ACFW Workshop Slides and Q&A (9-22-11)

I presented a five-hour version of The Moral Premise workshop at the American Christian Fiction Writer's Conference Sept 22, 2011 from 8 AM to 1 PM. In the days following I met with a number of authors and hope-to-be authors helping them beat out their stories.

I was also privileged to sit in on several other workshops, have dinner with super-agent Natasha Kern, and talk with numerous multi-published authors, with 20, 30, and even 50 books to their credit. It was a great few days in St. Louis. Between the questions and answers below I'll post some pictures taken during the trip.

Looking East from our conference meeting rooms

All of the photos in this blog were taken with my iPhone. the conference was held at the Hyatt Regency at the Arch. Thus the pictures of the full arch (like the one at the right) are actually taken through windows in the hallway next to the meeting rooms.

Here are the questions I was handed, some of which I answered in the session, and my answers.

1. On the Emotion Plotting Slide, how do you decide numeric values on each action line, that are used for the graph. (Judy Christie)

Judy, the numbers assigned are subjective and objectively determined. Subjectively, they are based on my sense of how emotionally UP or DOWN the scene will come across to the reader/audience when I'm done editing it. In some scenes/lines the number is my INTENT. In others, it's what it is already. For instance when my protag's husband dies, it's a major DOWNER, when she is able to board the ship safely with her girls to go home, its a minor UPPER. Objectively, the "emotion" I hope my audience will feel is the degree to which they perceive my protag making progress toward the physical goal (positive numbers), or being set up from achieving the goal (negative numbers). I assign a number from -10 to +10 to each scene, and then accumulate a balance, like a checking account balance. It's the balance that is plotted, not the individual scene values.

Inside the Mind of a Hollywood Director: Bitterness, Love, Verisimilitude

An interview with Gavin O’Connor director of WARRIOR

Gavin O'Connor

WARRIOR is a motion picture story about two bitterly estranged brothers who end up fighting in a cage for the mixed martial arts world championship. It is also about their relationship with their father, whom neither can forgive. The violence we see in the cage is visceral. Brothers fight. But more impactful in this story is the spiritual warfare that pits the brothers and their father in a three-way psychological cage. All three are warriors. Yet the movie dares to be about how each of us is called to fight the good fight and be a warrior for love.

Why do Hollywood directors make movies that contain intense violence, offensive language and questionable thematic material, which are the elements that earned WARRIOR its PG-13 rating from the MPAA? Some will object to the film’s realism, calling it gratuitous. But O’Conner would disagree. Why? Because he’s intent on telling the truth about the spiritual warfare that exists in every man. And that includes you.

So, offered below is a different kind of interview with a top Hollywood director. It offers a spiritual and psychological glimpse into a director’s motivation for the kind of tough but true films that someday be may be dubbed the “Gavin O’Connor genre.”

While I have edited out the spoilers from the interview, it will nonetheless make more sense if you’ve first seen the film, or have read a thorough review or synopsis of the story. You can do so HERE.

Gavin O’Connor is truly one of the best director’s in Hollywood, although his filmography is not that long. He’s known for three major films: MIRACLE (2004, starring Kurt Russell) about the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team’s victory over the seemingly invincible Russian squad; PRIDE AND GLORY (2008, starring Collin Farrell, Edward Norton, and Jon Voight) the saga of a multi-generational family of New York cops and moral corruption; and now WARRIOR (2011, starring Joel Edgerton, Tom Hardy, and Nick Nolte).

Stan Williams: We hear about actors asking a director: “What’s my motivation?” Let me turn the tables. What motivated you to make WARRIOR?

Gavin O’Connor: That’s a very difficult question to answer. There were things going on in my life that I knew I wanted to deal with or gain some type of insight or understanding of them. I was really struggling with forgiveness. There were also things that happened in my childhood that I think I was trying to explore through my art. I also have a love of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA), and I had never seen it dynamic portrayed in cinema before. So, I thought that was an interesting kind of possibility. Then it started to culminate with this idea, which I called “intervention in cage.”

Stan Williams: Which is a metaphor for what the film is really about…

Gavin O’Connor: Yes. What started to emerge, as I was thinking about the characters, was the idea of one man living in his higher self and someone living in his lower self and a third someone living in his spirituality. Then there is the idea of spiritual warfare. All these things were matriculating in a weird way, and they all started to come out.

Stan Williams: WARRIOR successfully engages audiences with several impossibilities: (a) it’s about two underdog brothers, who have been estranged for years, and (b) and yet they end up fighting each other in the final match for the mixed martial arts world championship. Ironically, it’s (c) their estrangement out of the cage that entangles and embraces them in the cage. While that’s intriguing, what do you do as a writer and director to help the audience embrace such improbabilities and make it seem so real? (1)

Gavin O’Connor: When I walked my co-writer, Anthony Tambakis, through the idea for the movie, he said, “You can’t have these two guys fight each other in the end. How are you going to pull that off?” Well, the way we approached all of this is to only tell the truth. We don’t write it and then shoot what we wrote. What we write becomes the blueprint for months of work-shopping the film with the actors.

Stan Williams: What do you do when you workshop a movie?

Gavin O’Connor: You meet extensively with the actors and you start connecting emotional lines. You start going so deep and dissecting the verisimilitude [the quality of realism in a work of art (3)] of every scene, that if anything seems false you address it. Like, how do we capture the essence of a marriage? How do we do that in the most truthful way? We always try to put everything under a microscope. We call it “non-acting.” For me, the word “acting” has a certain falseness to it. When I hear the word “acting” I always go for “non-acting.” We’re always trying to get to the truth of the scene. If we can keep doing that systematically and consistently throughout the whole film, hopefully, by the time we get to the impossibility [of the story’s plot] we’re so immersed in the emotionality of the piece and the characters, that the audience will want it, desire it, and be convinced of its reality.

Stan Williams: It seems that what you’re talking about is the psychological or moral motivation of the characters — because if you don’t tell the truth about their psychological motivations with respect to natural law, then the audience is going to pick up on that, and they’re not going to identify with the characters.

Gavin O’Connor: Absolutely. That’s exactly it. The characters must be rooted in their true psychological motivations. We’re always putting the microscope on the “want.” What do you want in this scene? And how are you going to get it?

Stan Williams: The Physical Wants and the Psychological Needs.

Gavin O’Connor: Yes. And they have to come from a truthful place. You really have to challenge it and poke it and prod it, because if it’s flimsy at all, it’ll fall like a house of cards.

Stan Williams: I’ll tell you, what you did in both PRIDE AND GLORY and WARRIOR translates incredibly to the screen. How long did you workshop?

Gavin O’Connor: I call it making the movie before you make the movie. With Nick Nolte [Paddy], the dad, we spent months together working on the character. Everyone has to do a biography on their own character. I give them a questionnaire with 100 questions to answer. And I want detailed answers. Because that’s what will inform everything, such as the emotional story lines. Then we start doing backstories on the [characters’] histories because since we’re making a movie about a family, there are things that everyone [among the actors and characters] has their own perspective on about what is true. We spent months doing it.
 
Stan Williams: What inner values are motivating Tommy to fight? Is he really trying to make things right with the Marines? Or is there a deeper motivation? Is he looking for an excuse to find forgiveness with his father?

Gavin O’Connor: The intention is that Tommy’s making a statement against God. He’s rejecting everything good. He’s rejecting love. He’s rejecting beauty. He’s rejecting all that is good in his life. There’s an expression, “Hurt people hurt people.” He’s a man who’s living in a lot of pain. And when you live in pain, it’s easy to inflict pain on others because that’s what you’re feeling yourself. I used to say to Tommy [the actor was Tom Hardy], think about Tommy as a guy who’s hitting a crack pipe.

Stan Williams: What’s that like?

Gavin O’Connor: It’s one of the most godless acts you can do. People who smoke crack experience an immediate high. But it’s a false high that goes away very quickly. It happens very quickly and then it goes away quickly. You’re always chasing it; and it’s so destructive. So, I’d say to Tommy, “When you get into the cage, you need to get high. You need to hit the crack pipe so you can actually experience this godless act that makes you feel good in the moment.”  But once it’s over Tommy has to deal with himself again and ask himself, “Who is this guy who’s living in all this pain?” That’s what I was going for with Tommy.

Stan Williams: By the end of the movie Tommy changes, in a surprising way. I promise not to give away the ending. But where does Tommy begin to change? Where does he start to turn and start to embrace the good like he uncharacteristically embraces his father?

Gavin O’Connor: That’s very perceptive. That’s exactly what’s going on. At the top of the movie Tommy’s waiting on the doorstep and he offers his father a bottle of the brand that his father used to love. His father says, “No, thank you.” And we come to learn that Paddy is a thousand days sober. Tommy in essence is becoming his father. And he’s come home to get drunk with him.

Stan Williams: Ah!

Gavin O’Connor: Tommy’s expecting the man he knew as a boy growing up [drunk and abusive]. But it all gets turned upside down. Now his father’s not the man he knew at all. He’s an entirely different human being. And Tommy’s becoming like his father was. So, when Tommy finally gets his father [Paddy] to take a drink and become drunk once again, even while Paddy is listening to Moby Dick on tape as he does throughout whole movie, Paddy [the white whale] gets in Ahab’s face [Tommy] and yells: “Ahab! You godless son-of-a-bitch.” At that point, Tommy sees himself reflected back in his father’s face. It’s an Jungian archetype thing. And that’s the beginning of the surrender. It’s the first time you see Tommy become compassionate toward his father. To be healed, Tommy has to die to self. (2)

Stan Williams: We’re rooting for Brendon, Tommy, and their father, throughout the film. But it’s like Brendon and his Dad are both trying to pull Tommy along.

Gavin O’Connor: Tommy is on this godless path, this warpath of personal destruction of anything in his way — but his father and his brother force him to change.

Stan Williams: In PRIDE AND GLORY there are crucifixes on the wall in everyone’s house, even the bad guy’s. But you don’t bring the spirituality forward as you do at the beginning of WARRIOR. In Tommy’s absence, Paddy has dramatically returned to his Catholic faith and Tommy tears him to shreds over it, as if what Paddy is doing is hypocritical. Why is that? Why the shift from one film to the other? Why did you bring the spirituality forward in WARRIOR?

Gavin O’Connor: I think it was something that was a little more prevalent in my life, and also more prevalent in the characters’ lives. In short, the story demanded it. And I always intended the title, WARRIOR, to be about spiritual warfare, and warrior lives outside of the cage. The intention of the title was never about guys fighting inside [the cage].

Stan Williams: A strong metaphor to be sure. I see that the movie is really about love, but there’s a lot of bitterness, hatred, and violent fighting in the cage. Isn’t love about being kind and gentle?

Gavin O’Connor: If you want to dramatize love you need to see the flip side of it. I think visualizing love is a hard thing to do without seeing the opposite because you want something organic to emerge from it. (4) Then, there’s the balancing act as a filmmaker trying to capture the verisimilitude of this sport, which is violent. But what I was going for, and maybe it doesn’t come through, is to at least root the violence in the characters and never make it gratuitous. It is also mixed martial arts and I also have to shoot the sport in the truthfulness of its intensity, although I tempered it a bit. Once again, that all served the intent of the movie because I was driving toward [the metaphor of a spiritual] intervention in a cage. So, the spirituality in the film and the love in the film and the message of the film were all driving toward those five rounds [at the end] in that cage with the two brothers.

Stan Williams: What I think makes the film unique is that neither are fighting for selfish reasons, not pride, not ego, not to be rich, but for other things. They are both sacrificing themselves, in the cage, for something greater than themselves.

Gavin O’Connor: I think there’s nobility to both of their causes and quests. There’s something beautiful within Tommy’s pain — his loyalty towards what he calls his [Marine] brother, whom he calls Manny, whom he lost. There’s a nobility to what he’s doing – to try to save somebody else. He can’t save himself, but he can honor a promise and save Manny’s wife and children, and give them a life — that sacrifice is really important to him.

Stan Williams: What about Brendon?

Gavin O’Connor: In regard to Brendon, there’s the nobility of fighting for your home, to save your family. But I didn’t just capture it in the movie. As a nation were in the midst of the housing crisis [when we shot the film] and it hasn’t changed three years later [now, during its release]. You have this man being in debt, and because of his mixed martial arts background he literally is able to fight his way out of debt. I thought that was, in a way, wish fulfillment. There are so many men in this country that are on the doorstep of losing their homes and have wives and children and are trying to put food on the table – they’re working several jobs. They’re just trying to keep a roof over their head. So, they’re [figuratively] fighting their way out of debt. But Brendon literally fights his way out of debt. I just thought it was a perfect metaphor to explore.

-------------------
Footnotes

1 When O’Connor and Tambakis were writing WARRIOR, on their door they placed an Aristotle quote: “A convincing impossibility is better than an unconvincing possibility.” That’s good advice for all storytellers.

2 For my Moral Premise readers, this is Tommy’s Moment of Grace. While it does seem that both Brendon and Tommy are co-protagonists, and that is Gavin’s intent, Brendon changes little, and Paddy changes not a bit, although for one scene he slips off the wagon. But Tommy changes a lot. It is Tommy’s arc, not Brendon’s or Paddy’s, that creates the catharsis for the audience at film’s end. For that reason Tommy is the real protagonist, with Brendon and Paddy as the co-protagonists. The antagonist in this film is the bitterness, hatred, and inability to forgive, which is so prevalent in our culture. All of that is metaphorically represented by the hatred we see in the MMA cage and the tournament’s opportunistic promoters. Another way to analyze the characters is that this is a buddy road trip film, with three buddies. Each is the antagonist to the others who are their own protagonists. Remember, antagonists exist to change protagonists. But, however you analyze the film, O’Connor has created a masterful work drawing us in and helping us understanding a bit more about what sacrificial love is all about.

3. For more on the importance of verisimilitude (the quality of realism in film), and how it’s absence can kill the most nobly intended of film projects, see Life As It Is vs. How It Ought To Be.)

4. This is an important point that needs some explanation. When O’Connor says you want something “organic to emerge” from the juxtaposition of hatred and love, he means this: Just saying it, or TELLING it (as in a didactic sermon, homily or teaching) will not connect emotionally or memorably with the audience. Audiences learn through experience (or simulation of the experience which a well produced movie is). It’s the adrenalin rush that creates memories. So, you have to SHOW something with such verisimilitude that it’s ingrained in the audience’s mind, and not just a passing intellectual thought. This explains the power of stories, and why the Bible is 75% narrative.

The Importance of Screenplay Formats

When I posted Judging Script Contests - New Criteria (a.k.a. Laughing Nun with a Ruler) I realized I was stepping on some sacred ground without taking off my shoes. The catalyst was some well-meaning criticism over a script draft I had submitted to a contest. (Something I rarely do.) What were my violations: (a) I used the word "we" in dialogue, and (b) later a few lines, where a character is yelling, were capitalized. The script was also criticized (c) because the opening dialogue didn't give any clear indication of the relationship between characters. [Duh! It was VO of the co-protagonist, from the end of the movie -- foreshadowing the end.]

The emphasis of the previous post was a call-out for contests to do what many studio and agency heads do... they don't ask to see the script first, but rather ask for hooks, log lines, and a one page snyopsis. THEN, if the STORY has some merit at that level, they'll take a look at the script. In addition to those two or three standard items I suggest that those "reading" or looking for stories, add two other very short items to their submission request list: a Conflict of Values and/or the Moral Premise Statement. In other words: what the movie is REALLY about. The log line and often the synopsis will only tell you what's going on physically or visibly. But what REALLY connects with audiences are the character's value motivations that drive the action. (Do I need to say it again, read The Moral Premise.) THEN, if all that seems like there's potential to the story, ASK FOR THE SCRIPT.

FORMAT RULES AND TOOLS

And when the script arrives in a reader's hands, standard formatting rules are really, very important. (See my P.S. as there is really, no standard.) As a writer (and reader) I need them desperately. Over the deacades the standards have developed to the point where anyone with some experience can understand a great deal about a script at a glance, or a scan. And when reading, the various margins, capitalization, and white space, helps us "see" the story, at least in terms of pacing, length, and budget. There's more below from two of my friends.

What tools do I use? In order of importance they are:

1. FINAL DRAFT software (I'm on a Mac). While you can change the format and use different templates for the type of media you're writing (or for whom), the program does come pretty well set up and ready to go. I think I've made only slight adjustments.

2. THE HOLLYWOOD STANDARD (book by Christopher Riley, Michael Wise Books). Chris's book is sandwiched between my Random House dictionary and well-worn Rodale Synonym Finder, just above my computer. I have the pages edge indexed with ink tabs, and I refer to it often. I still find things I want to do that Chris doesn't discuss, so that's when I go to No. 3.

3. Screenplay and script drafts from studio projects I've working on. 

There are half-a-dozen other format reference guides on my shelves, but I essentially ignore them.

Now, for some choice quotes from two friends who wanted to make sure I wrote THIS post; Douglas Lloyd Mcintosh, and Barbara Nicolosi (both credited WGA writers).

From Doug:

Purchase and use Final Draft, the least expensive and most intuitive screenwriting program available. Simply by using the default settings the writer can create a professionally formatted script that will be acceptable almost anywhere. Another thing I like about Final Draft is that it includes a PDF creator so you can turn your formatted script into a file that anyone can read or print out.

As someone who has read literally hundreds of scripts, I can feel a little more sympathy toward judges, readers or producers who don't want to struggle through a script in a format not considered professional by current standards.

I can also sympathize with Mickey Rooney, who has probably read far, far more scripts than you and I put together over his busy professional lifetime. You're absolutely right that three pages is not enough to reach any meaningful story point, but I tell you, on a certain level I have to agree with him. I want a story that grabs you right from the first moment. If a screenwriter has any skill, professionalism, talent and/or the absolutely crucial ability to get you interested in a story and concerned about the fate of the characters, you probably are going to be able to see it within three pages. My experience is that if I'm bored on the first three pages the rest of the script is almost certainly going to be drudgery to read as well. If a reader wants to keep reading after the first three pages, chances are the audience will want to keep watching the film or TV show.

Story structure is extremely important as you well know, but the first test of any film is whether the reader or later the audience wants to find out what's going to happen next. And they should want to find out what's going to happen next every step of the way. It's vital to tell the story in such a way as to keep people turning those pages.

From Barbara:

I wanted to express a brief defense on behalf of those of us who are sticklers about screenwriting grammar, aka formatting.  Considered under a professional lens, formatting is not irrelevant.  In the vast majority of projects, a correctly formatted page equals one minute of time on the screen.  The margins for dialogue are shorter and allow for the actors to add expression.  The longer margins allow the audience to get a good enough look at whatever is being described.  Beyond timing, capitalizations are signposts to casting agents, line producers, directors and DP's for all their respective tasks. 

The best way to consider a screenplay is like unto an architectural drawing.  People outside the profession do not appreciate all the industry standard norms for drawing, and would probably dismiss them.  But they have their uses.  Essential uses from a professional standpoint. 

People who haven't learned the industry standard for formatting are better off writing their story in a straight narrative fashion, as in a treatment.  There are some expectations for a treatment, but few people in the business will quibble over them. 

Thank you both.

I hope this post makes my suggestion in the previous post more clear. I agree with everything you've said. Great feedback.

And now for my

P.S. 

I think the differences between these two posts on script format comes down to this: "Get it close, avoid the gross." Be consistent and follow some sort of logic.  In other words, the general rules apply and the script needs to be close in terms of spacing, font size, and appearance on the page. But, I continue to get scripts from credited filmmakers and A listers that would be rejected at a moments notice by the so call "contests." And people I work with in L.A. say EVERY studio or group has their own format that is different from everyone else in some way that is obvious.

For instance there is no "precise" and "absolute" standard regarding:

SLUG LINES (SCENE HEADINGS)
-- The Order. General to specific, or specific to general.
-- Separators: hypens, spaces, or periods. I've seen them all.
-- FLASHBACK at front or rear or on line by itself.
-- Scene numbers. Yes or No, depending on your preference. Scripts are easier to critique WITH scene numbers.
-- Never put action description in the slug line. I've seen it, but it's stupid.

MARGIN WIDTHS
-- I've seen everything from 3.5 in wide dialogue to 4.75 inches.
-- Page margins are consistent from 1" on top, bottom, and right, and 1.5 on left, with 1/4" variations

ACTION DESCRIPTION
-- I see many gerunds and adverbs. MANY of them.
-- I see many paragraphs that are 8 to 12 lines or more in length.
-- I see descriptions that when broken down will take pages to describe accurately, but in a screenplay they read fine and make sense. They tell the story.

In the end, the script must be formatted exactly, shot for shot, to give the studio an idea of the budget. An independent filmmaker sent me a script recently that she intends to shoot. No one else is involve. Not sure she has the budget, but in such cases a proper format will tell her and her production manager what it will cost to shoot and how many days. But there were scene descriptions of action that rather than taking up the 1/8 of a page that was written, would take 3 pages to shoot.

So, in the end format matters. But the standard is in the reader's head.

Sequel Post: The Importance of Screenplay Formats - Part 2

Judging Script Contests - New Criteria

If you won't believe me in this matter, read Christopher Lockhart's post Screenwriting Contests.



NUN WITH A RULER

I rarely submit to script contests or (minor) film festivals because I think the contest and festival sub-industry needs a new set of rules.

Too often the evaluation criteria focuses on visual format and appearance and not on what's important to the audience—story structure.

The obsession with format and appearance rules (margins, fonts, capitalization, etc -- things which the audience never sees or hears), reminds me of nun running around with a ruler pretending that skirt lengths are an objective measure of spiritual integrity. Then there's the lady in the graduate office with her ruler measuring margins on thesis and dissertation submissions, as if correct margins were a measure of critical thinking. While there COULD be a correlation, there is a better way to evaluate the guts of a good story. And I intend to share that with you below.

I will admit that submitting a script with gross format violations does show a level of disrespect for the industry. But too often it appears that contests are being run by nuns with rulers rather than by judges who understand the rules of story structure.  Let's start with the end in mind: the audience. It's easy to hire a script doctor to correct format issues. It's much more difficult to find a good story.

Recently one of our rare submissions was rejected for the oddest reasons. The rejection rationale, claimed that our script had signs of ameraturism, and a few specifics were mentioned. (We work hard to follow formatting bibles, e.g. Riley's The Hollywood Standard.) But the accusation prompted me to go further and open up a number of scripts I have been sent by A-listers in L.A. for review. I get paid now and then to do such things. Every one of the claimed "amateurisms" in our submitted script could be found in the the scripts of produced films or films in development from major studios on my shelf. Hmmm?

Recently one of my produced writer-director clients in L.A. has been trying to please the head producer of another firm with a story and script to the producer's liking. It seems the producer, like some contest judges, are enamored with a set of easy to understand "rules" or "adages" that (if you put equivocation aside) are clear signs of a good or bad script. It can be frustrating for the writer to convince some folks that what they're asking for are distractions and not essentials. Although this is a subjective industry perhaps there's a way to make it a tad more objective and constructive. 

THE COMMAS AND SHIT

Issac Asimov, it is said about his early days as an author, was an illiterate grammarian, and his editors labored over his work to make them publishable.  Why? Because they were great stories. Had his work been judged under the auspices that grammar and comma placement were sure signs of a good story, the world would have missed the most prolific author the 20th century.

Another case in point is Elmore "Dutch" Leonard. Although I've never read any of his raw manuscripts, this line from GET SHORTY is attributed to his attitude:

You have an idea, you write down what you wanna say. Then you get somebody to add in the commas and shit where they belong...I've seen scripts where I know words weren't spelled right and there was hardly any commas in it at all. So I don't think it's too important.

And it's not unimportant to point out that many of Asimov's and Leonard's stories were successfully made into movies. The question becomes, were their stories accepted because the margins and the commas were in the right place?  Obviously not, because Asimov never was a screenwriter and of Leonard's 31 films  based on his stories, he is credited with screenwriting only nine. So, obviously, a good story for making into a movie is based on something other than the format, grammar, and comma placement.

ME AND MICKEY ROONEY

Why then all the rules about judging screenplays based on format, and easy visual cues? Because it's easy. There are too many crappy stories out there, in the form of screenplays, and so readers take the easy way out.

But even taking a little longer and reading the first ten pages can not tell you if there's a good story present or not.  Ten pages does not even get to the first turning point of a classic beat sheet, which for a 110-140 page script would be between page 13-18.

I once cornered Mickey Rooney in a Canadian Golf Course's Pro Shop. Really. I handed him a script...saying there was a part in it for him. He took it and said, "Okay, I'll give you three pages. That's all I'll need." How could he possibly do that? Of course he couldn't.

So, here are the rules that I wish such festivals and contests of scripts, (and stars et al) would follow. They make more sense than looking at commas, margins and capitalization. Using these rules might just result in some better stories coming out of Hollywood that would better connect with audiences. The industry needs it.

THE CRITERIA - SCRIPTS OF VALUE

Let's strive for stories (and scripts) of value, not success. In that spirit I offer the contribution below.

All script submissions should include:

A. Title (plus, if based on another IP who owns it)
B. Genre and estimated MPAA rating
C. Target Audience (demo or psycho-graphics)
D. Estimated budget
E. Hook
F. Log Line
G. Inner (psychological) Conflict of Values 
H. Moral Premise Statement
I. One page synopsis (450 words) or Beat Sheet Outline
J. Script/Screenplay

Note: Items A through D cannot be judged, but do help evaluate later criteria. The evaluation begins with E through J, and the generic question for each is, "Is it good? "

That is, am I intrigued by:
E. The hook?
F. The log line?
G. The values in conflict? (the core conflict)
H. The Moral Premise? (what the movie is really about)
I. The One Page Synopsis or beat outline?

Notice, we haven't cracked the script yet.

If the answer to any two of those questions (of items E-I) is a firm "no," then judges should reject the submission for the reasons noted.  If they get all "yeses" for E through I and get to J, then they might want to crack the script.

Opinion and taste are always present, and a judge should readily admit it. But to confuse "opinion" with "amateur" is disingenuous. I have a shelf full of scripts that have been produced by A-listers that contain so called  "amateurisms".

Here's my evaluation recommendations:

Item E: HOOK
Question: Does the hook suggest an impossibility or improbability that is viscerally engaging?
Answer: Yes - Maybe - No.
Rejection Reason: Hook is not viscerally engaging to reader. "A convincing impossibility is better than a unconvincing possibility." (Aristotle)


Item F: LOG LINE
Question: Does the log line describe or imply the following elements:

• F1: The protagonist
• F2: The type of "struggle"
• F3: The antagonist
• F4: The protagonist's physical goal
• F5: The stakes of the goal is not reached?
• F6: (optional) Is it visceral?
• Not Evaluated: Cleverness of words.

Answer: Yes - May - No.
Rejection Reason: The log line is missing an element. The story's essence requires clear physical conflict and goals.

Item G: INNER CONFLICT OF VALUE
[This item may only be clear to those who have read my book, The Moral Premise. The Conflict of Values is something that is at the motivational core of every successful story, whether or not a writer understands it or can articulate it. If the protagonist's and the antagonist's motivational values are not naturally opposing, there is not going to be a cogent story. But a story may be cogent and reflect organic conflict even if the writer is clueless about the conflict of values. ]

Question: Are the stated conflict of values natural opposite and generally accepted as universal values by the target audience?
Answer: Yes - Maybe - No.
Rejection Reason: The conflict of values are not naturally opposing and would not organically cause a conflict between the protagonist and the antagonist elements.
 (or) The values in conflict are not universally (or subliminally) understood or held to by the target audience.

Item H: THE MORAL PREMISE STATEMENT (MPS)
[I have also referred to this (perhaps more accurately) as the Moral-Physical Premise Statement (MPPS). Again, without reading The Moral Premise or having knowledge about this through another source such as my blog or essays, this may need some explaining that I will not do here. I will, however, explain this much: The MPPS ties together the moral motivation of both sides of the story's characters and their resulting physical consequences in a way that is understood by the audience to be natural, organic, and universally true.]
Question: Will the moral premise statement SUBLIMINALLY be understood by the target audience to be natural, organic, and universally true?
Answer: Yes - Maybe - No
Rejection Reason: The MPPS will not be subliminally understood by the target audience to be naturally, organic and universally true.

Item I: SYNOPSIS (OR BEAT SHEET OUTLINE)
Question: Does the synopsis (or beat sheet outline) clearly describe the main turning points of a story in the chosen genre? For instance: Does the protagonist have a clear psychological need and a physical goal that at first are rejected? Is there an inciting incident? Is there a mid-point (a Moment of Grace) where the protagonist either rejects or accepts the underlying psychological truth about which the movie is really about? Is there a near death (or faux ending) as a result of the protagonist's efforts to achieve his or her goal? Is there a final incident where the antagonist attacks, threatens the stakes and ends the movie early? And is there a resolved ending, redemptive or tragic?  (Yes, a European movie would have a different structure?)
Answer: Yes - Some - No
Rejection Reason: There is no cogent structure that the reader can understand. (or) One or more critical story structural elements are missing.


Item J: THE SCRIPT/SCREENPLAY
[My bias here is that successful stories are not dependent on strict rules of format, but on the structural elements above. So, while the following are important, a script doctor can fix most of them if the story is otherwise sound.]
Question: To what degree are the following elements engaging, understood, and easily read:
a. Action descriptions
b. Interior motivations
b. Dialogue
c. Characterization
d. Scene structure (timing, beginning, middle, end, conflict)
e. Page format (is it close? does it cheat and lie about the film's length)
f. Page count (80-140).  I have received scripts that were over 300 pages in length. I did not read them.
g. Spelling and Typos. (Allow 1 per page but don't count them if you can understand easily what's being said.)
i. Dramatic execution of the turning points.
j. Other....
Answers: For each: Yes - Maybe - No.
Rejection Reason: List and comment.

A Convincing Impossibility Makes the Best Story

This is a post about STORY HOOKS that could have appeared in my review of WARRIOR. 

Also, Hooks and Log Lines go together. So here's a link to my post on creating good Log Lines.

====

I encourage my students to start developing their stories with a nearly impossible physical hook, and then as the story takes shape to stick close to the psychological truth of natural law.  Taking a line from comedy development, a good story will "tell a lie that tells the truth". The LIE is the physical hook (it's an impossibility). But the TRUTH is the moral motivation that drives the action. The two together ensure you will engage your audience.

Storytellers are typically allowed only one hook per story. Everything else must be true in a physical sense. But EVERYTHING in the psychological world must be true. No moral hook is allowed. 

So, with that here's a quote from the production notes of WARRIOR written by the director Gavin O'Conner and Anthony Tambakis.  Emphasis mine.

O'Connor's original, enduring story idea was one about two brothers who haven't seen each other in fourteen years and end up fighting for the world championship, both coming up as extreme underdogs. Although on paper the story might sound farfetched,  the door to the room where Anthony Tambakis and Gavin wrote bore a sing with the Aristotle quote: "A convincing impossibility is better than an unconvincing possibility". To them, this mean that in the world of fiction, anything is possible if it's told truthfully.

The impossibility is the physical hook, and to that O'Connor and Tambakis emphases the importance of telling the story truthfully. So, if I can channel Aristotle and O'Conner here's what I'll put outside my door the next time I write a story:

A convincing impossibility told truthfully

is better than an unconvincing possibility told falsely.

BTW: the original Aristotle quote from POETICS found in my Samuel Henry Butcher based translation is this, [with an editorial correction by me]:

The poet should prefer probable impossibilities to improbable possibilities. ... Once the [impossibility] has been introduced and an air of likelihood imparted to it, we must accept it in spite of the absurdity. (ARISTOTLE: On Man in the Universe. Classics Club Edition. Walter J. Black, Inc., Roslyn, N.Y.. p. 439).

In other words, a possible story that ignores the natural laws of morality is no match for an impossibility story told with moral integrity.

And now a word from a pretty good story writer:
 

 ===========
Amended 5/28/13

Critics of Hollywood often point to the a motion picture's overt exaggeration of character trait or story arc. The claim is that the exaggeration is not "real" and therefore invalid. Aside from the boredom factor of watching the story about a man who shops for groceries and comes home to fix dinner as a regular occurrence with associated drama, the criticism ignores the purpose of stories in culture, which I cover elsewhere.

In talking about hooks and story impossibilities, here's the seminal quote (emphasis mine):

In general, the impossible must be justified by reference to artistic requirements, or to the higher reality, or to received opinion. With respect to the requirements of art, a probable impossibility is to be preferred to a thing improbable and yet possible. Again, it may be impossible that there should be men such as Zeuxis painted. 'Yes,' we say, 'but the impossible is the higher thing; for the ideal type must surpass the reality.' To justify the irrational, we appeal to what is commonly said to be. In addition to which, we urge that the irrational sometimes does not violate reason; just as 'it is probable that a thing may happen contrary to probability.'

[POETICS by Aristotle (translated by S.H.Butcher). XXV. Critical Objections brought against Poetry, and the principles on which they are to be answered. http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/ari/poe/poe26.htm]

 A couple of terms jump out when I look at the original. "higher reality," "Impossibility," and "type"; which reminds me of this:

To the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind you draw large startling figures. 

[Flannery O'Connor]

A story's "hook" is all this, and is a necessity for a story to connect. Stories need impossible hooks. These are brought to mind by the concept of type. Types shout. Types draw startling figures. Types, when done properly (like similes and metaphors) do get people's attention because they are not natural, surreal, other-worldly, interesting, and out of the mundane. 

The concept of "type" is worth underscoring. "Types" are like figures of speech. Types exaggerate a particular trait or facet of the story for the sake of underscoring an attribute of the moral or point. Noah taking eight souls on board an ark (along with a host of animals) while all other animal life perishes, is an exaggeration compared to what it foreshadows — Christian baptism, in which no one dies. The same is true of Moses leading the Children of Israel through the Red Sea at the expense of Pharaoh's army. That story also foreshadows Christian baptism. To get the point across, the flood and the Red Sea crossing both sound like impossibilities, and thus accentuate the higher and more important, but less dramatic, thing. They becomes surreal stories that seem to surpass reality, in order to highlight the attributes of the reality. They are thus TYPES.

When Sandra Bullock won her Academy Award for acting in THE BLIND SIDE she thanked the Tuohy's for allowing the them to "exaggerate" their lives. The exaggeration was necessary to convey the finer points of Michael Orr's and Lee Anne Tuohy's lives.

Life as it is... vs... as it ought to be.

REALITY VS. OUGHT TO BE

A great quote from a blog by Daniel McInerny (Graham Greene on the Art of Storytelling) who quotes Graham Greene (talking about cinema) quoting Chekhov (talking about novels).  Thus, I quote McInerny so like a good chain letter you can pass it on and we'll all be remembered. Uh-huh.

Here it is (my emphasis):

‘The best of them (novels/movies) are realistic and paint life as it is, but because every line is permeated, as with a juice, by awareness of a purpose, you feel, besides life as it is, also life as it ought to be, and this captivates you.’ This description of an artist’s theme [continues Greene] has never, I think, been bettered…

Had I come across Chekhov's quote when I was writing The Moral Premise I would have included the quote at the beginning of a chapter. 

When Chekhov says "this captures you" he's referring to audience identification in the moral sense. That is, you are aware that the immoral actions, motivations, and words enacted by a character do not reveal the best of humankind, or even what the character is capable of. That sense of rightness and wrongness comes through in the context of the writing, whether it be a screenplay or novel. That sense of "life as it ought to be" is the moral conscience of the writer communicated to the audience, who knows in their heart (if not in their actions) the difference between moral virtue and vice. Such conflict is absolutely necessary to engage the reader or spectator. And notice Greene's use of the term "theme" which is the root from which a moral premise is derived.

We watched Gavin O'Connor's PRIDE AND GLORY (Hard-R) the other night on our Apple Box, which deals with a multi-generational family of New York's "Finest" who struggle with where the line is between right and wrong. They joined the police force for the pride and the glory. O'Conner's story, which he co-wrote and directed, reveals that when even a taint of corruption enters in a cop's life, the pride and the glory evaporate as fast as a bullet can leave a gun's muzzle. It's the writer's honest revelation of reality in the context of hope and goodness, that allows the audience to know what "ought to be." 

What Chekhov quote begins with these words "realistic and paint life as it is". There's a term for that, which O'Connor uses to describe his work: Verisimilitude (or truthlikeness)—the quality of realism in something (such as film, literature, the arts, etc). 

THE PROBLEM OF BELLA

Verisimilitude's virtue reminds me also of a lesson that I saw in the making a few years back. This lesson reminded me that if you want mainstream audiences to see your movie (and hear your message) then you have to meet them where they are and reflect reality to them as they understand it.  If you don't, then they can't follow your story, let along understand the moral message in it -- if that's important to you -- and should be if you want your movie to be entertaining. (Yes, there's a direct connection between a film's moral message and entertainment. They are two sides of the same coin. See FIRST ENTERTAIN.)   

The lesson involved the movie BELLA which was suppose to be an anti-abortion film... which in my thinking probably involves some sexual content. (I don't need to spell that out for you,  do I?)  Because BELLA was a hit at the Toronto Film Festival with audiences, many people thought it was going to clean up at the box office. I didn't see the screening in Toronto, but some suggested that the producers (as offen happens at festivals), stacked the theater with supporters. 

Regardless, after an early promotional screening (between Toronto and the film's theatrical release) I met one of the producers and chatted. I was concerned because he had just apologized to the very conservative Catholic audience about something that evidently had been pointed out to them as "offensive" and they promised to remove it before the film was released to theaters. What was the "offensive" element? The sound of the protagonist urinating on a pregnancy test strip. There was ONLY the sound. No picture. And the fact that she was to discover she was pregnant was critical to the story's plot. It was a major turning point in the story. You have to SHOW such things. But the producer's didn't show it, they let you hear it. And then they were going to remove the "hearing" of it.  To me this attitude was the death knell of the movie; which explained why I thought the movie was modestly boring to begin with. This harkens back to Chekhov's observation.

BELLA's producers, in their desire to not offend anyone in the audience with visuals or dialogue (and also get grassroots support for the film when it hit theaters), screened the movie dozens of times with conservative Christian audiences. And they made changes based on the feedback from those audiences. They wanted to produce a "pro-life" "anti-abortion" film that didn't offend their conservative supporters. They cleaned and cleaned the edit -- until it was antiseptic of reality's edge. In their striving for truth, the missed verisimilitude or truthlikeness. The result? A box office bomb.

Here's some more evidence about that conclusion.

That same year there were two other "pro-life" "anti-abortion" films that came out. The films were KNOCKED UP and JUNO. These two films found the right balance. They realistically painted life as it is, but permeated the scenes with the juice of what it ought to be. Great balance, and great entertainment. Check out the worldwide box office scores, divide by $5 and you'll know about how many people saw each film:

BELLA (PG-13) -          $12,083,296  (02 M tickets)

KNOCKED UP (R) -   $219,076,518  (44 M tickets)

JUNO (PG-13)  -        $231,411,584  (46 M tickets)

Two of these films went mainstream, the other one was only seen by a very small niche, that had probably already seen the film during the screening tour.  You have to ask yourself the proverbial question:  "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it fall, did it make any noise?" 

One final note I found particular ironic. Notice that BELLA garnered a PG-13 rating. That baffled me. I would have guessed PG at most. Here's what the film rating board said:

BELLA - "PG-13 for thematic elements and brief disturbing images."

Now here's the ratings why for the other two films:

KNOCKED UP - "R for sexual content, drug use, and language."

JUNO - "PG-13 for mature thematic material, sexual content and language."

Do you notice how one of these is not the same as the others? (I learned this watching Sesame Street with my kids. Okay, I was watching after my kids graduated from college.)

BELLA was suppose to be about sex. But sex, which the reality of American culture "worships", was evidently absent from the film -- at least to the point that the ratings board didn't think the film had any sexual content. So much for reality. 

To close, one more reminder of what Chekhov wrote:

‘The best of them (novels/movies) are realistic and paint life as it is, but because every line is permeated, as with a juice, by awareness of a purpose, you feel, besides life as it is, also life as it ought to be, and this captivates you.’

In other words...when you do this, there's chance that people will see your movie.

WARRIOR (2011) - A FIGHT FILM LIKE NO OTHER

My thanks to Mary Kochan of CatholicLane for her editorial assistance. Catholic Lane published this review on August 24, 2011.

Director: GAVIN O'CONNOR

Writers: GAVIN O'CONNOR (screenplay), Cliff Dorfman (screenplay, story)

Starring

Tom Conlon - TOM HARDY

Brendan Conlon - JOEL EDGERTON

Paddy Conlon - NICK NOLTE

Tess Conlon - JENIFOR MORRISON

Frank Campana - FRANK GRILLO

Release Date: September 9, 2011

LIONSGATE

RATING: PG-13 for fight sequences and language.

[This is mostly a review of the film. I'll do a little moral premise analysis at the end.]

Synopsis
Tommy Colon and Brendan Conlon are estranged brothers who end up fighting each other inside a cage for the Mixed Martial Arts championship popular with ex-marines. At first punch and bruise (and there are a lot of them in this movie) it appears to be just another pugilistic movie filled with gratuitous violence designed to entertain the battered minds of a bitter disenfranchised generation. And it may be all that — but only in part. For this story is a gripping, won’t-let-you-go study of what it means to fight for noble causes, what it means to love, forgive, and find redemption.

Haunted by a tragic past, Marine Tommy Conlon (Hardy) returns home for the first time in fourteen years to enlist the help of Paddy, his father (Nick Nolte). Tommy wants Paddy, a recovering alcoholic who’s returned to his Catholic faith, to help him train for Sparta, the biggest winner-takes-all event in mixed martial arts (MMA) history – with a $5 million purse. A former wrestling prodigy, Tommy blazes a path toward the championship with quick, frightening knockouts. Meanwhile, his brother, Brendan (Edgerton), an ex-MMA fighter-turned high school physics teacher, returns to the ring in a desperate bid to save his family from financial ruin (the bank is ready to foreclose on their house). To the ringside crowd and the sports commentators (played by themselves), Tommy is a mystery fighter that came out of nowhere while Brendan is an over-the-hill fighter who is expected to be dispatched in the first round.

But what the experts don’t know is what’s driving the two men. Neither are fighting for glory, money, or egos — but something much more important — the redemption of their lives, which is complicated by a father they both despise for abusing their mother so badly that she ran for her life from him years earlier. “Pop” has now been sober for 1,000 days, has returned in a meaningful way to his Christian faith, and agrees to coach the deeply bitter Tommy even though ringside Paddy roots for Brendan. In the end, the two brothers must confront each other and the forces that originally pulled them apart in the MMA finals. The climax is perhaps one of the most unforgettable in the history of cinema.

The uniqueness of the story is that neither Tommy nor Brendan are fighting for personal glory. Tommy is an AWOL marine from Iraq. Why he’s AWOL harkens back to the story of Ishmael and Moby Dick and the biblical story of Job. Throughout the movie, Paddy (Pop) listens to Moby Dick on tape, and in a climax of his own, Paddy confronts the forces of nature that he (like Ahab) has brought upon his crew/family. Tommy is fighting for the families of the marines that were lost on the tragic day in Iraq that sent him running. He feels guilty that he alone survived and winning the $5 million dollar purse, which he intends to give to the families of his deceased warrior friends, will go a long way to erase his guilt for not dying with his comrades in arms.

Meanwhile, Brendan, who long ago gave up a successful career as a MMA fighter to become a humble but popular high-school physics teacher, gets upside down on his mortgage, and a hawk-like loan officer isn’t going to lose any sleep about foreclosing on Brendan, his wife and kids. But then, when Brendan begins to moonlight as a MMA fighter again, and wins a fight in the parking lot outside a local strip club bringing home the $500 purse to pay on the mortgage, the school board suspends him from his job without pay. Fighting outside strip clubs isn’t exactly the role model the school expects of its teachers.  In this there is humor when  his school principal ends up cheering him on with every ounce of his being. Also coming to his support is his wife, Tess who initially tells him: “I will not watch you fight” — but nonetheless puts her heart in the ring with him. As the audience, we cheer Brendan on as well, because, as his trainer tells him when he’s about to lose the second round championship fight, “Why are we here? If you don’t knock him out you don’t have a home.”

Dual Protagonists?
I want to say that the movie has two (dual) protagonists, Tommy and Brendan. But that isn’t really true. Brendan is the protagonist, and Tommy is the antagonist. Each has a tangible, physical goal, yet each is prevented from reaching that goal until they confront the psychological vice that blocks their progress — each must confront the truth that the movie is about (see “The Moral Premise” below). One of the endearing qualities of the picture is that the audience wants both Tommy and Brendan to win for different noble reasons. Consequently, the irony behind their estrangement makes the final two rounds of the final fight a love affair, in a very real way. I won’t reveal the ending here; it must be experienced. But I am looking forward to watching the movie again when it’s released to theaters and I can vote with my wallet.

Metaphor and Redemption
WARRIOR is like DIE HARD in the metaphor department , and both movies use the same theme music “Ode to Joy” that you may know as ” Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee.” Few women or mothers may understand what I write next, unless they are responsible for earning the family income and paying the bills. I suspect that most responsible men (and I consider myself one of them) have battled month after month, most of their lives, trying to pay bills and keep the family’s financial head above water. It is a constant battle in our consumer, materialistic society, where even as Christians we’re even harangued into giving every last dollar to the thousands of worthy causes that make us feel guilty if we don’t give way beyond our means. In DIE HARD, John McClain battles a tower filled with terrorists, who end up humbling John’s arrogance so John is ready to be a loving, caring and serving husband once again. The bloody fight with Hans Gruber and company is a metaphor for what John’s going through psychologically to get his wife back.

In WARRIOR the physical fighting is a metaphor for the psychological battle Brendan and Tommy (and Paddy/Pop) go through to find psychological redemption, and financial security as well.  The fighting seems over the top and gratuitous until the last moments of the film, and then the metaphor and the brutality make sense. Watch and listen carefully to the last moments of the final fight. Sit on the edge of your seat and don’t miss it. What happens… what both men do… is nearly impossible for any other man to do in most casual situations, let along a championship MMA fight in front of millions on live TV.

Thus, the story beat that will grab you is how the brothers reconcile with each other and their father. It doesn’t seem possible, but then miracles do happen.

Moral Premise
If you’ve read my book, The Moral Premise, then you know that all successful movies (indeed, all successful stories in any medium) are about a conflict of values that prevent all of the main characters from achieving their physical, or outward, goals, until they confront the psychological blockage in their system of moral values. In WARRIOR the conflict of values is about bitterness vs. forgiveness. And until forgiveness takes place, no one is going to win any fight. Here’s WARRIOR’s moral premise statement:

Bitterness leads to hatred and separation; but

Forgiveness leads to love and relationship.

In Conclusion
WARRIOR is an exciting and engaging human drama film, with award winning acting, direction, sound, editing, and a genre setting benchmark ending. It’s an Oscar contender and worthy film for adults and mature teens that explores the values in the human condition that are worth fighting for.

American Christian Fiction Writers Conference - Early Bird Workshop

On September 22, 2011, in St. Louis, I'm presenting the five-hour long Early Bird Workshop for the annual American Christian Fiction Writer's Conference. Individuals who are registered for the workshop should be getting an email notice of what I'm posting below so they can come prepared by pre-reading and viewing the works I'll be referencing.

I'm posting it here for convenience, since the ACFW Conference cannot post it on their website. In case you're wondering if you want to attend (my workshop) the following provides the antecedents of my examples.  If  you want to know "generally" the outline of my workshop you can read about that HERE. Although what I do in St. Louis will be significantly abbreviated due to time and revised to include some novels in the mix.

I've also decided to spend more time than I have in the past on examples and clips, since SHOWING is far better than TELLING. (As a writer, have you heard someone tell you that before?)  I love sharing this stuff and revealing the secrets of what makes great stories and movies. The title of my talk will be The Top 20 Secrets to Successful Storytelling (in Movies and Print).

========

Early Bird Workshop Reading/Viewing List

ACFW Conference September 22, 2011

Dear Early Bird Attendees:

In the course of the few hours we will spend together exploring the world of story structure, and the magic of moral and physical premises, I will reference a number of motion pictures and novels. You will get more out of the workshop if you are familiar with the following works. I am listing them in two categories:

I will spend the most time on these works:

• “Where the Heart Is” (novel by Billie Letts)

and the following movies

• DIE HARD (Bruce Willis)
• KARATE KID 2010 (Jaden Smith, Jackie Chan)
• RATATOUILLE  (Pixar)
• WHERE THE HEART IS (Natalie Portman)

I will mention these works but not spend as much time on them:

•  “The Mark of the Lion” novel series by Francine Rivers

and the following movies:

• A BEAUTIFUL MIND (Russell Crowe, Ed Harris)
• BRUCE ALMIGHTY (Jim Carrey)
• CITY SLICKERS (Billy Crystal)
• CITY SLICKERS II (Billy Crystal)
• CRAZY HEART (Jeff Bridges)
• DATE NIGHT (Steve Carell, Tina Fey)
• GRAN TORINO (Clint Eastwood)
• IN THE BEDROOM (Tom Wilkinson, Sissy Spacek)
• LIAR! LIAR! (Jim Carrey)
• MY NAME IS EARL (TV) (Jason Lee)
• PRECIOUS (Gabourey Sidibe, Mo’Nique, Mariah Carey)
• THE BLIND SIDE (Sandra Bullock, Quinton Araron)
• THE INCREDIBLES (Pixar)
• WHAT WOMEN WANT (Mel Gibson, Helen Hunt)

I’m looking forward to meeting you and sharing with you the excitement and focus that this workshop will give your story writing.

Please share this with your other writing friends and associates.

Stan

When an Actor Asks: "WHAT DO I WANT?"

I'm working on an analysis of Billie Letts' book WHERE THE HEART IS for my Early Bird Workshop at the annual American Christian Fiction Writers Conference September 22 in St. Louis. Because I use movie clips in my presentations, I will illustrate my analysis of Letts' book with clips from Matt Williams' movie, the screenplay of which was written by the two guys in the picture, Lowell Ganz (left) and Babaloo Mandell (right).  Ganz and Mandell are two of the most sought after writers in Hollywood, with a long list of credits and awards to their names.

In an Ari Esiner article with the writing duo:

Ganz says his earliest writing lesson came from actor Jack Klugman on The Odd Couple TV show. When presented with Ganz's script, Klugman walked up to the writer and promptly shouted in his face, "What do I want?" And there endeth the lesson on the foremost rule of writing for the young television scribe: always have your characters want something. 

In the last month I've reviewed the work of numerous writers (both professional, and students) and this Ganz observation must be one of the most often violated principles of story writing. Characters always need an outward motivation, a physical goal — they must always want something. They don't necessarily NEED what they want, and what they want might be impossible to achieve because of an inner flaw (a psychological vice).... but they must want it. 

AND, the audience or reader must know they want it.

While screening KNIGHT AND DAY, starring Tom Cruise (Roy Miller) and Cameron Diaz (June Havens), I was astonished at how quickly writer Patrick O'Neill and director James Mangold tell the audience what the main characters want... on a number of levels. The movie is one long chase scene, so to keep the plot and the chase interesting, giving depth to the characters, both Roy and June have multiple goals related to different aspects of their lives.

• Roy's professional goal is to keep the Zephyr battery and its eccentric inventory away from the bad guys.
• Roy's personal goal is to take a vacation by driving to Cape Horn.
• Roy's romantic goal is to keep June from harm.
• Roy's family goal is to be reunited with his parents who think he is dead.
• June's professional goal is to restore her dad's GTO (she owns a garage back in Boston).
• June's personal goal is to give the GTO to her sister to keep it in the family.
• June's romantic goal is to land Roy.
• June's family goal is to get to her sister's wedding.

Thus, depending on the scene, the audience always has several things to root for. 

THE REASON WE ROOT FOR CHARACTERS

Now, why do we root for characters? Why do we want them to get what they want?

Because we like them. 

In narrative theoretical terms, we identify with them. Michael Hauge says there are five ways you, as the writer, can foster likeability in a character:

1. Make the character sympathetic, the victim of undeserved misfortune.
2. Put the character in jeopardy. We ID with people we worry about.  Many stories start with an orphan.
3. Make character likable, kind, goodhearted. They need to be relatable, not likable.
4. Make characters funny. We like to be with people who make us feel good about ourselves or have the courage to say things we don't.
5. Make characters powerful, or very good at what they do.

So, do we like Roy Miller and June Havens? Sure. June is undeserved in her misfortune of being tangled up with Roy, and is therefore in great and repeated jeopardy. She's also an orphaned traveler being kicked off her flight. She is goodhearted and kind. She's funny and encouraging. And she's very good at what she does, which we discover as she explains to the TSA agent the tailpipes and carburator in her carry on baggage. It also doesn't hurt that June comes packaged in Cameron Diaz's body,  quirky smile, and damsel in distress persona.

Likewise, Roy seems to have been thrown undeserved misfortune when he is overpowered by both the Federal government and the bad guy cartel. We worry about him, because he's a spy without backup, and later a boy without his mom and dad -- a orphan. He's goodhearted in that he repeatedly protects, selflessly hapless June. His nonchalant way of dispatching bad guys is sarcastic and funny. And he's very good at what he does. Oh, yes, he has a million dollar smile and he's a hunk with sex appeal.

All together these are personas we'd like to hang around with. We wish we had them for friends. So, we root for them and hope they get everything they want. And by the end of the movie it seems they do. Cape Horn sequel anyone? Mom and dad and flying down.