The Story Department - Latest Comments

Re: Movie Moment: Suspense In Frenzy

Jim — Sun, 13 May 2012 21:18:02 -0000

Hi Karel, I can't say I'm familiar with "Inside Llewelyn".

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of NCFOM's ending - it's not typical of what audiences, particularly those of Hollywood movies, expect. Incidentally, I found the lack of non-diegetic sound save Bell's discovery of Llewelyn's death with one, long drawn note to be interesting and very un-Hollywood-like as well.

True Grit was more convention, however, I actually found myself befuddled to find meaning by the outcome there. I've read John Truby's take on it and can't say I see it quite the same way (if I recall correctly, his interpretation was about paying debts - that each of the characters have a debt to pay and Mattie, having a strong moral code, is unable to pay hers to Rooster at the end which makes it somewhat tragic).

Any particular take on that to enlighten with? I'm not sure if you already posted thoughts on it before or not.

Re: Movie Moment: Suspense In Frenzy

ozzywood — Sun, 13 May 2012 20:27:58 -0000

Thank you Jim, for your considered reply.

Here is where the Coen Brothers appeal to an audience that wants 'different'.

Confusion is not what the mainstream audience wants at the end of a movie. But the brothers don't care about that. We've had a terrific journey up to this point and the ending offers an emotion we know very well from The Real World - exactly what most people try to escape in cinema.

We do look at movies more than once. The masses don't. This movie was made for the fans. True Grit's story approach was more conventional and broke into mainstream territory.

I wonder what "Inside Llewellyn" has to offer. Have you read it yet?

Re: Movie Moment: Suspense In Frenzy

Jim — Sun, 13 May 2012 20:19:08 -0000

Love Frenzy - very underrated with a wicked sense of humor.

As for No Country For Old Men, here's my take (it took me a while to come to this and when I did, I enjoyed the movie all the more because it's ingenious).

There's no doubt Llewelyn is the protagonist of the story - he's the one who's driving it forward. But, much like Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird, he's not the main character.

This is the point where most will choose to throw vegetables at me with the firm belief that the main character and the protagonist are one in the same - but the functions really don't have to be, especially if they're done with purpose and intent.

No Country With Old Men begins with a voice over from Sheriff Ed Tom Bell. This is the character who we're experiencing the story through, even though we follow Llewelyn for a good portion and get what we suppose is a subjective view of the story through him. Or do we?

When Llewelyn's death happens off-screen, it's jolting and, I admit, it gave me pause.... as did the ending which left a great many equally confused. But if we go back and look at the story and how it's structured, it's through Bell's eyes that we learn of Llewelyn's demise.

Why did the author and filmmakers make this decision and what were their intentions?

The answer rests within the confusing ending where a bewildered Bell is left contemplating and within the story's title, No Country For Old Men.

The brilliance in this is that we are left feeling EXACTLY the same way Bell does at the end of the movie - confused. We're confused because he's confused. He's seeking closure, to make sense of what has transpired, just as we are because we EXPECT that from stories (for the most part).

As the story seemingly abruptly ends, we're genuinely experiencing exactly what the main character is, just as the author (and filmmakers) most likely intended. Time has moved on and the days of old are long gone. Where Bell lives now is in a violent land, one of which he can no longer make sense of. It truly is no country for old men.

Had we experienced the demise of Llewelyn first-hand, subjectively, we would have been robbed Bell's experiencing it - and, in a way, it is a big perspective switch since we've been invested in Llewelyn's journey up until that point... but it's the perspective shift to Bell that ultimately provides the story with its meaning (and title).

Does it work? Some would argue not fair, nope, broke the rules, etc. But for myself, one day it just "clicked" and made all the more sense and I was suddenly able to find meaning in what was otherwise a confusing ending.

Re: Movie Moment: Suspense In Frenzy

Aaron Kirk — Thu, 10 May 2012 11:37:31 -0000

But, to also be fair, fantastic article. One among many on this site!

Re: Movie Moment: Suspense In Frenzy

Aaron Kirk — Thu, 10 May 2012 10:04:40 -0000

to be fair, the death scene in No Country For Old Men happens "off screen" in the book as well. Pretty much exactly the same way.

Re: The Judges – Circalit Loglines (18)

Krunchy — Wed, 09 May 2012 23:07:27 -0000

My suggestion to the judges would be to avoid re-writing the loglines or provides examples or substitutions. Stick to observations that the writer can use to go back refashion their logline for the reader. What was clear or unclear.

Adrians comments about "Goldfish" are about what he wants to see and are highly subjective. He does touch on one point though & that of the GOAL of the hero.
David Mamets puts it succinctly -
"What does the hero want? What hinders him from getting it? What happens if he does not get it?" from David Mamet, A Whore’s Profession

If the observations were taken from a coolly critical standpoint then participants should be invited to resubmit their logline and we can all judge if their loglines improve, become clearer.

One other thing I will say about most of the loglines I have read so far is you don't feel their is anything really at stake for the HERO, the important ingredient that would draw the reader or audience into the story.

Re: Who is John Galt?

Li Wei — Mon, 07 May 2012 19:48:47 -0000

Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ - both dead Jews with diametrically opposite ideas. Of course only an ignorant person (such as most conservatives are) claims to be a follower of both.

Re: Who is John Galt?

ozzywood — Mon, 07 May 2012 00:27:08 -0000

This post is trailing well ahead of any other on the blog. And in this election year, I can only expect for the readership to grow as the discussion veers away from the principles of dramatic writing towards hardcore politics.

To fuel that discussion further, I thought the following post might be of interest:

http://www.alternet.org/story/...

Re: Structure: Juno

ozzywood — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:34:26 -0000

I think you are absolutely right about the Inciting Incident. Nice!

I have changed the sequence structure above to reflect this.

I believe the start of Act II is the driving to Mark & Vanessa as this is a typical "Threshold Sequence", reflecting the change in Juno's state of mind.

Thank you.

Re: Structure: Juno

Justahappykid — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:08:39 -0000

I think the inciting incident occurs when the protester talks to Juno about her unborn baby. After this, she goes in the clinic (debates internally), but leaves. She tells her best friend she's keeping the baby. ACT II either starts when they look into parents wanting to adopt, tell her parents or actually go the Loring's house.

Re: Structure: Heat

ozzywood — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:10:44 -0000

You've got me with this one.

I would guess having coffee represents the opposite of being 'outta time'. In the first scene with Justine he can't have coffee because he doesn't have time.

When the two meet, they have coffee - they take some time out to talk.

Nah - lame explanation...

Anyone else?

Re: Structure: Heat

Zag — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 01:55:39 -0000

Nothing's unintentional with Mann so do you have any idea why there are more than 20 references to having a cup of coffee?

Re: Emotional Logic in the Hero’s Journey

Jock — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:32:27 -0000

Poetry in Emotion... nah

Re: Emotional Logic in the Hero’s Journey

B S Kumar — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:07:26 -0000

Structure is there to serve your storytelling. It is your slave, you're not its. Use it, and don't fight it. Would a general fight with his own soldiers?

Re: Emotional Logic in the Hero’s Journey

TessaMuskett — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:18:25 -0000

I love that this article exists because I agree, a movie cannot be over structured. Creativity works in conjunction with paying close attention to structure. Once you've figured out what needs to happen, then you can let your right brain go to work on making it happen in an original way.

I agree with your points as they apply to feature films and I thought your use of the term logic made sense in the context. The way it appears to be a paradox in the heading is an intriguing setup for the article that follows. As soon as you make it something like 'emotional flow' you lessen the impact of the term so it becomes easily ignored or accepted without really being giving serious attention. 'Logic' is a commanding concept and there is a logic to the way emotions work. An audience will have a hard time sympathising with a character who acts in a consistently emotionally illogical way.

I would suggest that one exception to the need for resolution and all the stages of the Hero's Journey is in the short film format. Stages in the process can't be skipped but one part of the journey can be focused on in the limited time afforded. I'm not sure which parts of the process could be explored in a short film and the resulting movie still be considered successful. Maybe it would have to be the part of the story with the most drama? If the protagonist never reaches the stage of acceptance, despite the audience's expectations, it's possible your audience will be dissatisfied. But at least they'll be talking, right?

Re: Emotional Logic in the Hero’s Journey

ozzywood — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:30:16 -0000

Hmmm... Interesting point. Thank you for your comment.

I will surely give it some thought. Meanwhile, would you have a suggestion for an alternative label?

Re: Emotional Logic in the Hero’s Journey

Jacobs Rayda — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:35:04 -0000

Hey Peter, really great stuff on structure. I have a script called Crossroads which has five story lines .... almost like the American film Crash... the structure was hard work as everything happens in 12 hours and five stories are told... rayda

Re: Emotional Logic in the Hero’s Journey

Gaffney — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:22:23 -0000

Karel, I don't disagree with your observations, your interpretations, or your comments other than to say that your use of the word "logic" in the description of your argument is discomforting. My understanding and use of the word "logic" flies in the face of the word "emotion." I understand your argument, but I'm uncomfortable with what you've chosen to call it. If I imagine an ordinary human--an everyman--I would make his skeletal system analogous to "logic" and his soul analogous to "emotion." We need both, but one of those elements can be severely damaged while the other remains healthy; indeed, given the motivation and opportunity, one of those elements can help to heal the other. I also think that, if and when we ignore one of those elements to devote too much care and attention on the other, we can go off the deep end---physically or emotionally.

Re: [Video]: John Cleese on Creativity

CatLovingMan — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 23:50:47 -0000

Thanks, he's always worth watching!

Re: OZ Filmers: “If they only loved us.”

S3163159 — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 02:30:51 -0000

Here's a big answer for you: writer/directors. Whenever I see a terrible film like Red Hill or The Loved Ones, I KNOW to look for 'Written & directed by' at the end. Do they not get script editors? Are these scripts their babies? Every stinker they bring out sets our industry back another 5 years. Do they feel any responsibility?

A new generation of screenwriters is being trained up as I write, with fresh ideas and acknowledgement of the 'American' script structure. We want to write damn good scripts, but seeing what this country makes and celebrates we all set our sights on distant shores.
I want to see this country make such amazing films that when people stand at the cinema, they struggle to choose between an Aus film and the latest American blockbuster. I want to no longer hear "We could go see that Australian film, but...".
Let's get so good that people forget where films came from, or even better, get EXCITED about a new Australian film coming out.

No more junkies, incest tales, ocka accents, and down endings please. For a while at least.
They have a place, but so does every other kind of damn story that isn't being told in this country. I can't relate to that version of Australia and Australians I see onscreen. If there are gritty, almost plotless films about dodgy dealer shits from western suburbs who kill people all the time then let's get our own Back to the Futures, Labyrinths, Donnie Darkos, Breakfast Clubs. We won't be mimicking America - we'll be adding a flavour to these types of films never seen before, cast through our Aussie filter.

If this scene doesn't change, that new generation of writers I mentioned will be gone, off to London, off to LA. The cream will rise and float away, leaving the lesser talents behind to make the next 20 years of facepalm Australian cinema.
This problem has a solution. It just seems the powers that be don't want to change. Our film industry needs to become commercial, not only so Australian audiences can be entertained by local films instead of using them as suicide motivation, but so people who work in this industry can actually make a LIVING. There's no shame in that.

Re: Who is John Galt?

Li Wei — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 11:34:01 -0000

"Drafted into Hitler's Gestapo would you have derived your true happiness from getting along with your superiors and helping them commit mass murder?"

Mr. MacKinnon, where did you read anything about Hitler in Gabriel's post?

"Finally, what would have been hypocritical would be if Rand had committed the act of total self-sacrifice and not taken advantage of state-provided health care or pensions. It is only someone like Rand, who opposed the state's theft and redistribution of property who has a moral right to these - as partial restitution. "

It would help if you had some common sense and logic. Your arguments are clearly incoherent. I think Gabriel's 9 year old mind was more advanced than what yours will be by the time you die.

Re: Ten Format Mistakes

Amy Suto — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:01:47 -0000

Good article, but I disagree with the unfilmmables. Sure, there is definitely a case for keeping a script lean and mean (especially in the thriller genre), but if an unfilmmable or two helps the reader SEE the scene in their mind's eye, than it should stay in. Clarity trumps all else.

Anyone looking for a great example of unfilmmables should look no further than Cristo, which was just purchased by Warner Brothers. The complex sci-fi setting benefited from unfilmmables that made the script leaner and more powerful.

Tip #7 is also debatable in certain situations. Have you read the script, "RED"? An excellent script that does not waste time. It opens with several choppy lines that all read "Frank does push ups. Frank opens the mail." all in rapid succession. The repetition of his name and the choppiness of the syntax helps insinuate the cuts while keeping the pace brisk. If the opening had read: "Frank does push ups, opens the mail..." in a lackadaisical list, the scene would be nowhere near as powerful.

But, as they say, you have to know the rules to break them.

Re: Video: Robert McKee monologues on Dialogue

Philip Taylor — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 07:59:57 -0000

Thanks for sharing. Pithy and direct reminder. Very useful.

Re: Structure: Heat

Scott — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:20:16 -0000

posted on twitter. One of my favorite endings. The music. The humanity. I watched THEIF recently too. Very good film.

Re: Structure: Avatar

Rik Scherpenberg — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:32:26 -0000

Schitterende film, alleen jammer dat deze film, zoals de meeste Amerikaanse films, voor een Amerikaans publiek gemaakt werd. en dat wil zeggen dat het verhaal vooral niet te ingewikkeld mag zijn ... Ik heb vaak de indruk naar een stripverhaal met tekst ballonnetjes te kijken ... Ik ben onder de indruk van de stap die gezet is, de vooruitgang die op cinematografisch gebied alweer gemaakt is. Dat Peter Jackson en Steven Spielberg tijdens de opnames met hun ogen zijn mogen komen lenen zegt meer dan genoeg ? Maar deze film had ons veel verder kunnen nemen zeker met de middelen/budgetten die voor handen zijn ... ik hoop dat RIDLEY SCOTT met zijn prequel van ALIEN, wel verder durft te gaan.