Hello, screenwriters.  We are on a tear, delving deeply into structure and what makes a film work.  As you know, all these posts are written to give you information you wouldn’t normally receive in your typical screenwriting workshop, screenwriting class or screenwriting course.  This is no exception.

The reason structure is more critical to screenwriting than in fiction or even playwriting is that we have so little time to tell our story.  When you think about it, we’re creating fully developed characters (who evolve through the course of the story), we’re telling a compelling plot with twists and turns and we’ve probably got a subplot going as well.  We’re doing all that in 100 to 110 pages.  No line of narrative can be superfluous, nor any exchange of dialogue.  Everything has to be there for a reason.

It’s very highly charged writing which does not allow for extra baggage, extra characters, extra description or extra dialogue.  Naturally, the structure has to be precise as well.  Everything has to be there for a reason.

You’re in effect building a house.  That’s what your structure is.  You’re laying the foundation for the entire story.  If you think about this analogy, building a house, if the foundation is faulty in the home your build, it doesn’t matter how well constructed the windows or doors are, they are going to collapse if the foundation they stand on is askew.

The structure is the most important part of your story.  But at the same time, it’s not just a mechanical construct.  It has to live and breathe.  It has to relate to the characters and how they behave and how they grow during the course of the story.

In other words, structure cannot be separated from the humanity of your characters.  And that’s where a lot of the so-called pundits get structure wrong.  They’re trying to impose a mechanical way of thinking (on this page, so and so happens and this page that happens), which makes for stories that are formulaic.

When we take the great action movies – Lethal Weapons for example.  I just saw that for the umpteenth time on HBO – when we see a movie like this with a decent plot and a good foundation – that is, at this point, we get our plot points, and at this point the character faces the villain, and at this point the character faces the lowest point in the story – it all works but that doesn’t explain why Lethal Weapon is a classic and still stands up and why any movie with Steven Segal doesn’t.  Why is the structure of Lethal Weapon so much more satisfying than the typical action film?

It’s because the structure is actually based on character.  The Mel Gibson protagonist has such a great character arc and feels so real and organic that the structure is really based on that – not on arbitrary story points or plot points.

A story works because of the characters.  This is what we can learn from great screenwriters like Waldo Salt, who wrote Midnight Cowboy and Coming Home.  He got to the heart of the matter when he said the great movies are all about how deeply we are connected to the protagonist.  This has to relate to structure.  Structure is laying out the fundamentals of this connection.

I will talk more about structure in my webinar.  I’ll take you through the most popular presentations of structure:  Blake Edwards “Saving The Cat,” Syd Fields work and how Christ Vogler uses Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey to teach structure.

All of these presentations have something to teach us and I will end with my own way of helping screenwriters think of structure.  You can join webinar by going to the following link: http://bit.ly/EasyStructure

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

Hello, screenwriters.  As I repeat again and again, I’m here to provide insights you wouldn’t normally hear in your typical screenwriting workshop, screenwriting class or screenwriting course.  This is clearly relevant for this talk as we’re speaking today about structure and there is a great to learn about this subject.

Whenever I have new writers into my private screenwriting workshops the one area they have the most trouble with is this.  And if they believe the pundits on this topic, they somehow think the key to creating a great structure is to follow a certain formula – like Blake Snyder’s in “Saving The Cat.”

The formula is relatively easy to master.  By the way, I will be covering all the most prevalent theories on structure on Wednesday, February 5^th at 1:00.  It’s a webinar I’m giving on this topic for The Writers Store.  It will be archived for a year so you don’t have to hear it live but can tune in for the lecture anytime for the next year.  Watch out for the link I will provide on this site so you can join us.

I will lay out exactly how structure is described by Blake Synder, Syd Fields and Chris Vogler, as I believe their take on the subject has been the most prevalent.  They all have something to teach us but as I pointed out last week, they all somehow miss the mark.

Why is that?  Why is it easier to lay out a formula as Blake Snyder does and then instruct writers to simply follow the formula and they will master story structure?

Because stories aren’t really about formulas.  If you follow easy formulas, you will get formulaic movies, exactly what Blake Snyder accomplished in his own writing career.

No, great screenplays aren’t created by following formulas.  They are about something else.  And that something else isn’t easily codified.  They have to do with characters and character growth.  When you really look at why a movie works or doesn’t work, it’s always because we get deeply connected to the characters.  If you look at what I consider the best movies of 2013 (Her and the Dallas Buyers Club), those screenplays are exceptional because of the characters and the bond we form with them.

So can we really separate character growth, also known as the character arc, with structure?  No.  And this is the reason it’s easier to talk about structure as some formula which we can follow page by page and then somehow crack what the spine of the story is about.  I’m afraid not.

Because understanding what makes a great character is not easy to define or teach.  I can tell you on this page you need that, and on that page you need this, but I haven’t really gotten to the heart of the matter – what makes a great screenplay.

It’s something that has more to do with our understanding of humanity.  How does someone break through the barriers of their background (their fears, limitations, blocks and wounds) as Dave Freeman likes to say?  How do we convincingly show the greatest drama of all – the drama of character growth?  How does Matthew McConaughey for example in Dallas Buyers Club (screenplay by Craig Borten and Melisa Wallack) go from being an alcoholic, homophobic sex addict to being an heroic gay activist who puts it all on the line to help himself and others?

There’s no formula for that.  You have to understand people and how they change and how incredibly hard that is.  You have to have a deep compassion for your characters.  And you have to chart out that character growth step by step so it feels real.  If you’ve never yourself faced your own demons and done battle I’m not sure how well you can do this.  For it takes a tremendous understanding and insight into ourself and others.

We’ll speak more about this subject in the coming weeks.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

Hello, screenwriters.  As you know, I do this to provide professional guidance you don’t normally get in your typical screenwriting course, screenwriting workshop or screenwriting class.  This post definitely fits that bill.

I’m now launching into a new topic:  Structure.  This is probably the most misunderstood area of screenwriting there is and the area most beginning writers have the most trouble with.

I am going to do an extensive webinar on this subject for the Writers Store on Wednesday, February 5^th at 1:00 pm.  You can attend this webinar anytime in the next 12 months so you don’t necessarily need to hear it live.  I’ll be announcing this event in the coming weeks so look for the link so you can be a part of this.  I promise you it will be money well spent.

And as a side note, if you don’t live in L.A., this is the best way to get connected to what we offer here in Hollywood.  If you live in the area, you can attend workshops by professionals (like myself), go to networking events and get great information about what’s going in the screenwriting world.  If you don’t live in L.A., listening to webinars like this is the best next thing.  I encourage you to take full advantage of this.

Okay, so what is structure and why do writers get so confused about it?  We have many screenwriting gurus who have written books about structure, including Syd Fields, Blake Snyder and Chris Vogler.  I’m going to cover all these approaches during my webinar in the simplest way possible.  I think in a way they all miss the mark.

Structuring a screenplay or stage play for that matter hasn’t really changed since the Greeks – Aristotle wrote about it thousands of years ago and story structure hasn’t really fundamentally evolved in all that time.  If you have read Moliere or Shakespeare or William Goldman, they’re all basically following the same formula – Every great story has a beginning, a middle and an end.  So why all the massive confusion?

I think the reason for this is that screenwriting pundits like Blake Synder confuse plot with structure.  Let’s take an example of this:  the true story of The Dallas Buyers Club, one of the best movies of 2013.  Please see this movie because it is fantastic.

Matthew McConaughey plays Ron Woodroof, a homophobic hard drinking Texan who gets Aids during the time when people are just discovering this terrible plague.  He didn’t get it by having gay sex but by have unprotected sex during his alcohol and drug infused adventures.

Once he discovers he’s infected, he tries to find a drug or drug cocktail that will help him live.  And during this quest, he realizes the FDA is preventing drugs coming into the U.S. that aren’t approved and thereby slowing down the possibility of a real cure.  So he goes up against the FDA and sets up the Dallas Buyers Club to help other infected people (mostly homosexuals) fight the disease.  In the process he begins to empathize with the gay population and becomes a hero of sorts to those he formally despised.

That’s the plot of this movie.  But is that really what makes up the structure?  Not really.  What the movie is truly about is Ron’s relationship with Jared Leto, who plays Rayon in the film.  Rayon is a transvestite who Ron is repulsed by when they first meet.  But as the film progresses, Ron realizes he needs Rayon’s help in reaching out to the gay community and they become partners of sorts and then true friends.  This is why we care about the movie.

In every screenplay, you have to ask yourself what is this story about emotionally?  Why will people care about my film?  And this is what will determine the structure, not the plot.  The plot is only there to service the characters, not the other way around.

You cannot separate structure from character growth.  If you think this way, you will truly create a great structure which won’t be about events happening but about characters evolving (always painfully) from one extreme to another — and only then will you truly affect your readers and your audience.

There is much to be spoken about on this subject.  Stay tuned.  There is no greater lesson I can teach you than this.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

Hello, screenwriters.  As you all know who follow this blog, I try to provide information that you won’t get in most screenwriting workshops, screenwriting courses or screenwriting classes.  This is a continuation of the discussion we had last week about film school – it’s pros and cons.  This will be my last post for 2013.  We’ll continue these posts after the New Year.

Let’s begin.  So, if it isn’t necessary for a burgeoning screenwriter to go to film school – then what does he or she need to break into the film business?

That’s an easy answer – You need a kick-ass screenplay that will show producers and movie executives that you know what you’re doing.

And how do you go about getting that great screenplay?  It is in effect your diploma – the same as lawyers who pass the bar or young doctors who graduate from medical school.  They can’t start making money until they have those degrees.

You need the same thing but it comes in the form of excellent work.  You have to prove to the powers-that-be that you can write great material.  And all it really takes is that one great piece of writing.

When I broke in I had a horror script that I’d been working on for two years.  That seemed like an eternity to me at the time (I was in my late twenties) and very restless and impatient but I new I was onto something so I rewrote that script about 12 times.

Unfortunately, I didn’t do what I advise all of you to do – that is, find a great instructor or mentor who really knows the craft and can guide you through the innumerable drafts that it will take to get your script to the point where it’s ready to go out.

I wrote one draft after another, some actually got worse than the draft before because honestly, I didn’t know what I was doing and took notes from friends, lovers and anyone who I could get to read my material.  Again, that was a big mistake.  You can actually go backwards when you don’t work with knowledgeable professionals.

But I was young and ambitious and I had a vision – that this movie I was writing was truly a great idea and somehow it would get produced.  Then I was lucky enough to hook up with a producer who had a relationship with Wes Craven, then a rising horror director who had some low budget movies to his name.

It was Wes who became my mentor and he took me by the hand and let me through the process of doing re-writes.  Then with each pass the script got better and better.  If it wasn’t for hooking up with him, I never would have gotten that screenplay produced.

So that is the key – you need to find someone who can guide you through the process of the multiple re-writes you will need to do before your screenplay can launch your career.

I’ve encountered many beginning writers who jump from one project to another and never do really zero in on one screenplay and go for broke on that one screenplay.  It takes patience and belief and fortitude but it’s the only way you will make that leap from struggling writer to professional writer.

I’ve written many, many original screenplays and I don’t always have that faith in each one.  Sometimes I just write one draft and then drop the project, because I realize it’s not the one I want to spend my future working on.  You have to have that belief which will carry you through the months and months or work and re-writes that it takes.

Find that one project you’re ready to go all in on.  Then find a mentor who can help guide you, someone hopefully who has had his or here own screenplays produced or someone who’s helped others get produced.  There is no substitute for that.

And it goes without saying – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

More on Templates:  The Hunger Games Vs. Battle Royale

Hello, screenwriters.  As you’re well aware, I do everything possible to provide information on this blog that you wouldn’t normally receive in your typical screenwriting course, screenwriting workshop, or screenwriting class.  This post couldn’t not be more relevant in that regards.

We continue our discussion on finding templates to help you structure and refine your screenplays.  As we spoke about this previously, it is tremendously helpful to find classic screenplays in the genre in which you’re working to point you to elements that work in this genre and others that don’t.

So if you’re writing a romantic comedy, it might help to read “Arthur,” or for an erotic thriller:  “Sea of Love,” or “Body Heat,” a horror movie, you certainly would want to study “Scream” or “Alien.”

A great example just occurred to me when one of my students recommended “Battle Royale,” a Japanese movie that was adapted from a novel written by Koushun Takami, who also wrote the screenplay.  This book and movie seem nothing more or less than the basis for Hunger Games.

Did the book writer of Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins, read this novel (which was published in 1999, well before her novels were written?)  It’s hard not to think so.  If not, it’s a stunning co-incidence as both creations are basically the same.  If she already had her idea of the Hunger Games she clearly could have learned a lot by studying this movie and book as it mirrors so much of what she ended up doing.

In Battle Royale, a crumbling Japanese society with tremendous unemployment and a youth population that no longer honors their elders, decides to punish its young people by forcing them onto an island where they are forced to kill one another.  Sound familiar?

They get different weapons, maps, etc to help them in this horrific battle.  Only one can remain standing.  So friends turn on one another, alliances are formed and then broken and we have a fair amount of young people falling in love and refusing to kill each other.

It’s basically a more brutal and raw form of The Hunger Games and would have taught a burgeoning writer who had a similar premise that certain things worked really well with this concept:  That you get a lot of emotion by pitting a corrupt adult society against their youth, who are forced to kill one another or die themselves in the process.  That a sympathetic romantic couple, beating the odds, is something an audience can really get behind (exactly what happens in Battle Royale and Hunger Games).  And that an audience will find great enjoyment in seeing how different young individuals use their individual but unique weapons to help them triumph.

This goes beyond a theoretical discussion of who did what first?  If Suzanne Collins did see this movie or read this book before she began her work, it must have inspired her to create something similar – but different enough to make her work feel original and fresh.  And let’s be honest – who knew about Battle Royale outside of the Asian marketplace?  So as T.S. Eliot once famously wrote:  mediocre artists borrow, great artists steal.  Shakespeare, our greatest artist, stole every one of his plots.  If he can do it, so can we.

And if Suzanne Collins already had her premise but was looking for a similar template, she couldn’t have done better than Battle Royale.  She saw what worked and what didn’t and used that knowledge to create a great series of books and movies.

Shouldn’t you?

Always look for templates – Need I say more?  We’ll talk more about this subject in the weeks to come.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

Hello, screenwriters.  As you know, my mission statement is to provide information you wouldn’t normally receive in your typical screenwriting course, screenwriting class or screenwriting workshop.  This following post certainly applies.

I would like to talk about the following topic today:  “Do You Need To Go To Film School To Make It As A Screenwriter?  This question is often asked of me by beginning writers and even those who have written numerous screenplays.  I adamantly don’t believe it’s necessary and I’ll tell you why.

Firstly, film school is very expensive.  If you want to go to UCLA’s MFA program in screenwriting it will cost you about $30,000 a year, more if you live out of state.  And what exactly are you getting for all that dough?

At the very least, you will be taught by real professional screenwriters who hopefully have had films produced.  But you can get the same guidance if you take a professional level screenwriting workshop (like the ones I teach) at about 1/10^th that cost.

To be fair, you need to be in Los Angeles to get those workshops as they don’t really exist anywhere else in the country – even in Manhattan, where most screenwriting workshops are taught by playwrights, not professional screenwriters.  And playwrights don’t have a clue about screenwriting, as they’re two totally different crafts.

You can really learn all the theory you need to learn by simply being diligent – reading for example all the great posts that are on this site – reading some of the better books on screenwriting (I recommend “The Art of Dramatic Writing” by Lajos Egri, Screenwriting by Syd Fields and even “Saving The Cat,” by Blake Snyder.

The one advantage you have by going to film school is that you will be able to network with other screenwriters (but again you can get that in a private screenwriting workshop) and you will also meet up-and-coming directors and producers.  But is that worth the $30,000 when you can also do this by going to networking events (again, you would need to be in Los Angeles to take advantage of this).

Going to film school for me only makes sense if you’re going to be a cinematographer or director or sound engineer and by being in a UCLA or USC MFA program you then have access to all their camera equipment.  That is a real advantage and it’s easy when you’re in film school to get crews for your shoots.  But as a screenwriter, you don’t need camera equipment and you don’t need film crews.

What you do need is to write screenplays and get professional feedback.  And I don’t mean feedback from your friends and lovers.  I mean you need feedback from someone who actually knows how to help writers get their films made.

Once you reach a certain level of expertise, you will be lucky enough to hook up with producers and production companies, agents and managers who hopefully know how to give great critiques and will help you raise the level of your screenwriting to a point where it can sell and get produced.

I know when I was just reaching this level the producers I was working with that were good with notes always helped me to get my work produced.  The producers who were good business people but not great with notes never gave me the kind of guidance I needed and those screenplays never got produced.

But what do you do if you’re not at the place where you’re getting help from producers, agents and managers?  Well, again, if you live in Los Angeles, you can join a professional level workshop or even take classes at UCLA Extension or Writers Bootcamp.

What do you do if you don’t live in L.A.?  You can also work with script coaches for 1/10^th the price of going to film school.  But however you make it happen, you need that kind of guidance.  When I worked with Kevin Williamson (now the creator of “Vampire Diaries”) who wrote “Scream,” in our workshop – and believe me his first draft of “Scream” was nothing like what we ended up with – “Teaching Mrs. Tingle” and various other projects, he never went to film school but got the help he needed to launch his career.

Guiding screenwriters through numerous drafts is a real skill and very few people actually have that talent.  They need to have had their own screenplays produced and helped others achieve the same.

Don’t settle for less.  Be smart and tough on yourself.  Look to the professionals to push yourself to greatness just as all athletes are trained by professional coaches who know what it takes.  This is a tough business.  Challenge yourself and find out who can help you achieve success.

We’ll talk about this subject more in the future.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

Hello, screenwriters.  As you all know by now, if I’m trying to do anything here, it’s bringing you information you wouldn’t normally learn from your typical screenwriting workshop, screenwriting course or screenwriting class.  Here is another example of that.

We were speaking last week about templates.  When you’re working in a certain genre you want to find a great example of that kind of screenwriting, so you can borrow creatively from the work that has come before you.

Let’s find a great example of that:  One stand-out in the genre of erotic thrillers is “Sea of Love,” written by Richard Price, a great novelist and screenwriter. Frank Keller, the protagonist, is an alcoholic cop who’s never gotten over his failed marriage.  He falls deeply in love with a woman who maybe the murderer he’s hunting.  This works so well because it’s not just another serial killer he’s after, it’s someone he’s deeply involved with.  This ups the stakes of the plot.

We also see here one of the best examples of creating great rooting interest for a very flawed protagonist.

Al Pacino plays Detective Frank Keller, an alcoholic mess whose wife left him for another cop. The film opens with Keller sending out fake free passes to a Yankee game to criminals who have jumped bail. They show up thinking they’re going to get these tickets – when instead Keller and his fellow cops bust them.

It’s cynical and smart and a good grabber to open the film. But Richard Price wants to immediately get you to like his protagonist. So as Detective Keller is leaving with his cop buddies, a black guy runs up with young son. He asks if it’s too late to get his ticket. Keller looks at the young boy and clearly doesn’t want to take away his Dad. So he checks out the black guy on his computer and finds out he’s only wanted for a minor charge.

He tells the black Dad to take off, it’s too late to get his prize. The black Dad leaves with his son, not realizing how much he just lucked out.

We love the protagonist for doing this and from here on we’re emotionally rooting for him. We know deep down he’s a really good guy. This is so clearly a manipulation by the writer but it is done so deftly and so organically to the story that we don’t realize just how cleverly we’ve been had.

With audiences being so well educated at this point in movie history, seeing so many films and being very sophisticated about plots and tricks of the trade – we as writers need to be more and more subtle about how we pull off these rooting interest techniques.

They cannot be obvious – like saving the cat from the rain. But use them we shall because the greatest movies we write will have very flawed protagonists who we connect with on some very deep level because we are just as flawed.

Find great templates for your screenplays, whether you’re working in comedy, drama, action or horror.

Until next week – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

Hello, screenwriters. As everyone is aware by now, my mission statement is to provide insights one would not normally learn in your typical screenwriting course, screenwriting class, or screenwriting workshop.  This is follows those same guidelines and I hope you find useful.

The weather is cooling off now and there is no better motivation to stay indoors more and write up a storm. When I was living on the east coast and the smell of snow was in the air, I knew it was a clarion call to bundle up, brew some coffee, and write, write, write.

Here we are now, discussing the greatest topic of all – character – how we can create those fantastical creations who (if we are very blessed) will live on into posterity when we are long since gone.

I want to talk a little more about rooting interest. The greatest problem facing the star is that they want to play perfect human beings and yet at the same time want rich, deep characters. To create such a character there need to be real flaws in the character’s make-up. Yet these flaws tend to make a character unsympathetic if not treated correctly and stars typically want to be loved from the opening moment of the film.

So how do you reconcile this seeming contradiction? The answer is that we give flawed characters rooting interest which despite their obvious personality issues will motivate an audience to sympathize with our protagonists and root for them.

I spoke before about studying the great examples of each screenwriting genre and learning from the things these movies do brilliantly. Whenever I’m going to write a certain kind of film, I always study the great prototypes of that kind of film. Right now I’m writing an erotic thriller, so of course, I re-watched “Body Heat,” and studied very carefully the structure of the movie, how it was constructed, and why the movie worked so well.

There are great movies in each genre that can teach us a lot about what we are currently doing. I think it was T.S. Eliott who said “mediocre writers borrow, great writers steal.” Certainly, if Shakespeare stole every one of his plots, we shouldn’t feel too leery of stealing a few of our own.

Always look for templates when you start a movie.  What is a great movie that has tackled this same subject or genre and what can I learn from it?  Don’t be afraid to study the great screenplays, finding out why they were so compelling.  What can I learn about comedy from studying “Arthur,” (the original one with Dudley Moore, of course) or horror from “Scream,” or in my case, “Body Heat,” when writing an erotic thriller?

I’d love to hear from you on this subject.  What screenplays have you used to give you insight into your own work?  What are great templates in the different genres?  What are you writing now and what screenplays do you think might give you valuable pointers in terms of what not to do as well as what to do?

We’ll talk more about this subject in the future.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

Hello everyone. As you all know, my purpose is to bring you information you wouldn’t normally get in your typical screenwriting workshop, screenwriting class or screenwriting course.  Lately, we have been exploring this topic of rooting interest and it has gotten me thinking more deeply about this topic. One thing that has occurred to me is that the most compelling characters we have on screen are anti-heroes.

They are characters that we normally don’t see as heroes and yet rise to that stature through the obstacles they face and overcome.

Oftentimes these anti-heroes are not by nature very sympathetic characters who we would easily root for. They have deep flaws and that is what makes them interesting.

They have trouble giving and receiving love, doing the right thing, acting in a noble way. They represent everything in us that is not heroic. And yet, clever writers are able to make these characters the protagonist of their films. When this is carried off with skill and insight, these very flawed protagonists seem to be some of our greatest heroic figures.

The one who comes immediately to mind is Rick from Cassablanca. He surely is not immediately likeable by any stretch of the imagination. At the start of the film, he is cynical, angry, completely out for himself.

But quickly enough, the great screenwriters of this film begin to invest Rick with rooting interest and before long we begin to root for him as well. One rooting interest technique I spoke about last week from Body Heat is employed in this film as well – the Chief of Police really likes and respects Rick.

In fact everyone in Casablanca seems to like and respect Rick and they all have different stories about what he’s like and who he is. So there’s a mystery that’s created around Rick and as the plot really kicks off and Rick’s ex-lover and her husband show up, we find out why Rick is so wounded and now even more rooting interest is created.

Rick is deeply hurt and all his cynicism and anger are really a mask, hiding his sense of betrayal. Finally, the sarcastic and cynical anti-hero will make the ultimate sacrifice for his country and the world and will achieve true greatness.

Anti-heroes such as Michael Clayton in the movie of the same name, Dexter in the Showtime series, Anthony Soprano, Walter White in Breaking Bad, all anti-heroes, all characters who are not by their nature heroic, all deeply flawed – but the writers rose their characters to heroic stature by finding rooting interest for them.

It is a manipulation of sorts, manipulating our emotions so we cheer on less than exemplary protagonists. When this is done artfully, great movies are created. These anti-heroes are people who are closer to us in nature than obvious heroes we find on cereal boxes, and therefore closer to our hearts.

Find rooting interest for your anti-heroes as well.

Until next week then – KEEP WRITING!

Share this:

Hello, Screenwriters.  As you know, my tireless goal is to bring your ideas and information that you wouldn’t normally hear in your typical screenwriting course, screenwriting class or screenwriting workshop.  This continues that tradition.

As you remember, we were speaking about American Beauty and the brilliant characterization of Lester, the protagonist of this film.  We saw what a loser he was, how he felt trapped in his life, and yet the screenwriter (Alan Ball) had the genius to give him great rooting interest, so instead of feeling sorry for the protagonist (something we should never feel) we actually cared for him, wanted him to succeed.

It’s not long before Lester’s life changes – and now we have a movie. He sees Angela Hayes (played by Mena Suvari) – she’s the American Beauty. And one look at her on the basketball court doing her cheerleader routine and Lester decides he has to have her.

She represents everything he’s been missing in his life, and she stirs deep feelings – innocence, a lost virility, a forsaken sense of his youth. So he quits his job and starts working out and stands up to his wife. He even ends up being a better Dad.

This is a plot point, everyone – we will be talking about structure and plot points at a later date. Not only does it turn the story around but it shows a deeper side of Lester – his appreciation of all that is beautiful (ironic in that Angela may be beautiful but on a deeper level she’s rather shallow) – his desire to attain greatness in some way, his attempts to really have integrity and self pride in his life. Even though he doesn’t really know her, Angela gives him the courage to turn things around.

Notice here another rooting interest – an appreciation of that which is beautiful. It stirs all of us on some level. Sometimes it will change our lives. Those that have this appreciation make us like them. They represent something in us that we love.

Find those plot points that truly turn your protagonist’s life around.  Plot points why we write movies.  They signal the beginning of the character’s arc from one emotion to another.  In short, they are what the movie is about.

Until the next time – KEEP WRITING!

Share this: