down the road to change, but in the process ends up in deep shit. Central Question: Will the hero survive?
Act IV sees the hero have a light-bulb moment. He finally realizes/fixes his Flaw (solves the Internal Conflict) which leads to a clue on how to solve the External Conflict. Central Question resolved.
Whew!
Next!
And Keep Writing.
Mike
Want to re-state that in 3 act structure Mike? :)
Unk, I have never heard the term jacklight and in trying to trace it’s etymology I’m getting unclear definitions that don’t seem to make sense in your context. Do you essentially mean “saving grace”?
Ok, the bleeding profusely. Hmm..ummmm..Ermmmm. HMMMM. I understand that but I’m thinking that it’s not necessarily that overt. I could name a dozen movies that I think are great that don’t commence with a protagonist that is bleeding profusely. At best, say like The Mechanic, it can be assumed at a later point. Is the protagonist in North By North West seen at the beginning of the film as bleeding profusely in a personal sense? I don’t think so. Some of the Bond films that come to mind are likewise. Then again, Hoodlums perhaps yes.
In the following, isn’t this really the movement from refusal to acceptance and embracing a new way of being?
“They more or less SHED the immediate want or desire as they make their way on their journey into the new world and as they explore and learn what they need to learn in the new world, their immediate want or desire develops and grows to an overall want or desire that drives them through the rest of the story or movie.”
I’m zig-zagging a bit here but I started to watch Conversation. Here I feel bleeding because of the treatment - not necessarily because of the dialogue or action. I can’t say I’m really enjoying this film however. I think the problem with bleeding profusely is that some constructions of this are just plain dragging for an audience. If you were to say that the Die Hard films started with bleeding or Rush Hour, those treatments were very different and perhaps pure action put a stop to the drag. Hmmm (again)..but film noire often does have that drag I speak of and I really admire the genre.
In all this though, the evolving question isn’t really that you pose two (or more) questions in planning your script outline as such. It’s that you know your characters wound, where the arc will take them and what the refusal will arc to (acceptance) and how/why..??
Talking philosophically, it may of course be that the end point creates, in the future, new wounds. For example, a solo player may move to accept connection..but in subsequent times or films that connection may prove to have its own set of problematics. I mean..that’s life, yes?
Susan,
Nope! ;-)
Keep Writing!
Mike…I didn’t think you would however, for the sake of shared information, and given (I suspect) most people will work in 3 act structure, your knowledge may reach further if you consider it from time to time. You too!
This is WAY off base here.
Does it really matter if it’s a 3 or 4-Act Structure Susan??? As long as it’s structure?
Sorry… Back to the central question.
GOOD WILL HUNTING
Perfect example.
Ryan..it can be if you are learning. The four act structure changes the orientation. I have an education background so I look at the way people learn. I’m a freelance writer and researcher in my early 50’s and finding I’m having to undo a lot of life practice and start again: and because I’m working in 3 act I’m trying to get a better grip on that. I thought my question was a compliment to the original author actually.
I have of course made comments about the CQ that one could also comment upon. Glass half full.
Mystery Man wrote a good post on Inner Conflict yesterday and I’m wondering if I can throw a little more fuel on the fire here by examining how the CENTRAL QUESTION and INNER CONFLICTS interrelate.
I’m still not 100% sure as to how I would define inner conflict, but I want to say it’s the kind of conflict that forces our protagonist to seriously question his or her own established philosophies on life -like when The Dark Knight has to decide whether or not he’ll taint his good name for the benefit of Gotham City.
On the surface, the central question of The Dark Knight might be “will he catch the joker?” But underneath it all, there are LAYERS of questions (see MM’s latest post for a thorough list). Most of these questions are directly related to the overall Theme of the movie, which, I want to say is “what lies at the heart of man? Good or Evil?”
The inner conflicts in the story reflect the theme, and as those conflicts unfold, our central question evolves from “will Batman triumph over the Joker?” to “will the good of humanity ultimately triumph over its Evil?”
But then, shit, that would mean our central question is exact the same thing as our theme …
I must agree with Ryan. All this disagreement over 3 -vs- 4 Act structure reminds me of the guy who orders a large pizza and asks that instead of cutting it into the traditional eight pieces, they cut it into four because he doesn’t think he can eat eight.
Whether you slice your script into three acts — four acts — six acts or nine…. at the end of the day you better have a damn good script.
Keep Writing!
There is no disagreement folks. I asked a question. I gave it a rationalisation (I took the time to explain). Pizza logic doesn’t interface at all with the point I worked to make. The last thread went off topic and no-one complained or focused on it. Is this an initiation for the newbie?
I have posted about my view on CQ in two threads. No-one responded. Let’s move on and I will keep my personal needs questions to myself.
Anyone have a comment to make about my post above about CQ? Or would like to offer another?
Susan,
I apologize if I offended you in any way.
As for your comments on the Central Question…
I believe the term ‘bleeding’ is relative. At the beginning of DIE HARD John McClane’s wound is he misses his wife, wants to get back with her. In NORTH BY NORTHWEST Roger Thornhill’s wound is he’s a liar — no one believes him — not even his own mother. Neither of these wounds is life threatening in and of themselves unlike Nicholas Cage’s character in LEAVING LAS VEGAS…his wound is/ends up being a death sentence.
In DIE HARD and NORTH BY NORTHWEST the original Central Question changes by the end of Act One — John McClane’s main concern is no longer making up with his wife, but saving her life. In NORTH BY NORTHWEST the Central Question changes to Can Thornhill prove his innocence. In LEAVING LAS VEGAS the Central Question — from the Cage character’s POV — never changes.
Food for thought.
Keep Writing!
Hostel… (let me see if i have this right)
ACT 1 — Teenagers go to amsterdam looking for sex drugs and rock’n'roll..
CENTRAL QUESTION :: will they GET LAID?
INCITING INCIDENT-> accidently meet the man that’ll lead to their central question -> will they get laid … IN THE HOSTEL NOW!
so the location of central question as we expect it has changed, but its still there.
CENTRAL QUESTION :: Will they get laid IN THAT HOSTEL?
getting to/exploring the hostel, their desire is met,in other words: central question CHECK!
They have fucked anything that moves!
So…
—————————————-
Toward end of ACT 1, everyones drunk and about to fuck again, but before redudancy kicks in, something else happens…
INCITING INCIDENT 2 :: The protag as we know him is captured and murdered (psycho switch).
ACT 2 begins and the central question has changed ::
CENTRAL QUESTION :: WILL paxton find out whats happend in time to escape?
mid point :: he now thinks his friend could be some kind of trouble.
CENTRAL QUESTION :: kind of alters to what will he do about his friend that’s officially gone missing?
Decides to confront these women. they decide to bring him to the murder factory!
Finally toward end of ACT 2 He’s captured, and murders his capter…
CENTRAL QUESTION :: changes to one of survival… Will paxton survive the factory? and so were set up for
ACT 3 –> His escape
THEME WISE ::
WILL HE ESCAPE? - the fact that he wants to escape is consistent with the way hookers in amsterdam feel.
Also, lets not forget they were thematically being used for sex as objects, now the irony is that he’s the one being used now.
AND HE HAS ESCAPED SO CENTRAL QUESTION CHECK
CODA ::
Central question alters one last time ::
CENTRAL QUESTION :: now that paxton’s free, will he get his vengence?
(this alteration is intresting cause, if i had to bet, it was done to please the audience, its the central question in LINE with the audiences wants! More so than the characters!)
Yes he does. CHECK AND CHECK satisfying conclusion.
————-
ok, so the central question alters A lot along with the charcter, he arcs as well, from someone who only wanted to get laid, into a man who wants to escape and has grown up.
There’s also a sub-plot with an asian girl he sees as an object early on ‘he’s not into asian women’.
But later he sees her life as being equal to his. So he tries to help her escape the factory with him. (this sub-plot also helps to show his character arc.)
—-
i think thats it…
Mike, your graciousness is appreciated. I think you’re right about ‘relative’. I guess the term ‘bleeding’ to me implies ’sustained’ and overwrought or repeated. I admit I’ve not really thought about the potential change in the CQ until this topic arose. In MRS HENDERSON PRESENTS there is a definite change as the Protagonist responds to the pressures of a changing wartime society and its strictures.
Philosophically though the term “Central Question” implies “One” so, as we talk about change, is the CQ more than the script issues we might write about or introduce; is it really “How the Protagonists character is able to adapt or grow in response to X issue”? (or similar)
ok, so with the hostel example I just gave, assuming we agree with it.
They’re flawed or bleeding… and it’s this flaw that drives the plot in an intresting direction… ultimately leading to ‘what - we - paid - to - see’. Then it even shifts again into something we want to see.
In this case its a study in how the CQ evolves to meet the needs of the audience.
I think you can study any script with the CQ in mind, then link it to the audience and if you’re characters are identifible to said audience. Then they’ll make decisions with the audience.
And you’ll have a satisifying movie.
—-
ok that said ::
Susan,
The way I see it, it’s one CQ, it’s just an ever EVOLVING CQ. So the central question ultimately changes in story-logical ways. I traced the evolution in Hostel for example.
So while there is only ONE CQ it’s ever evolving in the story, and how it evolves is really what you should focus on. Or one of the things you should when you write.
That’s the way I see it. Feel free to correct me or ask follow up questions.
Hostel… (let me see if i have this right)
ACT 1 — Teenagers go to amsterdam looking for sex drugs and rock’n'roll..
CENTRAL QUESTION :: will they GET LAID?
INCITING INCIDENT-> accidently meet the man that’ll lead to their central question -> will they get laid … IN THE HOSTEL NOW!
so the location of central question as we expect it has changed, but its still there.
CENTRAL QUESTION :: Will they get laid IN THAT HOSTEL?
getting to/exploring the hostel, their desire is met,in other words: central question CHECK!
They have fucked anything that moves!
So…
—————————————-
Toward end of ACT 1, everyones drunk and about to fuck again, but before redudancy kicks in, something else happens…
INCITING INCIDENT 2 :: The protag as we know him is captured and murdered (psycho switch).
ACT 2 begins and the central question has changed ::
CENTRAL QUESTION :: WILL paxton find out whats happend in time to escape?
mid point :: he now thinks his friend could be some kind of trouble.
CENTRAL QUESTION :: kind of alters to what will he do about his friend that’s officially gone missing?
Decides to confront these women. they decide to bring him to the murder factory!
Finally toward end of ACT 2 He’s captured, and murders his capter…
CENTRAL QUESTION :: changes to one of survival… Will paxton survive the factory? and so were set up for
ACT 3 –> His escape
THEME WISE ::
WILL HE ESCAPE? - the fact that he wants to escape is consistent with the way hookers in amsterdam feel.
Also, lets not forget they were thematically being used for sex as objects, now the irony is that he’s the one being used now.
AND HE HAS ESCAPED SO CENTRAL QUESTION CHECK
CODA ::
Central question alters one last time ::
CENTRAL QUESTION :: now that paxton’s free, will he get his vengence?
(this alteration is intresting cause, if i had to bet, it was done to please the audience, its the central question in LINE with the audiences wants! More so than the characters!)
Yes he does. CHECK AND CHECK satisfying conclusion.
————-
ok, so the central question alters A lot along with the charcter, he arcs as well, from someone who only wanted to get laid, into a man who wants to escape and has grown up.
There’s also a sub-plot with an asian girl he sees as an object early on ‘he’s not into asian women’.
But later he sees her life as being equal to his. So he tries to help her escape the factory with him. (this sub-plot also helps to show his character arc.)
—-
i think thats it….
Hostel…
ACT 1 — Teenagers go to amsterdam looking for sex drugs and rock’n'roll..
CENTRAL QUESTION :: will they GET LAID?
INCITING INCIDENT-> accidently meet the man that’ll lead to their central question -> will they get laid … IN THE HOSTEL NOW!
so the location of central question as we expect it has changed, but its still there.
CENTRAL QUESTION :: Will they get laid IN THAT HOSTEL?
getting to/exploring the hostel, their desire is met,in other words: central question CHECK!
They have fucked anything that moves!
So…
Toward end of ACT 1, everyones drunk and about to fuck again, but before redudancy kicks in, something else happens…
INCITING INCIDENT 2 :: The protag as we know him is captured and murdered (psycho switch).
ACT 2 begins and the central question has changed ::
CENTRAL QUESTION :: WILL paxton find out whats happend in time to escape?
mid point :: he now thinks his friend could be some kind of trouble.
CENTRAL QUESTION :: kind of alters to what will he do about his friend that’s officially gone missing?
Decides to confront these women. they decide to bring him to the murder factory!
Finally toward end of ACT 2 He’s captured, and murders his capter…
CENTRAL QUESTION :: changes to one of survival… Will paxton survive the factory? and so were set up for
ACT 3 –> His escape
THEME WISE ::
WILL HE ESCAPE? - the fact that he wants to escape is consistent with the way hookers in amsterdam feel.
Also, lets not forget they were thematically being used for sex as objects, now the irony is that he’s the one being used now.
AND HE HAS ESCAPED SO CENTRAL QUESTION CHECK
CODA ::
Central question alters one last time ::
CENTRAL QUESTION :: now that paxton’s free, will he get his vengence?
(this alteration is intresting cause, if i had to bet, it was done to please the audience, its the central question in LINE with the audiences wants! More so than the characters!)
Yes he does. CHECK AND CHECK satisfying conclusion.
ok, so the central question alters A lot along with the charcter, he arcs as well, from someone who only wanted to get laid, into a man who wants to escape and has grown up.
There’s also a sub-plot with an asian girl he sees as an object early on ‘he’s not into asian women’.
But later he sees her life as being equal to his. So he tries to help her escape the factory with him. (this sub-plot also helps to show his character arc.)
i think thats it…
In Hostel…
ACT 1 — Teenagers go to amsterdam looking for sex drugs and rock’n'roll..
CENTRAL QUESTION :: will they GET LAID?
INCITING INCIDENT-> accidently meet the man that’ll lead to their central question -> will they get laid … IN THE HOSTEL NOW!
so the location of central question as we expect it has changed, but its still there.
CENTRAL QUESTION :: Will they get laid IN THAT HOSTEL?
getting to/exploring the hostel, their desire is met,in other words: central question CHECK!
They have fucked anything that moves!
So…
Toward end of ACT 1, everyones drunk and about to fuck again, but before redudancy kicks in, something else happens…
INCITING INCIDENT 2 :: The protag as we know him is captured and murdered (psycho switch).
ACT 2 begins and the central question has changed ::
CENTRAL QUESTION :: WILL paxton find out whats happend in time to escape?
mid point :: he now thinks his friend could be some kind of trouble.
CENTRAL QUESTION :: kind of alters to what will he do about his friend that’s officially gone missing?
Decides to confront these women. they decide to bring him to the murder factory!
Finally toward end of ACT 2 He’s captured, and murders his capter…
CENTRAL QUESTION :: changes to one of survival… Will paxton survive the factory? and so were set up for
ACT 3 –> His escape
THEME WISE ::
WILL HE ESCAPE? - the fact that he wants to escape is consistent with the way hookers in amsterdam feel.
Also, lets not forget they were thematically being used for sex as objects, now the irony is that he’s the one being used now.
AND HE HAS ESCAPED SO CENTRAL QUESTION CHECK
CODA ::
Central question alters one last time ::
CENTRAL QUESTION :: now that paxton’s free, will he get his vengence?
(this alteration is intresting cause, if i had to bet, it was done to please the audience, its the central question in LINE with the audiences wants! More so than the characters!)
Yes he does. CHECK AND CHECK satisfying conclusion.
ok, so the central question alters A lot along with the charcter, he arcs as well, from someone who only wanted to get laid, into a man who wants to escape and has grown up.
There’s also a sub-plot with an asian girl he sees as an object early on ‘he’s not into asian women’.
But later he sees her life as being equal to his. So he tries to help her escape the factory with him. (this sub-plot also helps to show his character arc.)
I’m thinking out loud here, so don’t hit me ;-)
The way I would look at this issue is thus:
Our story is like a railroad. The hero needs to get from point A to point H and to complete the trip – equals character arc, resolution of the Internal Conflict — and books a ride on The Central Question Express. When he ‘buys’ his ticket he believes the answer to his problem (External Conflict) is straight forward and easy.
Wrong!
There are unforeseen hazards along the way – ups, downs, dangerous curves, roadblocks – forcing the Express to detour. These hazards and detours are mini-central questions (small letters).
g
/ \
c / \
/ \ / \
A ——/—\————-/——-\H
\ / \ e /
\ / \ / \ / mini central questions
\ / \ / \ /
b d f
In the end – usually – the hero solves the External Conflict and his Internal Conflict and gets to point H.
Have I confused everyone?
Keep Writing!
seems my analysis of that movie isnt posting, maybe its too long?
dont know.
basic run down ::
ACT 1 -> CQ is get laid
ACT 2 -> CQ changes to find and rescue friend
ACT 3 -> CQ it’s about escape.
CODA -> it alters to revenge and the ultimate satisfying ending.
IRONY RELATING TO THE THEME :: is there in ACT 1 -> ACT 3 where hookers are seen as OBJECTS then later the protags become the objects…
CHARACTER ARC THROUGH SUBPLOT :: Let’s not forget character arcs because of the subplot involving the asian backpacker -> first seen as an object ACT 1 -> ACT 3 the protag’s changed and values her above that, saving her.
CHARACTER ARC THROUGH CQ :: via shit-mountain.
no, that’s exactly it. Way I see it too.
THATS THE CHARACTER ARC THROUGH CQ. via shit mountain. or as you put it ‘obstacles’.
but it’s not that simple. cause sometimes subplots relating to the main plot can show the character arc too…
in hostel the asian back-packer serves as this device.
Uhhhgggg!
Lost my formatting. My apologies. Looked ok in Word :(
g
/ \
c / \
/ \ / \
A ——/—\————-/——-\H
\ / \ e /
\ / \ / \ / ß– mini central questions
\ / \ / \ /
b d f
Let me try again….
There’s also theme being the ‘bottom - line’ what were trying to say at the end of it all… when you’re done what have you said about these characters?
Now that the CQ has evolved and your character has evolved with it what does it say about the piece itself?
In hostel an example of this is achieved through irony… the way they exploited the hookers at the beginning then later they’re the ones being exploited.
It’s change that ultimately shows themes. The end of the triangle.
c
/ \ e
/ \ / \
A —-/—–\—/—\——H
\ / \ / \ /
\ / d \ /
b \f
Sorry, Unk.
On a side note I think there’s a limit to how many characters you can post lol, I think that’s why im having trouble posting the analysis i did.
arrgh NOW it posts everything in one giant sprawl. jesus.
sorry, about that. wtf. seriously.
Mike,
You’re right… The Protagonist thinks he or she is fine the way they are. This is also one of the reasons they MIGHT refuse the call to action. It’s not so much that they are afraid to journey into the new world as it is that they just fuckin’ like where they’re at both physically AND internally.
What flaw? LOL.
And I do think that normally, the beginning or LAUNCHING central question is usually going to be — can the Protagonist solve the external problem? It’s that external problem that is going to make us lean forward into our seats and INVEST in the rest of the story.
As long as it’s one hell of an external problem.
Your observation on Act 2 and 3 (or Act 2 for you 3 Act purists) is also correct…
Outstanding!
Also good understanding of Act 4 although I would be wary of those LIGHT-BULB MOMENTS where the protagonist figures out it’s that flaw that’s been causing him to fail.
Not saying that is incorrect but I am saying that it might not be a truthful way of getting that across to an audience.
The light-bulb moment is fine but I would tend to make that moment reflect something PHYSICAL he or she just figured out but that something physical is actually the RESULT of the protagonist’s CHANGE. He or she is different now. Being different allows your brain to now function without that flaw distorting the flow. Through this newly found non-distortion, the protagonist can now figure out things he or she could never have figured out before. This new way of thinking is from having plugged all the bleeding holes along the way.
GOOD STUFF!
Susan,
In an old dictionary I have at home, the term:
jacklight
Has two definitions…
1) A light or beacon one uses to find their way.
2) A light used to hunt wolves at night.
I wrote a screenplay called WOLFERS — yeah, you guessed it — a werewolf screenplay and the Protagonist’s name is JACK LIGHTER.
Go figure. Now here I am using it again.
Unk
Justin and Mike (& Unk)..Thanks for the examples. I think this comes down to how I perceived the issues and the term. I realised all along there were a series of small questions but I never saw them as THE central question which I tend to see as some pivotal values (or similar) life issue.
My current problem is ‘which to choose’. I have the basic premise idea for a script and I know the character pretty darn well, but then its like ‘choose your own adventure’ and I am like..arggggggghhh..re all the potential choices. I’ve found in the past weeks that the choices I have made are basically fine in the sense of filling the correct script outline steps BUT, as I sit back and read the print off I think…yawn, what a bore! I don’t adequately build up the tension. I’ve literally scrapped it all (though holding in my hand some elements I think deserve being transferable) and am trying to start it again. Maybe if I go through my current outline attempt and just put a question for each sequence it might help…
I rewatched The Mechanic against last night and I agree that there is a series of questions the protagonist deals with there and that’s important to keep in mind because it always keeps the protagonist front and centre. My first step outline done a few weeks ago tended to move away from them and show others without the protagonist in the scene.
Jack Light is very Freudian indeed. :-)
Susan,
Read my email reply to you… It might help.
Unk
A song about THE CENTRAL QUESTION.
Unk
I have and have just replied. Please send care packages of prune juice. :)
I think Unk’s “bleeding profusely,” is right on.
And like Susan said, maybe it’s not “overt,” or as Mike commented “relative”, I think it’s still gotta be “profuse” (In some form or fashion).
I love analogies, so here’s my thought on this:
Like a knife wound to the gut, maybe all you see in that opening scene is a small incision with a few drops of blood — inside, a vital organ has been hit. Now the protaganist has 110 pages to live. Or die.
Maybe the protag knows he’s bleeding internally and immediately prays to God for a miraculous healing. Maybe he ties a towel around his waist and drips blood for the next ninety minutes.
Yeah, it’s not overt. And a compound fracture “looks” relatively worse than a slashed vital organ.
But somewhere, there’s some profuse bleeding going on.
Boyer,
I know you were being facetious about numbering your onomatopoeias but wow…
To steal a piece out of SWINGERS:
Seconds later, Trent is standing on the table.
TRENT
Our little boy is all growns up
tonight, you know what big boy,
you’re grown up! You’re grown up!
YEAHHHHH!!! Dig that! Is this a
fuckin’ production for ya? ’Cause
you’re growns up and you’re growns
up and you’re growns up!
Sorry… Couldn’t help it.
Unk
boyer..Great example. Really useful. Hmmm..I am now flicking my mind to my current story idea and can’t see that as achievable at all. Why. I suspect this will be a two coffee and three biscuit (cookie for you US folk) explanation so prepare yourself! :)
I most naturally write about characters that are, at a level, laws unto themselves. They may operate within a system of sorts but they are generally loners, autonomous and resistant of certain forms of society. In their ordinary world they are commanding. They will tend not to have reached their fulfillment peak which is what the arc is partially about however, in their ordinary world the bleeding is really back story. (I think). It’s not until something happens in the II to begin a shake up of their world that they begin to bleed.
But this seems to defy what you guys are saying. Am I off course or is this just another way of viewing character development? Should (ok, the word ’should’ can be problematic) I be looking to incise right at the beginning even in the smallest of ways?
I’m having a cultural chasm moment! but I think boyer you’ve just been dealt one heck of a compliment from Unk. :-) Nice.
I just watched THE DARK KNIGHT last night. I really enjoyed it. I went into this movie looking for the CQ. Specifically.
To any who has seen it. Maybe you can help out.
Batman’s CQ is: Should he turn himself in??? Is it time to retire the cape?
Would that be it… Or is it something that I totally missed or just not seeing?
“My current problem is ‘which to choose’. I have the basic premise idea for a script and I know the character pretty darn well, but then its like ‘choose your own adventure’”
Susan,
you could always do what I do, play out all the scenarios in your mind start to finish, and pick the most satisifying one.
sometimes the first thing pops into your head isnt always the best… sometimes the most satisfying still isnt its best, and it needs a little work too.
if I can aproxi-quote unk,
“without imagination derivation leads the way”
And you’ll need plenty of it if you’re going to do it this way. Never give up though. And never lie to yourself, if it sucks it sucks. Let it kick you in the face. Get up and grind at it again. Train your imagination force it to work.
That’s how I trained mine, brute force, and hard work. Eventually you get to a point where you’re happy and start focusing on differnt areas of screen writing. Master everything, leave nothing to chance. If it’s part of your job as a writer, dont only do it, do it like it’s the last time you ever will.
Cause who knows, you could die tommorow.
Ryan,
I’m probably too drunk to break it down right now. But from what I remember, it definetely evolves.
That batman movie is a taut character piece, if anything, I think the CQ after the “heat”/”killing zoe” heist sequence is ::
WILL THE BAT SAVE GOTHEM FROM THE JOKER… but does that one EVER evolve.
Theres some internal character stuff too, and the ultimate statement is philosophical relating to what it means to be a hero…
I’ll have to rewatch it to really trace it…hmmm I’ll be sober enough tomorrow. anyone else?
I think I’m getting the CQ mixed up with Mystery Man’s topic on Inner Conflict. The two can mingle with each other a little.
I think I just answered my own question. The Batman’s inner conflict is: Should he turn himself in. Not the CQ.
I’ve been sleep deprived and I’m getting all sorts of mixed up today. Sorry bout that guys. Thanks for your help.
Justin, write like no-one is watching? :) That’s a play on the dance thing. I guess here it’s “write like everyone is watching!” :) I totally agree that you don’t continue with what sucks. I think we all know when something isn’t working so I have tried to turn up the volume on that. No matter what writing I do, if I have any instinct, even mildly, that some ‘thing’ is not right, I go back and look for what that is.
I’m reworking it now and am then sending it to someone else to look at - no matter how far or how little I achieve. I’ve set a time limit and will stick to that. I think good consultancy can be invaluable. Few people can really review their own work at a really high level and sometimes we just need the extra brain experience! (Or a boot up the butt).
It may also partially be a confidence thing; if I pretend I am doing the work for someone else I tend to do way better. How quirky is that!
I’ve not seen the new Batman yet; sounds like you enjoyed it! Batmobile or Lamborghini?..now that’s a CQ! *grin*
Susan-
Batman does have a major CQ… Batmobile or Lambo. LOL
You did forget to mention his kick-ass motorcycle! That can go forward and SIDEWAYS! Now that is something to really consider.
Too many decisions!!!
Susan,
I hope this doesn’t hurt your feelings, but your characters sound screwed up to me.
I think if I walked into a party and met one of them (though it sounds like they don’t go to parties), I’d immediately sense that this person was intensely odd in some way (and maybe not a way that just anybody would recognize — others might just find them “way shy,” “too political,” “too worried about what people do for a living,” or “too picky about the salsa”).
That said, your characters seem ripe for conflict, drama, comedy, etc. Read, “ripe for a movie.” (The also seem ripe for a shrink — ha, ha. Maybe not, “ha, ha” — what do you think?).
So why do you want to wait so long to introduce them? Are you protecting them? Mmmmmmm….
You need to either lop off your first act, or figure out why your characters are so f**k*d up so you know what to do with them in the first scene. Develop and know the backstory — the things that happened to them ten years ago. And yesterday.
Maybe you should stop “mothering” them. Send one out the door to a party. Do it tonight. Then go to your computer and start typing when one of your protags gets to the party.
My God. Do you think they’ll be ok? What’s gonna happen when he/she insults the gracious hostess because the salsa is too watery? Will the husband kick your protags ass? Or will they all wind up in a hot three-way?
Goodness boyer..what paths interpretation take!
Let me give you some examples of the sorts of people the characters I tend to write about are.
Mercenaries.
Intelligence agents working undercover where they need to largely rely on their own skill sets and willingness to risk their own lives (and may not have family per se because of that risk).
Severe phobics.
People who have been abused or experienced a major trauma that has led them to underachieve in some manner and to, relatively speaking, withdraw from many aspects of society.
Think Charles Bronson in The Mechanic, Gene Hackman in Conversation, Jean Reno in Leon the Professional.
These characters types, their context, experience and ordinary lives don’t lend to parties and watery salsa in the way I believe you are discussing that and nor would I take them there.
Consider for a moment Howard Hughes. He suffered an appallingly high level of agoraphobia and other disorders in his latter life. He literally locked himself away from society. A film exploration of that sort of character - for me anyway - would deal with unrealised dreams. Personally I would not think, as suggested, parties and whether the hostess has the right sort of cracker (unless I am dealing with an obsessive control freak type) but whether Jean Hackman’s character could have been part of a highly successful jazz band or Charles Bronson’s an art critic or designer of note.
One needs to remember that many such characters are highly intelligent; just have a well of enormous sadness or, conversely, rampant anger. Those are BIG issues and I would not tend to get into the minutiae (unless, once again, that was a strong issue within their makeup - which of course it is for some personality types).
I find ‘mothering’ an odd word but I’m certainly not offended. I just wouldn’t introduce the sort of contexts as such you are discussing although I may use a bar or a church or something else that keys into the wound/unrealised talent dynamic.
Do the sorts of characters I consider need a psychiatrist? I am vaguely bemused by the question in the sense that half of society seems to spend SOME time with a counselor but from the direction I think you posed the question my answer would be ‘yes’. However, I think if you give your characters the right pushes, threats and opportunities, they may fulfill without the need for a therapist. I guess I work on the premise that these people basically know what it is they need but that they are comfortable enough in their existence not to ‘move’. Phobics are a different kettle of fish.
My questions may be: “What will it take for you to accept help or working with another?”, “Can you accept being wrong?”
Charles Bronson’s character at a party would have just sat back and he would have taken everything in and then left. There are tons of people like that boyer. Assuming their lives would be more fulfilled or dimensional if they responded to (forgive me) trite presumptions of ‘living’ just doesn’t do it for me.
But, that’s why its important to have many writers with differing perspectives.
Susan,
I guess my opinion will depend heavily on your goal with the work. Do you want to reach a large audience?
If the answer’s yes, then I’ll ask this of your characters. No matter how fucked up they become, no matter how fucked up they are.
Is there a side of them we can Identify with?
We as the audience, and by audience I mean YOUR audience, which should be sufficent enough to meet your buyers needs. (yes I went to business school as well as film school, lol)
I think a good example is reservoir dogs…
Ok sure, these are criminals. But no matter how fucked up Mr.Blonde is, and make no mistake, he’s one fucked up man. There’s a side of him we see at breakfast that morning, that we as the audience fall in love with. (or at least some of us did)
If not him, one of the other reservoir dogs. I’m not really doing the characters justice by harping on one demention of them. But you get the idea.
I think if you want to reach a large audience, your characters have to be identified with. Look at Juno. I dont think it would of had half the success it did, had the female character not struck a cord with teenage america.
That being said, dont go nuts with cliches and what people like. The idea is to come up with something unique that makes your character lovable. THEN you can start to let all the little fucked-up-layers unfold.
This by no means is the only way to work… It’s just how I work!
it’s too simple to just say “i’ve written a character you can identify with”. It’s more than that.
There’s more to it than even just saying “i’ve written an complex multi-dementional character with inner conflicts that actors would die to play.
You need a solid balance. That’s my point here. Then theres all this other stuff about putting them in intresting situations to consider. And if you do that and it’s actually intresting, i mean SO INTRESTING I CANT KEEP MY EYES FROM YOUR PAGES. Then you’re 25% of the way to an amazing script.
Again, in my view.
Ryan,
Inner Conflict in batman is what EVENTUALLY takes center stage, no doubt.
AT first he thinks he’s got what it takes to take on this terrorist. But he’s ill-equiped. He’s never been so ill-equiped and it’s killing him.
Why do you think they show him battling scarecrow early on? Cause he can do it, he’s batman. But later… or as the story unfolds…
his inner conflict intertwines with the CQ, and begins taking center stage.
SPOILER ALERT ::
Think about the death of Racheal, think about how that event alters the central question?
His failure to save her only furthers the fact that he cant be the ‘white knight’ Harvey dent is.
And later when Dent is corrupted, things take a turn for the worse again.
The conflict rises, the stakes are higher, the central question of will batman save the gothem has become a battle with himself first and foremost, and externally in small way.
That’s why killing the joker doesnt fucking matter. It’s not how the answer this question. Killing him would only give rise to another of him. Joker is more than just chaos incarnate, he breeds it. Hence two-face, his ace in the hole.
Eventually in the end he resolves he must become the dark knight to stop people like him. And it’s in this sacrifice that he’s made a hero. And the theme of the film shines through.
What it MEANS to be a hero. It also reveals the subtext of the film WHICH A WHOLE OTHER BAG OF APPLES relating to the theme.
lol, bag of apples. fuck im hungry.
…WHICH *IS* A WHOLE…
That’s why killing the joker doesnt fucking matter. *It’s not how the answer this question.*
should be ‘how to resolve the CQ’ or his inner conflict in order to RESOLVE THE CQ.
Justin,
I totally agree that the audience needs to have a strong connection with the character. I’ve seen movies where that arises from 30secs of script and movies where that hits you all the way through. Both can work.
Nothing I’ve said suggests that audiences should not connect (with leads to likability); in fact I’ve said this all along.
Cheers.
hmmm,
so then it’s a question of the situations you’re putting them in. That’s dicatated by what YOU as the audience would want to see. And that comes from knowing your story, it’s structure, and it’s goals as well as you know its characters.
If the situation you put them in isnt intresting, then the way in which your characters and story unfold wont be either. Differnce bettween a story ‘told’ and a story well told.
If your banging your head against a wall trying to get it to work. STOP. sit down, relax, let it flow. Let the situation unfold in your head like a trailer. See your character, see him her sitting at a bar… too boring? Start with a bang! Have him/her shot in the face. Not the right tone, try something else.
Keep going till you zero in on the satisfying start to the scene. It doesnt have to be dramatic, it just has to satisfy. And every scene and is differnt. The key thing is let it happen.
You’ve got to know your genre for this, knowing my genre helps me. It’s like my characters biography, only for story.
if its so easy, what slows everyone down you ask?
Not being satisfied.
Now before you yell obviously in subtext. Let me ask you :: are you satisfied? If not, what arent you satisfied with? And finally!
If your satisfied have you taken advantage of this fine blog to make sure your standards are up to par?
still satisfied?
Didnt think so.
Justin, Sorry, but I am totally lost in terms of the direction your last post went. Yes I understand character, yes I understand genre. My problems are different than these issues. I can think of my story line in potted version without any issue. But it was when I came down to detailing the sequences in a step outline I had problems. I found it difficult to then see the ‘whole’ thing in sequence even where I have put a principle determinant at every primary point of the outline. I want a particular person to wind up the antagonist but I was introducing that too early for a while and doing that influenced everything else wrongly.
I’d be interested to know how many of you do detailed step outlines first? I ask because I have read several script in the past few months and its clear the writers haven’t done that. They have an intriguing idea and off they go and write a script but it doesn’t cut it. There is no II or there are SO many levels of symbology that one is completely lost OR the characters are confusing, unreal and not likable.
I’ve been mystified here why it was presumed my reasonably autonomous, loner characters weren’t likable when there are a raft of films out there with that sort of person. I suspect sometimes people are responding from their own personal taste rather than screen writing principles (which in terms of character seem fairly broad to me).
Anyway, I saw a light on the weekend and wrote my step outline up to and including mid-point and have sent to it my script consultant. When I get the draft right the actual script writing itself will be pretty quick for me - at least to get a first draft down.
In some of those scripts I’ve reviewed I’ve seen say 3rd and 4th draft and observed the 4th is floundering because the writer won’t let go of a particular notion or scene. They are trying desperately to revolve everything around that and sometimes I think that a problem. I’ve also seen too vague a CQ. The overarching concept is intriguing but it’s not pulled together by a sharp line.
My prior outline draft was problematic because although the right elements were there it lacked pace and it was way way too long. Sequence A became Sequences A to E! Yes I could have shortened it but what I wrote was prose oriented and lacked punch. So it’s not just a matter of having your CQ and various elements but life and pace.
I’m glad some of you folk seem to find this whole task so amazing easy. Truly. I don’t but I suspect that what I WILL arrive at eventually will be big picture material. I also have a comedy in mind by the way so I’m not just looking to become a genre specialist. But one thing at a time.
I just responded but the post did not appear. *shrug*
(Shortened my post as there may be a character length issue)
Justin, Sorry, but I am lost in terms of the direction your last post went. Yes I understand character, yes I understand genre. My problems are different than these issues. I can think of my story line in potted version without any issue. But it was when I came down to detailing the sequences in a step outline I had problems. I found it difficult to then see the ‘whole’ thing in sequence even where I have put a principle determinant at every primary point of the outline. I want a particular person to wind up the antagonist but one I started the details of the sequences I was introducing that too early for a while and doing that influenced everything else wrongly. I probably have a personal learning issue on this. *shrug*
Anyway, I saw a light on the weekend and wrote my step outline up to and including mid-point and have sent to it my script consultant. When I get the draft right the actual script writing itself will be pretty quick for me - at least to get a first draft down.
My prior outline draft was problematic because although the right elements were there it lacked pace and it was way way too long. Sequence A became Sequences A to E! Yes I could have shortened it but what I wrote was prose oriented and lacked punch. So it’s not just a matter of having your CQ and various elements but life and pace.
I’m glad some of you folk seem to find this whole task so amazing easy. Truly. I don’t but I suspect that what I WILL arrive at eventually will be big picture material. I wouldn’t be satisfied with less. I also have a comedy in mind by the way so I’m not just looking to become a genre specialist. But one thing at a time.
I shortened it but its still not appearing. I have the feeling two posts of mine may appear in time. :)
Just wait for long comments to show up…
I have to laugh now. Thanks Carlo. Apologies for what is essentially a double copy. I spotted someone asking about the same thing the other day.
Hehe it’s okay, it happens.
Susan,
ok, I get it now. You’ll have to forgive me, I was piecing together your problem from posts here. But I GET IT NOW! LOL.
for the small problem ::
“…sequence A becomes sequence A-E…”
Do you have to show sequences A-E? Are there ways to visually imply A-E has happend, in order to tighten it up?
FINALLY, HERE COMES THE CENTRAL QUESTION AS A TOOL FOR LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE!
How well do you know your story, and your central question? You said you had a handle on it. So…
If you study your story in terms of the central question, the answer as to what you can or cant cut becomes clear.
Use the discussions and unk’s about it to analyze your story through CQ, map it out, and you’ll know what NEEDS to be there. You’ll have the BIG PICTURE.
The next step is asking how to show it in the most efficent entertaining way possible. That doesnt mean FAST FAST FAST PACE, OR EVEN SNAILS PACE.
It means SHOW IT WITH A RHYTHM. YOUR RHYTHM. Yes RHYTHM, it’s not only for dialogue!
It’s for scenes and it’s between scenes. if you have things move fast for a while, you’ve got license to slow them down now. DO WE WANT TO KNOW THE NEXT bit of information as the audience? MAKE US WANT TO. MAKE THE MUSIC OF THE MOVIE BUILD TO IT. CROCENDO. RISING CONFLICT. ALL THESE THINGS. IT HAS ITS OWN MUSIC.
Once you have a rhythm in your story, THEN you can use the tools of visual/verbal implication to trim. Obviously, if you can sum something up with a visual, so much better.
It seems to me your problem has to do with pacing. Sometimes the order of things helps. but I think the most important thing is everything can move around. Mix it up, fuck with it.
It’s not about the ORDER it’s in, its about the best order that FITS YOUR rhythm. and not just any rhythm, ITS THE rhythm of YOUR STORY.
I hope this helps.
Wow, some long posts. I have to chime in and say that Batman’s inner conflict was “is his love life more important than Gotham?” You’ll notice there were no paramours in this one (The dancers don’t count as they were cover).
The Central question in my mind was “will Gotham go back the way it came or will Gothamites help their city.” The Joker’s actions with the ferries confirms this. The citizens helped their city.
I think the term inner conflict is rather ambiguous. In my mind an inner conflict begins before the movie starts and goes for most of it - for the protag - but each character has a B, M, and E so their inner conflicts must begin when they are intro’d or else it’s, in my mind, just a tough choice that creates tension.
It’s said that Rachel’s IC was marry Harvey or not, but he doesn’t ask her for a long time. I think her conflict is, “do I accept Bruce as Batman or find a regular, non-vigilante.”
Harvey’s IC is “do I support a vigilante or outlaw him?”
Joker’s IC is “do I use this knife of that one.” LOLOL
Gordon’s is “do I work with Batman or Harvey?”
The Mobs’ IC is “do we work with the Joker or not?” The Joker turned out to be more than they could handle.
Chris,
“Batman’s inner conflict was “is his love life more important than Gotham?””
If I had to zero in, or simplify the love conflict, I think it would break down into:
“what does it mean to be a hero?”. (this includes your love conflict, and some others that present themselves.)
But I wasnt so focused on his IC when I wrote that. I was more focused on mapping out the CQ, and its metamorphasis.
I’m going to watch again next week, I’ll prolly have a better view on his IC then. Who knows I could completely agree with you by the end. I’ll have to watch it again.
Justin,
I look at the IC abstractly with the movie as a whole. In my mind an inner conflict MUST proceed from the character’s earliest appearance.
If they have to make a choice later that isn’t directly related to the flaw, it’s only a dramatic choice, not an inner conflict.
This, of course, is my opinion. I think if you want to prove or disprove it, just use the definition as related to movies you see.
Holy moly these comments are long!!!
Justin, I think rhythm and beat important. However, we know that the action in the latter part of a movie picks up pace. I’ve resolved the A to E by coming up with a totally new A that, in fact, allowed a thread to wend through the story. I wanted that. It will come with more scripts and more practice but I think the way I actually write the step outline points may, in one way, imply the CQ is not that strong. I will consult on that but certain there is a question shift! This current topic has been valuable in seeing and understanding the issues to do with that.
Christian, what is B, M and E? M for motivation?
Susan,
Beginning Middle End. Too lazy to write it out.
I haven’t seen the new Batman. Ok. Dark Knight.
BAM! OOMPH! BANG! UGH!
My offspring saw it at an Imax theatre last night. He said the opening scene was mind blowing and that on such a large screen elements were almost toooo much but he loved it! Though, the speakers were so loud one speech was too distorted and lost. None of his friends could make out the speech either.
Hi Susan
I haven’t time to read all the comments in this thread, so just in case nobody has answered your totally legitimate 3/4 Act question, here are the basics for a translation:
The only differences between 3 act and 4 act is in four act the “2nd Act” is split into two halves. So you have four acts of about 25 pages a piece. In four act the split is at what a trad 3 Act person would call the “mid point”… however, four act writers also tend of believe there is a major shift in perspective of their protagonist between their second and third acts… or for you, on either side of the mid-point in three act.
The easiest way to understand this transition is to use action movies as the template… before the mid point the hero is losing and antagonist is winning… after the mid point the protagonist starts to win, but every victory is gained with an escalating cost.
To be perfectly honest, the only real difference between 3 act writers and 4 act is the way they discuss the central fifty pages of the script. I made the transition from 3 to 4 act about four years ago (we’re about the same age, by the way)… but only because it allowed me to break the script into four twenty five pages blocks… which meant I only had to get my story arc twenty-five pages at a time…
So, when you are translating four act description, all you have to do is think of acts 2 and 3 as a traditional “2nd Act”
It has to work this way, because most people still discuss scripts in 3 Act terms, so even us hard core four acter have to translate back into Syd Field speak when we’re pitching.
Thank you Clive for your gracious exploration. I find it interesting that you moved to 4 act on the basis of that 25 page task orientation you describe. I would have thought a step outline would have taken you (generic ‘you’) to the same place but Unk was kind enough to share a 4 act structure with me and it is something I would like to try because even though I had the outline template, I admit I did find some sections stretching out before me. I am sure it will come with practice, and with success, but the mind is an interesting wee beastie and perhaps a shift in structural outlook can make all the difference for some! :)
Susan,
Just being open-minded enough to make that statement — PERHAPS A SHIFT IN STRUCTURAL OUTLOOK CAN MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE FOR SOME — is a huge step toward success whether you use THIS or any other structure.
Just remember what I told you… I call the damn thing the 4 Act Structure but that’s SIMPLY a starting point.
A roadmap.
A compass.
You will organically end up creating YOUR VERY OWN STRUCTURE from this starting point.
This roadmap.
This compass.
So by the end of your first draft, 4 Act Structure is MOOT.
Unk
Great summation Unk. Not to disagree per se I think I’m focusing on structure so much because I simply never realised the elements that were so important to a script simply from watching films apart from two issues; evocation of the protagonist and antagonist and a great beginning that snaps your attention. I’ve always like twist endings but I saw that as personal taste. It sounds a tad naive (which is cool) but I’m watching films now with a whole new level of awareness. But in saying that, what’s been important is to recognise that, yes, sure, not every great film has magnificant visual effects or a heart stopping II. In fact many opt for subtle and as some colleagues here know so well, lower budget can deliver very powerfully.
Compass indeed.
Susan
If the only reason for using 4act over 3Act was merely the shorter act lengths, then you’re right a step outline would get me there just as easily…
However, the key difference between 4 act and 3 act is the transformation of the protagonist into a more active exploration of her/his goal at the transformation from second to third act… 4 act is radically different from 3Act in this respect.
So, the breaking of the script into lumps of 25 pages isn’t merely cosmetic and replaceable by any old breakdown… each 25 page lump has a specific purpose in the protagonist’s character arc… and therefore unlike in a 3 Act structure, where you have a wilderness of fifty pages labeled “stuff happens”… with 4 Act you have more of a map to follow.
The fact that I have four equal length phases to my story allows me to much more confident in my story telling… and for some reason makes it much easier to get the script both broken down into beats and also written.
I’ve also found it makes pitching much more effective as well, because I can talk about the protagonist’s journey in four distinct phases, of which I already understand the significance.
This is a real advantage when talking about a screenplay to a director or producer, because I’ve seen lots of screenwriters get lost in these sessions… because they don’t know which elements are central to their story and which aren’t.
I haven’t as yet had an opportunity to explore Unk’s 4 act structure - that is a task for this coming weekend - so, in one sense I don’t feel I have adequate knowledge to respond, however two points:
Firstly, isn’t there a step outline for both 3 and 4 acts? Ok, Unk (I HAVE skimmed the doc) offers a pro forma “beat sheet”. Despite the headers being different than the step outline I have, its still a sequential outline of sorts. If there is potentially no material difference but just a different terminology, then both 3 and 4 act structures have step outlines. Yes?
I do conceive that beats are indeed potentially easier to achieve with the 4 act structure.
Secondly:
“because they don’t know which elements are central to their story and which aren’t.”
I find that puzzling. I find it puzzling that an act structure, as such, would make a difference to this. I am again reminded of the folks who rush into the script writing without having worked through some form of written description - whether that be “step outline” or “beat sheet”.
On an adjunct issue, I thought it may be interesting to complete Unk’s beat sheet this weekend given I have recently completed a step outline. My gut tells me that if the step outline is half way decent, then I *should* be able to fill out the 4 act beat sheet fairly readily. If I can’t, that may well give a pointer to a weakness or omission. Thoughts?
Susan, you really should google/search for things like “Hero’s Journey” and “3 act structure” as they’re EVERYWHERE on the internet.
Carlo, I have been saying I am using a 3 Act Structure. Perhaps, if you are so moved to do so, read the exchange between myself and Clive.
Susan, imagine you’re at the Venice Film Festival having coffee in Piazza St Marco and the perfect director for your project sits at your table and asks you what you’re working on… your table is strewn with script pages and notes… you haven’t had time to prepare for the meeting… it’s just you and Luc Besson.
So, you look up from your coffee and you deliver the entire story in six concise, logical sentences… one to set up your main characters and their relationship, one to set up your theme and then four sentences which cover the character’s journey through each of the four acts…
I can guarantee that you’ll knock that director’s socks off… because they’re not used to writers who can sum up their story…
Now, imagine instead you’re a three act screenwriter… you understand your opening, you understand your ending… but your second act is a sprawling fifty pages that contain your A,B and C plots, character development and some great emotive scenes… when asked to explain your film, chances are you haven’t got a concise explanation, because 3Act writing doesn’t require it as part of the process.
One of the strengths of 4Act is it forces you to see your plot as a simply progression and transformation of your protagonist… and it only works if you can sum that transformation up neatly.
When you’re more familiar with the material you’ll understand what I’m talking about… I’ve been using 4Act successfully for about five years now… and everything I’ve written since then has had option offers and has opened doors for me at the highest levels… both in the US and Europe.
A lot of my success is as much about my ability to explain my plots in a way that inspires as it is in my writing ability
Firstly, well done Clive! I AM grateful you and Unk so graciously give the time you do.
My reaction as I began to read your post.
1. Egad, I have to fly?!? (I am terrified of plane flight and its held me back all my life). Yes, I know if I want to get anywhere (which I intend to do) I will have to deal with this. Lordy!
2. I would tend to open with an anecdote. I did that recently in pitching a TV reality show and it worked really well (but this is another topic and I WILL stress, my anecdote took all of 20secs and explained what led me to devise the concept so it was relevant and wasn’t just talking fluff and smoke).
3. I am understanding. I admit when I looked at Unk’s beat sheet I see there is a snappiness and directness to it that I don’t feel with the 3 Act Structure. It sounds a bit freaky but I felt the meeting of what I have been using and this new structural outlook was like introducing two cousins who have shared bloodline but speak in different accents. :)
4. I think there is a tremendous spirit uplift in being able to ‘inspire’; that’s a gift outcome. Again, well done.
I’ve three saying related to the film industry that I ought to get sew onto samplers!
They are:
It’s all just talk until the cheque clears.
Do you want it right, or do you want it right now?
and finally
In the movie biz it’s 98% inspiration, 98% perspiration… the other 98% is creative accountancy
I can knit! and… I want it right but know I have to deal with that edgy feeling of “right now”.
I hear you until the contract is signed! (And then some).
On a complete tangent/side note.
I find it helpful to think of the selling process in this way::
Put yourself in a privilaged directors position.
It’s not your writing. Someones giving you THEIR work, and now you’re forced to live and breathe these characters for up to a year or more.
This script better be something worthwhile. And it better blow your fucking mind. If you cant see it blowing your mind when you pitch it…
keep working.
I would love to write a non-judgemental equivalent to American Hist. X only of a lifestyle that is not honoring to God.
Anyone would hear it. . . would it be a brave choice? Should I take that direction in a world that tells you and wants to make you do something you may not want to? Unk?
“for the Son of man came to seek and to save what was lost.”
Didn’t exactly like A. H. X. as people may only see the beginning and misread the message. They will hear what the guy used to believe . . . and may stick to it.