Claim Your Genre

I was reading a script recently - a rom-com. The story proceeded to unfold in a light-hearted rom-com fashion when suddenly, in act three, the protagonist dies in a CAR CRASH! I can only imagine, if this movie ever gets made, how shocked/confused/upset/pissed off the audience would be at this point. They bought tickets to see a romantic comedy, which is typically a genre where, rest assured, your beloved characters are safe from violent car crashes. The movie claims to be in one genre, but - gotcha! - the screenwriter lied!

Genres set up expectations for an audience - without a system of categorization, movies wouldn't get marketed to the right audiences, and they wouldn't make money. Genre is key. It's our duty as screenwriters to announce the genre of our script in the opening scene - and then stay within the confines of that genre.

The James Bond movies do this extremely well. It's now cliched to open with an action scene in a spy movie, but audiences expect it - and it also allows them to put their minds at ease, because when the opening action scene is over, they can sit back and relax, knowing full well they will get what they paid for. Imagine if a James Bond movie opened with a twenty-minute dialogue scene, like in Inglourious Basterds - no matter how well-written the scene is, the audience would be squirming in their seats!

It's all about expectation - the trick is to not only meet those expectations, but to exceed them - and deliver a few surprises along the way, all while operating within the right genre.

How to Raise the Stakes of Your Movie - Using a Simple Toothbrush Example

As important as stakes are in a script, it's surprising how easy it is to forget about them while writing the script, especially the first draft. It's easy to get caught up in the structure during the outlining phase and forget about the characters - what they want, why they want it, and WHY WE SHOULD CARE. This last point may be the the most important thing of all in raising the stakes, because the audience has to feel that the stakes are high for the characters, or else they won't be emotionally invested in the story.

Let's start with a simple toothbrush example. Imagine you're writing a scene about a man looking for his toothbrush. He looks under his bed. Nothing. Looks in his refrigerator. Nothing. Finally, he gives up, goes to the store, and buys a new toothbrush. End scene. What's wrong with this scene? IT'S BORING!!! We don't care about the man or his toothbrush, because there's nothing at stake. It's mundane.

Stakes in a movie should be high, but they don't necessarily have to be life or death. It's just that the stakes should be high FOR THE CHARACTERS. If we care about the characters, and they really care about something, then we will care too. It's like when a best friend comes to you and tells you about a terrible breakup. You sympathize, and you feel like your heart has also been broken.

Using the same toothbrush example, how do we raise the stakes of the scene and make the viewers actually care? There are a variety of ways to do this, and each idea spins the scene into a different genre altogether:

What if it has a recording device with valuable information recorded on it? Suddenly we care about the hero finding it - before the bad guys do! (spy movie)

Or maybe the toothbrush is a gold-plated family heirloom - this makes buying a new toothbrush out of the question. Then the royal family shows up, and he has to improvise a fake gold-plated toothbrush - because if his family finds out he lost it, they'll disown him! (comedy)

Or we could add dimension to the main character, making him a clean freak who HAS to brush his teeth - or he'll go insane. If his insanity is at stake, then there's a lot to win or lose, and suddenly the scene is much more interesting. (drama - think One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest)

Or, we could put a time lock on the scene. The man's date is coming to his house in five minutes, and he has DRAGON BREATH - so he has to find a way to brush his teeth before it's too late - or he'll lose the girl. (romantic comedy)

There are a million different ways to spin this scene, but the important thing is, each of these examples RAISES THE STAKES for our hero. Some of them are ridiculous, yes, but if the character stands to win or lose something he/she cares about, then the audience will care too.

Campbell, Snyder, or McKee?

Every screenwriter has their favorite "story guru," whether it be Joseph Campbell, Blake Snyder, Robert McKee, John Truby, or Syd Field. There are many others, but those are some of the "experts" that come to mind. Beginning screenwriters, depending on which guru's book they read first, often follow the formulas they read as if it were a religion. There's danger in this, because there's not only one way to look at story. It also gets really confusing for these writers, because if he/she only reads McKee, and then starts up a conversation with another writer who only follows Snyder, then they are bound to argue about certain story points, terms, and formulas.

As a burgeoning screenwriter, I first read Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces, and I was impressed by the mythic structures he identified in all types of stories. However, I soon found that this one approach to storytelling limited my view, and I had a hard time applying some of the mythic concepts to modern movies. So then I read Blake Snyder, and fell in love with his very structured approach to movies with his 15 step beat sheet. However, I learned that the beat sheet, while incredibly useful in outlining, doesn't help to flesh out the main characters and the emotional through-line of my scripts. I started listening to Pilar Alessandra's podcasts, then read her book, The Coffee Break Screenwriter, where she focuses a lot on character. I also read Karl Iglesias' book, which deals with fleshing out the emotional beats of the story. Prior to this, I read Linda Seger, Paul Chitlik, Andrew Horton, William Goldman, and many others. The point is, I learned something from all of these story gurus. I liked some more than others, but that's the point - I took bits and pieces from each approach, I developed my own approach to storytelling, and I believe I'm a better screenwriter because of it.

I believe there's a danger in ascribing to only one philosophy of storytelling. Formulas, while helpful at times in the outlining process, can also be incredibly limiting. That said, there are those writers who devalue the advice of all these story gurus and do their own thing. I believe there's danger in this approach as well, because then you are only limiting yourself to your own experience - and there's much to be gleaned from reading about other perspectives on storytelling. So whether you're a Campbellite, a Snyderite, or a Mckeeophile (I just made these terms up - they sound legit though, don't they?) I think it's important to be open-minded about other approaches, because then you can always learn something new, and your writing will be better for it.

The most effective way to learn story, however, is to write your own stuff. Second, is to read other people's scripts and identify what works and what doesn't. That's why being a script reader can be the best education a screenwriter can have. The most important thing is to keep learning and not to hide behind one particular formula. If it were as easy as plugging in numbers, then every single movie made would be an instant success. But as we all know, that's not the case. Every story's different, and so each story requires a different approach entirely.

Book Review: Writing for Emotional Impact

I also look forward to Karl Iglesias' articles in Creative Screenwriting. He's an insightful story consultant who gives simple, constructive advice with a fresh, unique spin. His book, Writing for Emotional Impact, is one of a kind. Instead of focusing solely on structure, Iglesias dives into the importance of connecting emotionally with the readers of your script. "Emotion is your script's lifeblood," he says, and he wisely argues that no one leaving a movie theater is going to comment on the movie's structure or use of dramatic tension - they will talk only about what they felt. Mr. Iglesias has a very good point, and one that we should all remember - if the person reading your script doesn't feel anything, then you've failed, no matter how structurally perfect your script may be.

There is a ton of information packed into this book. My only complaint is that it's organized in a bullet-point fashion, which makes it a little difficult to process as well as find what you're looking for the second go-around. Overall though, it's a great book and a unique but essential approach to screenwriting that will allow you to really hook your reader by the first page.

This book is ideal for the rewrite phase, after you've written that first draft.

Waste of Time [ ]

Worth the Read [xx]

Buy this Book [ ]

Subtext: What is your story REALLY about?

In every great movie, there are really two stories happening at once. The first is the one on the surface (the plot), which the audience saw advertised in the movie trailer and actually came to see on the screen. When people ask, what is the movie about? that's what they're referring to. The second is more subversive (theme/subtext), and is actually what the story is REALLY about. They are both equally important. Karl Iglesias says, "Story brings an audience into the theater; theme makes it worthwhile." Of course, the two should be so intrinsically connected that they complement one another. The plot proves the theme; the theme adds dimension to the plot.

In my experience, beginning screenwriters tend to pitch their theme when they should be pitching their story. Perhaps they want to tell a personal story about the loss of a family member and they want to communicate the theme - "life doesn't end with death." That's all fine and dandy, but they should keep that theme to themselves. In fact, those words shouldn't even be said in the film. It should come out naturally in the movie, through the central character's decisions which lead to his/her arc. I used to be very thematic when I pitched my ideas - then I realized no one (for all intents and purposes) goes to see a movie for its theme, but for its story. They want to be entertained, not lectured to. If you want to preach to your audience, then make a documentary.

I'm not saying don't have a theme, in fact, I believe theme is extremely important. But it should be buried in the subtext so that people have to actually discover it for themselves - which is much more rewarding than being told.

Here's an example from Lost, which I consider to be THE Bible of great storytelling (say what you want about the series finale, but it rocked). The show has many themes, but one of the central questions it explores is whether it's better to live your life by faith or science. John Locke is the man of faith, and Jack Shephard is the man of science. Instead of having the two characters sit down and have an in-depth conversation about faith and science, the writers did something brilliant - they brought in THE BUTTON. (brief explanation: there's a computer in a hatch, where an apparently crazy man named Desmond tells Jack and Locke that he has to enter numbers into a computer and then press the "execute" button every 108 minutes or the world will explode!) Jack, the pragmatist that he is, thinks Desmond is crazy and that nothing will happen. Locke believes "they were all brought to the island for a reason" and that pushing their button and saving the world is their destiny. Here's the scene:

On the surface (plot), Jack and Locke argue about whether or not pushing the button is important. Under the surface (theme), they're really having a philosophical conversation about faith vs. science. But it's not just a conversation, it's a match between Jack's and Locke's egos, and only one of them can win. There's tension, on-screen conflict, stakes (the ego of both characters), and a timelock (the timer counting down to zero). A brilliant scene that shows how you can write an entertaining scene that can also be rich in subtext without being preachy.

Screenwriting Tools That I Love

Make no mistake, screenwriters may considered artists, but they are most certainly craftsmen. The great Lajos Egri says it best: "It takes about three years of apprenticeship to make a good shoemaker; the same is true of carpentry or any other skill. Why should playwriting [or screenwriting] - one of the hardest professions in the world - be acquired overnight, without serious study?"

Anyone with an imagination and a self-motivated work ethic can become a screenwriter. But Mr. Egri is right - it's a craft and skill that requires years of study and practice. Even the great screenwriters are constantly learning more about their craft.

Here are some of my favorite tools that help me become a better writer. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but you may find some of them helpful.

SCRIPTSHADOW (http://scriptshadow.blogspot.com/)

You've probably heard of this site, run by "Carson Reeves," who reviews the newest, most buzz-about scripts in Hollywood. I can't recommend this site enough. Many of the articles feature links to the scripts reviewed so you can read them yourself.

CREATIVE SCREENWRITING MAGAZINE / SCRIPT MAGAZINE

Both informative screenwriting mags. They're both published quarterly, but they're stuffed with a lot of great stuff, including interviews with screenwriters and articles from screenwriting gurus, such as Karl Iglesias.

ON THE PAGE PODCAST WITH PILAR ALESSANDRA

Another must. Pilar interviews a variety of Hollywood creatives but always focuses on "the craft and business of screenwriting." I've learned a lot from this weekly podcast, and I look forward to it every week. You can access the first 15 minutes of each podcast on iTunes for free, but you have to pay $20 for a six-month subscription to listen to the full-length podcasts. It's well worth it.

JOHNAUGUST.COM

Hollywood screenwriter John August (Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Corpse Bride) gives a wealth of practical advice and information to screenwriters. And it's free!

AINTITCOOL.COM

All the latest movie news. Of course there are other great entertainment news sites, but this one's my daily go-to site.

VARIETY AND HOLLYWOOD REPORTER

Nothing beats reading the trades. It's a bit costly, but if you're serious about staying up to date, it's worth it to get at least the weekly subscription.

TRACKING-BOARD.COM

You have to pay to get access to this site, but for the serious screenwriter, nothing beats it. It has a library of thousands of scripts, and a file exchange where the latest scripts are posted. I get most of my scripts from this site.

SCRIPT-O-RAMA.COM

If the tracking board is too expensive, this site also has a library of scripts. It's not nearly as expansive, but at least it's free.

BOOKS:

If you're just getting started:

SCREENPLAY: WRITING THE PICTURE by Robin Russin and Downs

THE ART OF DRAMATIC WRITING by Lajos Egri

POETICS by Aristotle

For beginners and vets:

SAVE THE CAT by Blake Snyder

THE COFFEE BREAK SCREENWRITER by Pilar Alessandra

THE WRITER'S JOURNEY by Chris Vogler

WRITING FOR EMOTIONAL IMPACT by Karl Iglesias

MAKING A GOOD SCRIPT GREAT by Linda Seger

I'll be reviewing some of these books more in-depth in future blog entries.

How Adding a Midpoint Can Save Your Movie

Though every film has a middle, not every film has a "midpoint." What I'm referring to is a screenwriting technique that if used effectively can help remedy the "second act lag." The industry unfortunately calls for three acts, which sort of makes sense because it's simple (beginning, middle, end). In a two-hour movie, Act I is typically 30 minutes, Act II is 60 minutes, and Act III is thirty minutes. That means Act II is twice as long as Acts I and III! Seems kind of silly, doesn't it? I can see why many people argue against the three act structure. However, the three act structure is so deeply embedded into industry lingo that one simply can't ignore it. But that doesn't mean we can't cheat a little. Because Act II can be daunting, I simply SPLIT IT INTO TWO PARTS. I call them Act IIa. and Act IIb. So that's essentially four acts, but it makes Act II a lot more manageable. The moment of the script that divides Act II and Act III is the midpoint -- the moment in the script where a new surprise occurs which spins the story off into a new direction. It's essentially when things start to get serious for your protagonist.

Paul Chitlik, in his book "Rewrite," defines a midpoint as a turning point, "wherein the action takes a sudden and new unexpected direction. The goal may change. The central character may realize what his flaw is. His true needs become more important than what he wants."

Karl Iglesias, in "Writing for Emotional Impact," says that a midpoint "is often when the hero decides to stop being reactive and becomes a more active hero, or is forced into being one. He becomes fully committed to his goal and takes more desperate actions."

Linda Seger, in "Making A Good Script Great" warns that "many writers mistake the midpoint for the first turning point, thereby throwing the structure off and creating scripts where the second act doesn't begin until halfway through the script. However, if the writer begins creating a clear three-act structure, often a midpoint scene will naturally emerge."

So what are some examples of great movie midpoints? Here are some of my favorites:

-In E.T., the alien tells Elliott he must phone home, and Elliott decides to help him. Prior to this scene Elliott was merely reactive; now he becomes an active protagonist as he devises a plan to help his new alien friend.

-In The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo volunteers at the Council of Elrond to take the ring to Mordor. In the first half of Act II he risked his life to get the ring to Rivendell, but he was a reluctant hero; now he's willing to face greater danger for the second half of Act II.

-For the first half of Thelma & Louise, Louise is the protagonist that drives the action, and Thelma is along for the ride. But when Thelma loses their money to J.D., she decides to take control. The two women begin their crime spree, which comprises the rest of Act II.

-In The Visitor, Walter receives drum lessons from Tarek for the first half of Act II. The movie is shaping up to be a feel-good story about a middle-aged man finding solace in music, but then comes...the midpoint! Tarek is taken by immigration control and Walter tries to get his friend back throughout the rest of Act II. Walter even meets Tarek's mother and a romance subplot develops in Act IIb. The movie abruptly switches genres, and it actually works.

-In Transsiberian, Jessie is infatuated with handsome fellow train passenger Carlos. Act IIa builds their relationship, and we think Jessie is going to have an affair with him. But when she "accidentally" kills him at the midpoint, the movie suddenly becomes a thriller where Jessie has to cover up his death.

-The movie with, in my opinion, the greatest midpoint of all time is Jaws. That movie's structure is solid. It's basically divided in two halves. The first half deals with Brody's inability to stop the shark attacks. At the midpoint, he decides to take matters into his own hands and ventures out on the Orca with Quint and Hooper. The last half of the film, of course, is what most of us remember most because it's much more exciting than the first half. But that slow build in the first half makes it all the more enjoyable.

In essence, a midpoint is about halfway through your movie (though it doesn't have to be exact), where the stakes are raised and the hero becomes more committed to his/her goal, or may acquire a completely new goal. The important thing is that it keeps your story fresh and exciting while maintaining the integrity of your story's premise. Not all movies require a midpoint, but if you find that the middle of your movie is slow or boring, try adding one.