Story

Stories are about saying - This is what this character did in this situation to achieve this goal.

They ask us, what would we do in a similar situation?

Story Type Tones

Comedy - over the top
Tragedy - dark
Drama - realism.  can be comedic or tragic

Character Strength - Character Flaw

A Character Strength is what connects your main character to other relationships.

A Character Weakness is what disconnects your main character to other relationships.  And specifically to the person(s) they want to have a relationship with.


Indiana Jones for example:
Strength - his ability to find and bring back valuable artifacts
Weakness - He's flighty.  He's constantly on the move.  He doesn't have time to settle.

or flip it and call his artifact gathering ability his flaw(weakness)

Character Growth

A character cannot begin to grow until they admit they have a problem.

Problems for your Character

A character can have three problems:
Situational - Example: Shark killing beach goers
Personal Growth - Example: Fear of water
Relationship - Example: Towns people don't think you can do your job

Character Growth + Character Relationship Change

Character A calls Character B a fat moron for crashing his car.
Character B is now setup for growth.

Character B signs up for the gym.
Character B meets Character C at the gym.
Character B is now setup for Character Relationship Change.

End of Movie - Character B understands why he crashed the car. Perhaps it's not even because of his weight.  With help from Character C and Character A is now out of his life.

Character Arc Character Change Character Growth

Characters do not change.  Alchemy is not real.

Imagine an Oak tree turning into a Maple tree.  Impossible.

Characters grow.  They overcome fears.  Characters shrink.  They pick up new fears.

Characters change RELATIONSHIPS.  That's what character change and character arcs are all about.

Scene within a Scene

When the camera goes into slow motion on a characters face during a pivotal moment, or even just a close up.  It's like a private scene between us and the character.  This becomes a private moment between the audience and the character.  This creates a bond between us and them.

Sometimes after this moment things start going the opposite way they have been going for the main character.

The Remains of the Day - Relationships

The structure of the film has two main parts:
1 - Butler Stevens sets off on a trip to see if he former house maid would join his staff again.
2 - Episodic situations from the past that show Butler Steven's relationship with Lord Darlington, Miss Kenton, his staff, and the aristocracy of the day.

The story shows us Steven's attempt to form a new bond, a new relationship only to fail.  He strives to have a personal relationship.  All his relationships are either public.  Or private(his books).

He, the dignified butler, is the last remains of a former age.  He, like Lord Darlington, fail to update and connect, form a new relationship with the present.

When Hughe Grant's character asks Steven's to have a drink with him, Steven's won't.  He finds it hard to sit back and chat.  He's constantly doing his job.  His public relationship in which he doesn't argue about issues but simply does tasks consumes him.

This is a story in which the main character does not Change Relationships and does Not Grow and does Not Positively Resolve the Situation.

And yet I fucking love it.

Theme in the first draft(s)

Use the situation as the unifying theme.
Once you've written and finished a few drafts.
Then read the story to get a better sense of the abstract "Vs. Theme" at play.

All info on screenwriting can help you shape your story but only after you get it down on paper.

Scene Types

When you have public, personal, and private scenes with a main character - a relationship begins to develop between the audience and the character.

Character Voice

When each character has a different tone and a different view point concerning the issues in the story, the story comes alive.

Character Sympathy

Try to maintain a clinical approach when your writing scenes with your main character.  If you sympathize with your main character you will simply be holding their hand.  You shouldn't want what your main character wants.  Your like the parent of this character and what's more sympathetic to an audience than a parent who treats their child(character) like shit.

Character's as obstacles

There is something thrilling about writing scenes in which allies of your main character act and argue as obstacles.

In fact when another character sits and listens and agrees with your main character, well that character becomes dead weight.  It's even more exciting when they sit, listen, agree, but then tell your main character they are going to still do what they want and still be an obstacle.

Outlining

Hot Tip:  Make each slug line a summary of the end of each scene.

Example:
Generic slug - Batman meets Joker
Ending slug - At Batcave, Joker traps Batman.

Plot Points and Relationships and Meaning

Two hitmen shot at multiple times but not a single bullet hits them.

One argues that God saved them.  The other doesn't.

One decides to quit his job as a hitman.  The other doesn't.

These two scenes from Pulp Fiction contain a plot point based on a relationship.

In this instance it is the characters's relationship with God.

It turns, spins, changes the direction of the story.  Of the character's story.

"I'm a hitman."  turns to "I'm done being a hitman"  and  "I'm going to continue to be a hitman."

However, meaning is not created until the consequences of this plot point are shown.

Jules presumably lives.  Vincent we see gets shot and killed.  Jules forms a new relationship with God, a new bond, while Vincent retains his old relationship, his old bond with Marcellus Wallace.

_________________

So we see that we need multiple plot points to create meaning.
And we need a relationship to use as the creation, engine, source of the plot points.

-------------------------

Take Andy Dufresne relationship with the Prison staff in Shawshank Redemption.
Because of his banking background he goes from being a no name abused prisoner to the prince of the prison when he suggests to Haldey he can get around his tax problem.

This would be a plot point.

You can think of plot points like chemicals, bonding or splitting.

Now in order to create meaning, this new relationship with the prison staff needs to be tested.  This new bond.

Andy finds out who killed his wife.  Norton has the man who knows, killed.
This is a plot point that tests their relationship.
Meaning is created as we see that this relationship isn't as great as we thought.
If Warden Norton allowed Andy to try to get a new trial with this new information we would see that the bond is strong.

Red has some plot points too.  When he goes into the parole board meeting in the setup of the movie we see him say he's rehabilitated.  And we see them deny him freedom.  We see the red-parole board relationship.   We see there is no bond.
That's a plot point.

Now after Andy escapes, Red thinks about everything that has occurred and goes into the parole board meeting again.  This time he tries a different approach.
The parole board accepts his argument and gives him his freedom.  They have now bonded.  This is the second plot point that creates meaning.

Meaning is created when characters bond AND when characters split.

Notice how the midpoint of this movie has Andy "cheating", "trying to split" from his new bond with the prison staff.  Andy plays an opera over the loud speaker for his fellow inmates.  Andy's fellow inmates are the other relationship, the other element, the other bond, this story is testing.  Norton quickly attempts to reseal his bond with Andy.

--------------------------

Notice how the characters goal of getting out of prison puts these plot points into context.  It helps to show where characters loyalties lie.  It gives meaning to the relationships.  It makes the relationship bonding/splitting make sense.

Alternative Themes

Another way to think of theme is "A vs. B"

Take Shawshank Redemption....

The State Vs. Man

Whether it's the court system, the prison system, the tax system...the characters (even Norton) are being "attacked" by the state.

Still another way:

The thing that is applying pressure to character relationships.

So in Shawshank it's The State.

In star wars it's The Imperial Empire

Villains - What they are? What they want?

Part 1:
Not all stories have archetypal villain bad guys.  Some just have a character or characters who are little more selfish, a little more powerful than your main character.

Some just have a character or characters who are a little more selfless, a little less powerful than your main character.

Not all villains want to take over the world.  Some just want to take over your main characters world.  Some just want to pull your main character out of their world.


_______________________
Part 2:
The antagonist competes for the same relationship your main character is trying to achieve.  They may be many years apart in age, of a different sex, race, etc. but inside they want the same thing.

For instance, in the shawshank redemption - Andy and Warden Norton both want to have a relationship with "the State."

In Jaws, Chief Brody and the Mayor both want to have a relationship with "The Towns People"

Skyfall Review - Expected Endings from a Perfect Man

Imagine a character running toward a moving subway car - leaping - and catching the end of the train uninjured.

This is one of many instances in which James Bond does the impossible.

This is one of many instances in which Skyfall meets expectations and causes boredom for me the viewer.

Side note: This bond felt a lot like the Nolan/Goyer Batman movies.  Though in Bond there lacks an internal conflict.

It seems to head toward the idea of Bond handing in his badge and retiring, people losing faith in Mi6, etc.

Bond is getting old like M, but the writers don't tap into that during the obstacles.  Why not have Bond leap toward the Subway car and miss?  It would be unexpected and create more interest.  

That said the Topic of the movie is Age.  A new age of criminals has arrived and the old way of doing things with the old agents and old fancy toys may not work anymore...so do we get rid of them?

In the end they use Radios, Knives, Classic Cars, Scotland, Dynamite....old toys and classic locations but the writers don't deal with the internal conflicts, obstacles that arise with Age using these toys.

So what are the stances in terms of Age.  Take the scene in which M is being grilled by the government officials.  What do the government officials want?  They don't want to replace M and her crew.  M and her crew have the latest tech...so they can't argue that M needs to update or get out.  There's no real issues being debated.

Why not have Bond argue with Q that all "HE wants is a radio and a Gun."  And have Q say "NO you need to use this high tech stuff."  And have Bond SHOW that the old toys work just fine.

Instead of teaching an Old dog new tricks.  It could have been Teach a Young dog old tricks.

Eve could have been the young agent who learns from Bond how to win with old tricks.

Or if they wanted to teach bond new tricks, bond could have been more reticent about using the high tech toys only to use it in the end to win.

he could have tried the radio, the knife, the classic car and seen it fail and seen someone close to him die because of it or a bus of kids killed,  something bad as a result of his trying to stay the same....

The story lacks a real showing of Old vs. New.  Sides are not clearly drawn and as a result the lack of internal conflict makes the story muddy and boring.

It was "Show an old dog old tricks"  i.e. nothing unexpected.  Nothing being argued.  

Django Unchained Review - Where's the Fear?

Django Unchained falls short of being a good story in my opinion.  The dialog and tap dancing between characters was entertaining.  The production design and cinematography were eye pleasing.  But the overall storytelling lacked internal conflict.  It lacked having a single character show fear.  And could have been grounded in a little more reality.

Take Dr. Schultz.  A man who makes his living, surviving off of the capture and return of criminals.  He seems to be on the anti-slavery (non activist) side of the story the entire time.  A subtle peppering of internal conflict about Slavery towards the end of the movie that leaps to an overt-unrealistic sacrificing of his own life in opposition to slavery.

Take Django.  A "free'd" slave.

Issue (1):  How is a free'd slave shown to be different from a slave?  This area of the story is not really explored.  

Issue (2): Dr. Schultz risks and sacrifices his life for another man.  To be that bold, something in the storytelling needs to change.  A man does not risk his life for another man just because he might agree in his belief system.

In dealing with issue (2) and developing the internal conflict , I think Dr. Schultz should have either ran away at a time when Django needed him most during the end of the second act, never to be seen from again.  OR...

Dr. Schultz should have left Django after Django got him the three brothers he wanted for bounty.  Django could have pleaded with Schultz to help him but ONLY if money was involved.

Or Dr. Schultz could have used Django for money the entire movie.

As it stands, Dr. Schultz motivation for helping Django is his interest in Django as being similar to an old German Folk Hero.  But would a man really risk his life because he felt that another man reminded him of a character from a story...

So what I'm arguing is that Dr. Shultz's real motivation should have been money.  He should have had some other plan.  Perhaps to sell Django to Candy?

I think that Mr. Tarantino wanted Dr. Shultz to be a hero and fill an agenda which led to forcing this character to do something we would like him to do but not what he would do.  I think part of it was playing with the idea of a German coming to stop Slavery, contrasted with Americans going to stop the holocaust.

Now with Django - a man who wants to free his wife.  I think his character had far too much confidence and intelligence to be believable for someone who was a slave without any education.  His one internal conflict is resolved in a single scene..."should I kill a man who is a father?"  And rather lightly.  They could have explored that question...  Why not kill the man?  What are you afraid will happen if you kill him?  You'll feel guilty?  Well, part of the reason they didn't explore that conflict is because it's got little to do with slavery.  It's a conflict for another story.  In fact the whole "bounty hunter partner for the winter season" takes out of the situation and lowers the stakes.  If your wife is imprisoned, you don't take the winter to make some money and have fun.  You go after your wife.

Beyond that there are simply external obstacles of a mostly ridiculous nature(shooting many men and not going wounded) that he easily overcomes.  He is a badass man, able to dodge bullets, talk back to people who could have easily taken him out of his room while he was sleeping and make him disappear.

Issue (3) - This story doesn't deal with the issue of slavery from an internal standpoint.  Two sides are not drawn and argued.  I think the Schultz character or Django could have embodied this conflict.  I think there are numerous points in the story this could have came up.

Take the dog's ripping the slave apart.  Upon seeing that Dr. Schultz could have said OK, I've had enough I'm leaving.  I can't take this.  This is wrong.  I'm going back to Germany.  I'm going to the North.  I'm just disgusted.

Same with Django.  He could have said Fuck this I'm free and I'm going north.  perhaps Schultz could have said you can't leave your wife!

Neither "hero" shows a moment of weakness, a moment of selfishness, a moment where the reality of their situation bares so heavily on them that they can't go through with it.  There needs to be a character on the anti-slavery side who shows some fear.  Shows that Slavery exists because the power that institutionalized it is so strong it can't simply be turned on and off like a light switch.

And on the other side of the coin...The pro slavery side...there could have been a character who wants to keep driving slavery but has a moment of selflessness.  A moment where they see how horrible it all is...but perhaps they realize their livelihood depends on it, their whole family is involved in it, they don't want to give that up.

Take Brunhilde - there's no conflict with her.  Why not make her so scared of getting killed that she refuses to leave with Django?  Surely he could have found her in the middle of the night, and tried to convince her to run away.  She could have argued for him to leave her there.  She could have said I'm not going anywhere.  This story deals with an institution similar to The Shawshank Redemption.  Brunhilde could have been a Brooks.  Or a Red.  What if Brunhilde is discovered having hung herself?  They would have been a HUGE surprise.  They would have been a powerful twist in the story.  It would have said I'm so scared to runaway again that I'd rather be dead than risk it.  

So for me, when you write a story without any fear in it, it ends up being boring.  There are no surprises.  You know how each character will behave.  Throw fear into the mix and now expectations are out the window.  I don't know how it's going to end anymore.  I don't know if Schultz is going to leave.  I don't know if Django is going to cave.  I don't know if Brunhilde is going to throw a wrench in the whole thing.

And what's the point of Storytelling?  To show both Human Strengths AND Weaknesses.  To show the power that selfish evil can have.  To show the glory and beauty that self sacrifice can have.

There are two sides to every issue and at least one character should put their toes into each side of the pool before making their third act decision.

English Papers

Leave theme for analysis and english papers.

Focus on character goals for writing.