Scriptnotes 403 - How to Write a Movie

Summary

In this insightful episode of Scriptnotes, screenwriter Craig Mazin dives into the intricacies of screenplay structure and character development. He challenges the conventional approach to structure, emphasizing that it should not dictate the writing process but rather be an outcome of well-crafted character interactions with a central dramatic argument. Mazin illustrates how a character's journey should evolve from embodying the anti-theme to the theme through conflict, doubt, and a series of dramatic reversals. He also highlights the importance of creating an ironic and poignant narrative that pushes characters to their limits, ultimately leading to a cathartic resolution. The episode is a masterclass in understanding the thematic structure of storytelling, providing valuable insights for aspiring and seasoned screenwriters alike.

Takeaways

• 🎬 **Structure as a Symptom**: Craig Mazin emphasizes that structure in a screenplay isn't a formula to follow but a symptom of a well-written character's relationship with the central dramatic argument.
• 👶 **Creating Characters**: A character-driven approach is crucial; characters should evolve around a meaningful central argument, not just fit into a structural template.
• 🔍 **Understanding Theme**: The theme, or unity, is the central dramatic argument of the story. It's what the story revolves around and what the protagonist will eventually embody through action.
• 🤔 **Ignorance to Embodiment**: The purpose of the story is to take the protagonist from ignorance of the theme to full embodiment of it, signifying a transformative journey.
• 🧩 **Disrupting Stasis**: The inciting incident should disrupt the character's stasis, forcing them to leave their comfort zone and confront the central argument.
• 🔙 **Desire for Return**: Initially, the protagonist's goal is to return to their previous state of stasis, which is often characterized by a belief in the anti-theme.
• 🤓 **Rational Heroes**: Heroes should be rational, capable of recognizing a better way of living, even if fear initially keeps them from it.
• 😨 **Fear and Vulnerability**: Fear is a key element that drives empathy for the character and is central to their transformation.
• 🔄 **Dramatic Reversal**: The story should include dramatic reversals that test the character's beliefs and push them towards the theme.
• 🏆 **Defining Moment**: The climax of the story presents a defining moment where the character must act in accordance with the theme, proving their transformation.
• ✨ **Catharsis and Resolution**: The narrative should lead to a cathartic resolution where the character's actions and the story's outcome are harmonious with the theme.

Q & A

What is the main topic of discussion for Craig Mazin in this episode of Scriptnotes?

Craig Mazin discusses the structure and character development in screenwriting, sharing his theory on how to write a movie.

Why does Craig Mazin believe that traditional screenplay structure is a 'trap'?

Craig Mazin believes that traditional structure is a 'trap' because it is often taught from an analytical perspective, which is not helpful for the creative process of writing from scratch.

What is the purpose of the inciting incident in a screenplay according to Craig Mazin?

The purpose of the inciting incident is to disrupt a character's stasis, making the continuation of balance and stasis impossible and forcing a choice upon the character.

What is the role of theme in Craig Mazin's approach to screenwriting?

Theme, or unity, is central to Craig Mazin's approach. It is the glue that holds the changes in a story together and is the central dramatic argument that a character's journey revolves around.

How does Craig Mazin describe the process of creating a story?

Craig Mazin describes the process of creating a story as taking a character from ignorance of the theme's truth to the embodiment of the theme through action.

What is the significance of the 'ordinary world' in the beginning of a story?

The 'ordinary world' signifies the protagonist's life that exemplifies their ignorance of the theme. It is a state of stasis that the character has settled for, which will later be disrupted.

What is the term used by Aristotle that Craig Mazin refers to as 'theme'?

Aristotle used the term 'unity' which Craig Mazin refers to as 'theme' in the context of a central dramatic argument in a story.

Why does Craig Mazin emphasize the importance of a character's fear in storytelling?

Craig Mazin emphasizes a character's fear because it is the heart of empathy, allowing the audience to connect with the character on a deeper level.

What is the irony involved in the story of Jose Fernandez as told by Craig Mazin?

The irony is that Jose Fernandez, who saved his mother from the water, dies in a boating accident, suggesting a strange kind of order to the universe, even when it results in tragedy.

How does Craig Mazin suggest a writer should treat their characters?

Craig Mazin suggests that a writer should treat their characters as if they were gods, creating tests and challenges for them, pushing them to grow and change in relation to the theme.

What is the fundamental difference between the first and last scene of a hero's journey in a movie, as described by Craig Mazin?

The fundamental difference is that in the beginning, the hero acts in accordance with the anti-theme, while at the end, the hero acts in accordance with the theme, signifying their transformation.

Outlines

00:00

🎙️ Podcast Introduction and Solo Episode Announcement

Craig Mazin introduces himself as the host of Scriptnotes, a podcast focusing on screenwriting. He mentions that this is Episode 403 and it's unique because he is the only host, with no guest, as John is visiting family in Colorado. Mazin expresses his excitement about discussing screenwriting structure and character, a topic he has covered at the Austin Screenwriting Film Festival. He also talks about an upcoming live show in Los Angeles benefiting Hollywood Heart, with a notable lineup of guests.

05:02

📚 The Misguided Focus on Screenplay Structure

Mazin critiques the common approach to teaching screenplay structure, arguing that it's often analyzed from a wrong perspective. He emphasizes that structure should not be a rigid set of guidelines but a natural outcome of well-written characters interacting with a central dramatic argument. Mazin asserts that structure is not a tool but a symptom of good writing and that real writers focus on character development rather than adhering to a structural template.

10:03

🧐 The Philosophy of Storytelling and Basic Structure

The discussion shifts to the philosophy behind storytelling, questioning why certain structural elements like three acts and inciting incidents are prevalent. Mazin ponders the origin of these concepts and their necessity. He touches on how humans naturally create narratives and that actors embody characters who never forget their motivations. Mazin also explains the three axes of story change: internal, interpersonal, and external, and how they are represented in scenes through the Hegelian dialectic.

15:08

🌟 The Role of Theme in Unifying a Story

Mazin delves into the concept of theme, or unity, as described by Aristotle. He stresses that a theme should be a central dramatic argument rather than a vague concept. Mazin advises that while the theme itself doesn't have to be revolutionary, the execution around it should be interesting. He also suggests that a good screenplay can be built around a clichéd theme if it's well-executed.

20:09

🔄 The Transformational Journey from Anti-Theme to Theme

The focus is on how a story's purpose is to transition a character from ignorance of the theme to embodying it through action. Mazin explains the importance of starting a story with a protagonist in an ordinary world that reflects their anti-theme beliefs. He outlines the role of the inciting incident in disrupting the protagonist's stasis and forcing them to make choices, setting the stage for their transformative journey.

25:12

🔽 The Descent into the Second Act and the Introduction of Doubt

Mazin discusses the second act, emphasizing that it should be a source of excitement rather than fear. He advises reinforcing the anti-theme through new experiences for the hero, creating tension and motivation for the character to return to their original state. Mazin also talks about introducing an element of doubt that challenges the protagonist's beliefs and leads to a moment of acting in harmony with the theme.

30:13

🎢 The Emotional Rollercoaster of the Midpoint and Reversal

The midpoint change is explored as a moment of realization for the hero that their anti-theme beliefs may not be sufficient. Mazin uses examples from Finding Nemo and the real-life story of Jose Fernandez to illustrate the power of dramatic irony and reversal in storytelling. He encourages writers to use irony to push their heroes back towards their old ways after tempting them with a glimpse of the theme.

35:13

🏆 The Defining Moment and the Path to Catharsis

Mazin describes the third act as the defining moment for the protagonist, where they face their worst fear and greatest challenge. He emphasizes that the hero must prove their belief in the new theme through action, leading to a resolution of the story and their life. Mazin also discusses the importance of the relapse, where the hero is tempted to revert to their old ways before ultimately embracing the theme.

40:18

📖 Crafting Characters Through Theme and Anti-Theme

In the final paragraph, Mazin advises on creating characters by considering the theme and designing a story that guides the character from the anti-theme to the theme. He stresses the importance of making characters active in their choices and not passive recipients of the plot. Mazin concludes by encouraging writers to embrace the challenge of storytelling and to torture their heroes to create compelling narratives.

Keywords

💡Structure

Structure refers to the organization and arrangement of a screenplay. In the context of the video, it is described not as a rigid set of guidelines but as a natural outcome of a character's relationship with a central dramatic argument. Craig Mazin emphasizes that structure is not a tool but a symptom of good writing, where the narrative unfolds organically from the characters' development and their interactions with the story's core themes.

💡Character

A character is a person or figure in a narrative. Mazin discusses how characters should drive the story, with their evolution around a central dramatic argument being key to engaging storytelling. Characters in the video are portrayed as initially embodying an 'anti-theme' and must undergo a journey to eventually represent the story's theme.

💡Central Dramatic Argument

This concept represents the core conflict or theme around which a story is built. Mazin explains that the structure of a screenplay is a manifestation of how a character interacts with and ultimately comes to embody this central argument. It's the underlying message or point the writer aims to convey through the narrative.

💡Inciting Incident

The inciting incident is a crucial event that sets the main storyline in motion. Mazin describes it as an event that disrupts a character's stasis, or balance in life, and forces them to make a choice that propels the story forward. It's a tailored event that is specifically designed to challenge the character in a way that aligns with their journey.

💡Stasis

Stasis refers to a state of equilibrium or balance. In the video, a character's stasis is the initial state of their life before the story's events disrupt it. Mazin uses the term to illustrate how characters start in a place that reflects their ignorance of the theme and must be forced out of this state to begin their narrative journey.

💡Anti-Theme

The anti-theme is the opposite of the central dramatic argument that the character initially believes in. Mazin discusses how characters start with beliefs that are in direct contradiction to the theme, and the story's progression is about challenging and changing these beliefs.

💡Theme

Theme is the central idea or underlying message of a story. Mazin emphasizes that the theme should be a debatable argument rather than a static concept. It's what the story aims to prove or explore, and the character's journey is a progression towards understanding and embodying this theme.

💡Defining Moment

The defining moment is a pivotal scene where the character confronts their greatest challenge, which tests their faith in the theme. Mazin explains that this moment is designed to force the character to act in accordance with the theme, proving their transformation and leading to the story's resolution.

💡Catharsis

Catharsis, derived from the Greek word for purification or purging, refers to the emotional release or change that audiences experience through drama. Mazin uses the term to describe the intended emotional impact of the story, where the character's journey leads to a resolution that provides a sense of closure and satisfaction.

💡Ironic Disruption

An ironic disruption is an event that contradicts the character's expectations and is used to propel the story forward. Mazin discusses how these disruptions are intentionally designed to be tailored to the character's weaknesses and fears, making the challenges they face more poignant and driving their development.

💡Denouement

The denouement is the final resolution of the story where loose ends are tied up. Mazin explains that the denouement is not merely a wind-down but an essential part of the story that shows the new synthesis or state of harmony with the theme, illustrating the character's transformation and the resolution of their journey.

Highlights

Craig Mazin discusses the importance of structure and character in screenwriting, emphasizing that structure is a symptom of a character’s relationship with a central dramatic argument.

He argues against rigid structural forms, stating that they are synthetic and not how great writers create.

Mazin introduces the concept that structure isn't a tool but a result of writing well, and it manifests from the character's journey around a meaningful argument.

The podcast covers the three-act structure and questions the 'why' behind common structural elements like the inciting incident and low point.

Mazin explains that humans naturally create narratives and that this innate ability should inform the writing process more than strict structural guidelines.

He introduces the idea that every scene in a script follows the Hegelian dialectic, starting with a thesis and leading to a synthesis that becomes the new thesis.

The concept of theme as unity is explored, with Mazin suggesting that the theme is the central dramatic argument that a screenplay revolves around.

Mazin emphasizes that the theme should be an arguable point, not a vague concept, providing examples of strong and weak themes.

He outlines the purpose of a story as taking the protagonist from ignorance of the theme to embodiment of it through action.

The discussion includes the importance of introducing an element of doubt in the second act to challenge the protagonist's beliefs.

Mazin explains the necessity of a defining moment in the third act where the protagonist's faith in the theme is tested.

The concept of dramatic reversal is introduced, where the story punishes the hero to reinforce their journey and transformation.

Mazin stresses the importance of the protagonist's rationality and their capacity to change, which is often impeded by fear.

He provides a real-life example of irony in storytelling, using the story of Major League Baseball pitcher Jose Fernandez.

The transcript includes practical advice on creating a compelling second act by focusing on the protagonist's internal journey and challenges.

Mazin discusses the role of the writer as a 'cruel god,' designing narrative obstacles that force the character to grow and change.

The importance of the denouement in showing the character's new synthesis with the theme is highlighted.

Finally, Mazin encourages aspiring screenwriters to focus on the character's thematic journey and to embrace the complexity of the writing process.

Transcripts

Craig Mazin: Hello and welcome. My name is Craig Mazin and this is Episode 403 of Scriptnotes,

a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

On today’s show, something we have never done before. It’s just me. No guest. No

John. He’s off visiting family I believe in Colorado. So it’s just me today. And

we’re going to do something that I’ve been looking forward to doing for a long time.

I’m going to be talking to you today about structure and character. I’m kind of giving

you my whole theory on how to write a movie.

I know it sounds like a lot. And it is a little bit of a lot. It’s a talk that I’ve done

at the Austin Screenwriting Film Festival a number of times. I haven’t done it in

a while. And I feel like their exclusive right to it has ended, so now I’m giving it to

you. This is sort of my how-to write a movie.

But before we get into that we do have a little bit of business to go through. And it’s

about our live show. Our next live show, we’ve talked about this before. It’s going to

be on the evening of Thursday, June 13 here in Los Angeles at the Ace Hotel which is a

beautiful venue. And it is benefiting Hollywood Heart. We do this every year. It’s a great

charity.

We have probably the best guest lineup we’ve ever had. We have Alec Berg, the showrunner

of Silicon Valley and Barry. We have Rob McElhenney, showrunner of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

We have Kourtney Kang, writer of Fresh Off the Boat. And we have Melissa McCarthy and

Ben Falcone. And by the way that’s – Melissa McCarthy and Ben – I’m not talking about

other Melissa McCarthy and Ben Falcones that you don’t know. I mean the ones you know.

Those.

It is just about the most comedy firepower I think we can ever assemble on one stage

for this show. You’re not going to want to miss it. Tickets I believe are still available

but we’re getting close to running out, so take a look at the link in the show notes

and get your tickets.

All right. Let’s get into it. So when we talk about writing a script a lot of times

we’re talking about structure. There are, I don’t know, four million books about structure.

I went online and I looked for just images based on screenplay structure and what I saw

was kind of mind-blowing. There are these long narrow lines with little ticks on them

and then there’s a pie chart. And then there’s a swirly thing that kind of looks like a snail

shell. There’s a triangle. There’s a diamond. I think there’s a parallelogram. And if

there’s not a trapezoid maybe one of you can get on that.

All of this is designed to help you learn how to structure a screenplay. Here’s the

problem. All of it is done from the wrong end. All of it. It’s all done from the point

of view of analysis. They look at things, they take them apart, and then they say, look,

all these pieces fit into this swirly shape, or this diamond. The issue is that’s not

going to help you actually write anything because when you write you’re starting from

scratch. You’re not breaking something apart. You’re building something out of nothing.

And when you’re building something out of nothing you need a different set of instructions.

I can think of a doctor who takes bodies apart. That’s a medical examiner or a coroner.

That’s not the doctor you want to go to to make a baby for instance. It’s just a

very different thing, right? So we’re going to come at it from the point of view of making

babies and your baby is your script. Don’t worry, we’re going to keep this safe for

work.

So, structure. Structure, structure, structure. Screenplay is structure. You need to know

how to do your structure. Structure I’m here to tell you is a total trap. Yes, screenplay

is structure, but structure isn’t what you think it is. Structure doesn’t say this

happens on this page, this happens on that page. Here’s a pinch point. Here’s a stretchy

point. Here’s a midpoint. Structure doesn’t tell you what to do. If you follow strict

structural guidelines in all likelihood you will write a very well structured bad script.

Structure isn’t the dog. It’s the tail. Structure is a symptom. It’s a symptom of

a character’s relationship with a central dramatic argument. Take a moment. Think about

that for a second. I’ll repeat it. Structure is a symptom of a character’s relationship

with a central dramatic argument. Structure isn’t something you write well. It’s something

that happens because you wrote well. Structure is not a tool, it is a symptom.

When we think of rigid structural forms I have to tell you there’s nothing honest

about them. There’s nothing true about them. They’re synthetic. There’s never been

one single great writer who created one single great screenplay following a structural template.

Not one.

What real writers follow are their characters. And what great writers follow are their characters

as they evolve around a central dramatic argument that is actually meaningful to other human

beings. Let me stop for a second and tell you that we are going to get into real practicals

but for a bit now we’re just going to talk a little bit of philosophy. First, let’s

consider what we call basic structure. There’s a Syd Field point of view. You have your three

acts, your inciting incident, act break escalation, magical midpoint character shift, third act

low point, and kick off to climactic action.

We also have the Chris Vogler Hero’s Journey, ordinary world, call to action, refusal of

call, acceptance of call, and blah, blah, blah. Save the Cat is a lot of stuff.

There’s a lot of what to do but where’s the why? Who came up with this stuff in the

first place? Why is it there? Why are there three acts at all? Why is there a low point?

Why do we like it when there’s an inciting incident? Why do we like it when there’s

a low point? If we don’t know why those things are there how are we supposed to know

how to write them? Because we process the world through our consciousness and our consciousness

is sort of a natural storyteller, all of us are actually walking around doing this right

all the time. We just don’t know it. We’re narrativizing our own lives better than most

who try and do it on purpose on Fade In or WriterDuet, or Highland2. I don’t know any

other software.

Right now you’re sitting there, you’re riding along in your car, you’re being passive.

You are accepting this structure talk, wondering when I’m going to get to the practicals.

And I will. But later if someone asks you about this experience you’re having you

will naturally, without thinking, create a story. You won’t have to consult a graph

or a chart or a swirly thing. You’ll just tell the story.

Here’s a story. I listened to a podcast. It was on the following topics. Reasonable

people could agree or disagree. Anyway, I’m the same. That’s not a very good story,

is it?

Here’s another story. I was listening to a podcast and it was OK, it was sort of a

little boring, but then the person said this one thing and it reminded me of something

else I’d heard once and that tied back to this moment in my life where something really

interesting happened. And now I’m wondering maybe if I was wrong about that thing and

I should be doing it this way instead. Huh. There you go. And that story has character,

meaning you. That story is about you and maybe it’s about me. It’s about a relationship

that we’re having right now through this podcast, for better or worse.

And if you were to relay this story, this experience, you might share some parts of

this that you thought were interesting or some parts that you thought were stupid, but

you will naturally contextualize it as such. This moment in time did or did not help you

in your desire to change. We live our lives this way, but when we sit down to write we

somehow forget. You know who never forgets? Actors. They have to get it because they are

the characters and we are experiencing them as the characters.

So there’s that old cliché line: what’s my motivation? Well it’s not a joke. Believe

it or not that is the key to structure. What is the purpose of all this storytelling that

we engage in, all this narration? Well, narration helps us move through a changing world. And

story is about a change of state. There are three basic ways your story changes. And this

applies I think to every possible story.

The first way is internal. This is what is going on inside the character’s mind. This

is the things they’re thinking, they’re feeling, their emotions. And this axis goes

all over the place. It zigzags up and down. Then there’s interpersonal. That’s the

main relationship of your story. It has a start, it has an end. It usually begins in

a kind of neutral way. Then depending on how your story unfolds it can dip and then rise

and then plummet and then spike. And finally you have the external axis. That’s the narrative,

the plot, the things that are going on around you. And that generally is just a straight

line. Start to end.

All of this is made up of scenes. And within scenes we’re doing something that follows

the Hegelian dialectic. Calm down. You don’t need to look it up. I’ll help you out. The

Hegelian Dialectic basically is a way of thinking about how we formulate ideas and thoughts

and arguments. You take a thesis. That’s a statement. Something is true. And then you

apply to that an antithesis. No, that’s not true and here’s why. Those things collide

and in theory what results from that is a new thesis called the synthesis. And that

starts the whole process over again. That synthesis becomes a thesis. There’s an antithesis.

A new synthesis. That becomes a thesis. Constant changing. Every scene begins with a truth,

something happens inside of that scene. There is a new truth at the end and you begin, and

you begin, and you begin.

And who is the person firing these antitheses at these theses? You.

So, as we go through this talk never forget this one simple fact. At any given moment

as you begin a scene you have a situation that is involving those three axes and you

are going to fire something at at least one of them to make something new. That is all

story is. But what is the glue that holds all those changes together? What’s the glue

that you the creator can use to come up with your antitheses and get your new syntheses

and do it over and over again?

And that brings us to theme. Theme is otherwise known as unity. Unity is a term that was first

used by Aristotle in Poetics and this is one you actually should read. I know you’re

like, Aristotle? Hegel? Hegelian guy. Calm down. It’s fine. In fact, Aristotle was

really a contemporary writer in his own way. Poetics is an easy read. It will take you

about 30 minutes. It’s a pretty good bathroom book. And in it you’ll find a lot of things

that we hear today, like for instance the worst kind of plot is an episodic plot. Well,

that’s pretty much true.

What did he think of unity or theme? Well basically theme is your central dramatic argument.

Some of those arguments are interesting. Some of them are a little cliché. And the quality

of the argument itself isn’t necessarily related to the quality of the script. For

instance, you can have a really good screenplay built around you can’t judge a book by its

cover. That’s OK. The theme itself doesn’t have to be mind-altering or, I don’t know,

revolutionary. It’s your execution around it that’s going to be interesting.

But the important thing is that the argument has to be an argument. I think sometimes people

misunderstand the use of theme in this context and they think a theme for a screenplay could

be brotherhood. Well, no. Because there’s nothing to argue about there. There’s no

way to answer that question one way or the other. It’s just a vague concept.

But, man and women can’t just be friends, well, that’s an argument. Better to be dead

than a slave. Life is beautiful, even in the midst of horrors. If you believe you are great,

you will be great. If you love someone set them free. Those are arguments.

Screenplays without arguments feel empty and pointless. You will probably get some version

of the following note. What is this about? I mean, I know what it’s about, but what

is it about? Why should this movie exist? What is the point of all this?

Now, it’s really important to note you probably don’t want to start with an argument. That’s

a weird way to begin a script. Usually we think of an idea. And that’s fine. But when

you think of the idea the very next question you should ask is what central dramatic argument

would fit really well with this? And ideally you’re going to think ironically. For instance,

let’s talk about this idea. A fish has to find another fish who is somewhere in the

ocean. Got it. The animators will love it. Water. Fish. Cool.

OK, let’s think of a central dramatic argument. How about if you try hard enough you can do

anything, even find a fish? That’s a bit boring, isn’t it? How about sometimes the

things we’re searching for are the things that we need to be free from? Well, OK. That’s

an interesting argument. I’m not sure how it necessarily is served or is being served

by this idea of a fish in the ocean. How about you can’t find happiness out there, you

have to find it within yourself? That could work. That’s sort of Wizard of Oz-ish.

But let’s go really ironically. How about this one? No matter how much you want to hold

onto the person you love, sometimes you have to set them free. Well, that is pretty cliché

but it is a great central dramatic argument to pair with a fish needs to find another

fish. Because when you’re looking for somebody out there in the deep, deep ocean you the

writer know that what you’re promising is they’re going to find them and then have

to let them go anyway. And that is starting to get good.

All right. Let’s get into some practicals, shall we? Because this is thematic structure.

This is going to help you write your script. In thematic structure the purpose of the story

– and listen carefully now – the purpose of the story is to take a character from ignorance

of the truth of the theme to embodiment of the theme through action. I shall repeat.

The purpose of the story is to take your main character, your protagonist, from a place

of ignorance of the truth or the true side of the argument you’re making and take them

all the way to the point where they become the very embodiment of that argument and they

do it through action.

So, let’s talk about how we introduce. We begin in the beginning with the introduction

of a protagonist in an ordinary world. You’ve probably heard this a thousand times. But

why? Sometimes movies don’t start ordinarily. You probably saw Mad Max: Fury Road. If you

didn’t, do so. Well, there’s no ordinary beginning there. I mean, it’s crazy from

the jump. Ordinary doesn’t mean mundane. Although sometimes it can.

What ordinary means here is that the protagonist’s life essentially exemplifies their ignorance

of the theme, of the argument that you want them to believe eventually. In fact, they

believe the opposite of that argument. That’s how they begin. Typically in the beginning

of a story your main character believes in the opposite of the theme and they have also

achieved some kind of stasis. There’s a balance in their life. In fact, their ignorance

of that theme has probably gotten them to this nice place of stasis and balance. It

doesn’t mean they’re happy. What it means is that without the divine nudge of the writer-god

their life could go on like this forever. It’s not a perfect life. It’s not the

best life they could live but it’s the life they’ve settled for. Their stasis is acceptable

imperfection.

If we’re going to circle back around to my favorite fish movie, Marlin can live with

a resentful son as long as he knows his son is safe. That’s acceptable imperfection.

I get it. Nemo resents me. He’s angry at me. He feels stifled by me. That’s OK. He’s

alive. I can keep going this way.

And then along comes you, the writer. Your job is to disrupt that stasis. So you invent

some sort of incident. Ah-ha. Now we know the point of the inciting incident. The point

of the inciting incident is not to go, “Oh god, a meteor!” The point of the inciting

incident is to specifically disrupt a character’s stasis. It makes the continuation of balance

and stasis and acceptable imperfection impossible. It destroys it. And it forces a choice on

the character.

OK, but why? I’m just going to keep asking that question. But why? But why? But why?

Why do you have to do this to this poor character? Because you are the parent and you have a

lesson to teach this person, or animal, or fish. Your motivation is part of your relationship

to your character. You don’t write an inciting incident. You don’t write push character

out of safety. That gives you no real guidance to let something blossom. What you write is

an ironic disruption of stasis. Ironic as in a situation that includes contradictions

or sharp contrasts that is, and hear me out, genetically engineered to break your character’s

soul.

You’re going to destroy them. You are god. And you are designing a moment that will begin

a transformation for this specific character so you have to make it intentional. It can

be an explosion, or it can be the tiniest little change. But it’s not something that

would disrupt everyone’s life the way it’s disrupting this person’s life. You have

tailored it perfectly and terribly for them.

So, what’s the first thing your character wants to do when this happens to them? Well,

it they’re like you or me they’re going to immediately try and just get back to what

they had. They have to leave their stasis behind because you’ve destroyed it, but

everything they’re going to do following that is done in service of just trying to

get it back. Shrek doesn’t have his swamp, so he has to go on a journey so he can get

his swamp back. The point here is that the hero has absolutely no idea that there is

a central dramatic argument. They’ve made up their mind about something and their mind

has not changed.

Your heroes should be on some level cowards. I don’t mean coward like shaking in your

boots. I mean coward like I don’t want to change. I’m happy with the way things are.

Please just let me be. And underlining that is fear. And fear, especially in your character,

is the heart of empathy. I feel for characters when I fear with them. It is vulnerability.

It’s what makes me connect. Every protagonist fears something.

Imagine a man who fears no other man. He doesn’t fear death. He doesn’t fear pain. But, ah-ha,

fill in that blank. But the point is it has to be filled in. You can feel it, right? Like

he’s going to have to fear something. Because fear is our connection to a character. And

a fearful hero should have lived their lives to avoid the thing they’re afraid of.

You, are taking their safety blanket away. So I want you to write your fearful hero honestly.

What do they want? They want to return to what they had. They want to go backwards.

And believe it or not that is the gift that is going to drive you through the second act.

The second act.

Oh, the thing that’s so scary. No. No, you should be excited about it. Let me take a

break for a second and say that everything I’m talking about here is mostly to serve

the writing of what I would call a traditional Hollywood movie. That doesn’t mean. It doesn’t

mean cliché. It doesn’t even mean formulaic. It just means it’s a traditional narrative.

So, I don’t know, if you’re looking to be a little more Lars von Trier about things,

well, I don’t know how interesting or helpful this is going to be. But I’m presuming that

most of you just want to write a general kind of movie that conforms to a general kind of

movie shape.

So this is how we’re going to help you do it. And the second act is the part that I

think freaks people out the most. They get scared. But I think you should be excited

about pages 30 to 90 roughly. Please do not quote me on those numbers. But first, are

you getting it? Have you stopped thinking about plot? Have you stopped thinking about

plot as something to jam characters into? Because when you do that that’s why you

run out of road in your second act. You ran out of plot because it wasn’t being generated

by anything except you.

Ah-ha. But when you start thinking of your plot as not something that happens to your

characters but what you are doing to your characters that’s when you can lead them

from anti-theme to theme. How do we do it?

First, we reinforce the anti-theme. That might sound a little counterintuitive but hear me

out. You’ve knocked your hero out of their acceptable stasis. They are now on the way

to do whatever they need to do to get back to it. The hero is going to experience new

things. And I want you to think about making those new things reinforce her belief in an

anti-theme. Because this is going to make them want to get back to the beginning even

more. Oh, it’s delicious. We’re creating a torture chamber basically. Keep thinking

that way.

Imagine your hero is moving backwards against you and you push them forward and they push

back. Ah-ha. Good. Design moments to do this. You’re going to keep forcing them forward,

but you’re also going to put things in their path that make them want to go backwards.

That’s tension. That’s exciting. And more importantly when they do get past those things

it will be meaningful. You want to write your world to oppose your character’s desires.

So, you’re going to reinforce their need to get back. Ah-ha. So, let’s see, Marlin

wanders out into the ocean. His theory is the ocean is really, really dangerous. What

should the first thing be? Maybe let’s have him meet some sharks. And actually, oh, you

know what, they’re not scary at all. Oh god, yes they are. The ocean is in fact way

worse than he even imagined. That’s what you need to do. He needs to get his son back

really, really soon so he can return to stasis. And then when you’ve done that you’re

going to introduce an element of doubt.

Something or someone lives in a different way. Someone or something in your story is

an example of the life of theme rather than the life of anti-theme. So remember, your

hero believes in one side of the central dramatic argument. It’s the wrong side. You want

them to believe the other one. OK, but they believe the wrong one. They need to run into

someone or something that believes in the right side of it. This element of doubt creates

a natural conflict for the protagonist because of course I believe this, you believe that.

But it’s also attractive to them on some level because – and again, really important.

Your hero is rational. This is a critical component of a good hero. You are dealing

with somebody that probably lives irrationally, fine, but they have to have the capacity to

see that maybe there is a better way.

You’re living things maybe the wrong way but you need the capacity to see things going

the right way. It is fear that separates the irrational hero from their rational potential.

And because they’re rational when they get a glimpse of this other way of being they’re

going to realize there’s value to it through circumstance or accident or necessity or another

character’s actions. These are all things you’re inventing, but here’s why – the

hero is going to experience a moment of acting in harmony with the right side of the central

dramatic argument.

This could involve their own action or it could be something that they watch someone

else do or something they experience passively. But this is why the magical midpoint change

occurs. See, now you know why. You’re not just doing it because a book said. These things

generally happen in the middle of the movie because our hero’s belief system has been

challenged. There is an element of doubt. There is not a willingness to go all the way

and believe the other side of the argument yet. They may not even understand the other

side of the argument.

There’s only a question that maybe for the first time they have to wonder if their side

of the argument that they started with, the anti-theme, maybe it doesn’t explain or

solve everything. Have I been living a lie? That’s what’s happening in the middle

of a movie.

So, remember in Finding Nemo there’s a moment where because Marlin has to rescue Dory from

this field of jellyfish he invents a game. She forces him to do something that he normally

wouldn’t do. Play. He’s doing it for the old Marlin reasons of neurosis, but it’s

working. She’s following him. And as he’s doing it he gets a glimpse of what it’s

like to live without fear. He gets a glimpse of what it’s like to be carefree. To not

worry so much. To be, well, a little less conservative with your own life. And he loves

it.

And then what happens? She gets stung. Oh, glorious. And that gets us to this reversal

of theme. The very moment your hero takes the bait that you put there to think about

maybe switching sides – maybe switching sides of the argument – you need to hammer

them back the other direction. The story has to make them shrink back to the old way. Dory

almost dies in the jellyfish. And why? It happened because Marlin decided in a moment

out of necessity to have fun and then forgot himself, forgot his fear. And what’s the

price of forgetting fear and not being vigilant? Pain and tragedy. The tragedy of the beginning

is reinforced and the hero retreats once again.

Ah. It’s good stuff. And it means you have to be kind of mean. Sadistic really. But it

turns out that these are the kinds of things we want out of our narrative. It’s the essence

of what we call dramatic reversal.

I’m going to put aside the examples from Pixar for a second and I’m going to talk

about somebody real. There’s a guy named Jose Fernandez. This is a true story. Jose

Fernandez is born in Cuba and at the age of 15 he escapes Cuba with his mother and his

sister and many others, all packed in a very small boat. And during the difficult village

he is awakened to the sound of someone yelling. That someone has fallen overboard.

And Jose, 15 years old, doesn’t hesitate. He dives into the choppy water to save whoever

it is. And it’s only when he drags this person back onto the boat does he realize

he has saved his own mother. Wow.

Jose Fernandez grows up, he’s a hell of an athlete. He goes on to pitch. Major League

baseball pitcher. And he’s really good. In fact, he is the National League Rookie

of the Year. And he’s an All Star. His future isn’t just bright, it is glorious. Jose

Fernandez is living the American dream and I don’t know how much you know about baseball

but ace pitchers they get paid hundreds of millions of dollars.

But at the age of 24 Jose Fernandez dies. He doesn’t die from illness. He doesn’t

die from violence. He dies in an accident. But not a car accident. He dies in a boating

accident. A boating accident. Now, do you feel that? Do you feel more than you would

if I had said he died of a blood clot? Well, why? I mean, death is death. Why does this

detail of the boating accident make you feel more?

Because it’s terribly ironic. Because this is a guy who saved his own mother from water

and then he dies in water. It implies that there’s a strange kind of order to the universe

even when that order hurts. And this is where we start to pull irony out of drama. This

is essential to your choices when you decide how you’re going to push back against your

hero. How you’re going to hammer them back. How you’re going to punish them.

Think about that Pixar Short, Lava. And I talk about Pixar all the time because it’s

just pure storytelling and they’re really, really good at it. So he thinks he’s alone.

He’s a volcano in the ocean. He thinks he’s alone. And then he discovers he’s not alone.

But when he discovers that he also discovers that she’s facing the wrong way and she

can’t see him. And he doesn’t know how to sing anymore. So she doesn’t even know

he’s there. Oh, that’s terrible. It’s unexpected. It’s contradictory. And it’s

ironic. And that’s exactly what you want to do.

So, consider the irony that’s involved with Marlin. Marlin is worried that he has lost

his son. Every parent who loses a child, even for an instant in a mall, is scared. But that’s

not enough. Let’s talk about what the people at Pixar understood they needed to do to this

character from the very start to punish him so that his journey would be that much more

impressive. It’s not enough to say, look, you love your kid, your kid is lost, you’ve

got to go find your kid. Everybody loves their kid, right?

OK. But they go a step further. They say, you know what, there’s no mom in the picture.

Mom died. It’s just you. You’re a single dad. You’re the only parent. You’ve got

to find your kid. No, that’s not enough. How about this? How about your wife and all

of your other children were eaten in front of you because you couldn’t protect them?

And the only kid you had left out of all of that, the only memory you have of your wife

and your happy life before is one tiny egg. One kid.

And that is still not enough. And this is why Pixar is so amazing. Because they knew

that the further they went the more we would feel at the end. It’s not enough that he

only has one kid. When he looks at that little egg he can see that the one kid that’s left

is disabled. He has a bad fin. Now it’s enough. Now you have created the perfect circumstance

for that individual, you cruel, cruel god of story.

Now I know why he’s so panicked that that kid is somewhere out there in the ocean. When

you’re designing your obstacles and your lessons and the glimpses of the other way

and the rewards and the punishments and the beating back and the pushing forward, keep

thinking ironically. Keep thinking about surprises that twist the knife. Don’t just stab your

characters. Twist the knife in them. If someone has to face a fear make it overwhelming to

them. Don’t disappoint them. Punish them.

Make your characters lower their defenses by convincing them that everything is going

to be OK and then punch them right in the face, metaphorically.

So, sorry to tell you that as a writer you are not the New Testament god who turns water

into wine. You are the Old Testament god who tortures Job because, I don’t know, it seems

like fun. And when you’re wondering where to go in your story and what to do with your

character ask this question: where is my hero on her quest between theme and anti-theme?

Or I guess I should say between an anti-theme and theme. And what would be the meanest thing

I could do to her right now? What would be the worst way to do the meanest thing right

now? Then do it. And do it. And do it again until the hero is left without a belief at

all.

So as the demands of the narrative begin to overwhelm the hero, the hero begins to realize

that her limitations aren’t physical but thematic. Think about Marlin. I promised that

I would never let anything happen to him. But then I suppose nothing ever would happen

to him. That’s what Dory says. And Marlin knows she’s right. He knows that if all

he does is basically lock his kid up to prevent anything bad from happening to his kid nothing

good will happen to his kid. The kid won’t have a real life.

So, now what? Well, the answer is obvious, right? If you love someone let them go. And

I’m sure that at that point in the movie if you ask Marlin that he would say, “I

suppose that’s the thing that I’m supposed to believe.” But they can’t do it. Not

yet. In fact, you’re going to want to have a situation where they have a chance to do

it. And they fail at it in some important way because they don’t really accept the

central dramatic argument you want for them. They just lost the belief in their original

point of view. They’re trapped between rejection of the old and acceptance of the new. They

are lost. Their old ways don’t work anymore. The new way seems impossible or insane.

Shrek doesn’t want his swamp back anymore. He wants love, but he is also not willing

to do what is required to try and get it. He’s trapped. And this is why they call

it the low point. It’s not random. It’s not the low point because the books say page

90 is the low point. It’s the low point because your character is lost and in a whole

lot of trouble.

Their goal in the beginning, which was to go backwards to the beginning to achieve stasis,

to re-achieve stasis, that goal is in shambles. Their anti-thematic belief, whatever it was

that they clung to in the beginning of this story, it’s been exposed as a sham. And

the enormity of the real goal that now faces them is impossibly daunting. They can’t

yet accept the theme because it’s too scary. When your core values are gone and when you

aren’t ready to replace them with new values, well, you might as well be dead. And this

is why people go to movies.

So, granted, we love the lasers, we love the explosions, we love the ka-boom, and we love

the sex, and we love the tears, but what we need from drama – and when I say drama I

mean the drama of comedy and the drama of drama – what we need are these moments where

we connect to another person’s sense of being lost. Because we have all been lost.

And that’s why the ending is going to work. Because without this there can be no catharsis.

Catharsis comes from the Greek word for vomiting I’m pretty sure. So just think of a lot

of your plot as shoving really bad food down the throat of your hero because that’s how

you’re going to get to this catharsis.

Now, I want to say that these approaches don’t help you map out a second act. What these

approaches do is help you develop your character as they move through a narrative. And that

narrative is going to impact their relationship to theme. And when you finish that movement

of this character interacting with story so that their relationship to the theme is changing

from I don’t believe that to, OK, I don’t believe what I used to believe but I can’t

believe that yet, suddenly you’ll be somewhere around the end of the second act.

And here is the big secret. John and I have said this many, many times. There are no acts.

So you can’t really be scared of the second act. It doesn’t exist. It’s not some sort

of weird wasteland you have to get through. It’s just part of one big piece. There’s

one act. It’s called your story. And now we get to the third act, sorry, end of your

one act. And this is the defining moment. Your character needs to face a defining moment.

And this defining moment is their worst fear. It is their greatest challenge. This is the

moment that will not only resolve the story that you’re telling but it will resolve

the life of your character. This moment will bring them to a new stasis and balance. Remember

synthesis, thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Here we are again.

But what are you going to do? You have to come up with this thing. This is the difference

between what I’m saying to you now and what a lot of books say. Books will say, “Defining

moment goes here.” And I’m saying, yeah, but how? What makes it so defining? You’re

going to design a moment that is going to test your protagonist’s faith in the theme.

They need to go through something where they have to prove that they believe this new theme.

They have to prove it. It’s not enough to say, OK, I get it. What I used to think is

wrong. There’s a new way that’s right. That’s not enough.

They have to prove it. And they have to prove it in a way where they literally embody the

point of that idea with everything they have. But before you do that don’t you want to

torture them one more time? Of course you do.

The relapse. A nice ironic relapse. You want to tempt them right before this big decision

moment. Right before the defining moment. You want to hold that safety blanket up and

say, “Go ahead. Go back to the beginning. You get it. The thing you wanted on page 15,

I’m giving it to you. Don’t go forward. Don’t change. Go back.”

And what do they have to do? They have to reject that temptation. You design a machinery

where they have to reject that temptation and then do something extraordinary – extraordinary

– to embody the truth of the theme. And now you get acceptance through action. The

hero acts in accordance with the theme. Specifically by doing so they prevail. They have to act.

So let’s go back to Marlin. It’s not enough for Marlin to say, “I get it now. I’ve

heard the wise turtles. I’ve seen the way Dory is. I’ve learned my lesson. I’ve

got to let you live.” That’s not enough. What Pixar does is create a perfect mechanism

to tempt and then force action. Dory is captured. And Nemo says to Marlin, “I’m the only

one who can go in there and save her.” And this is a great temptation. This is where

Marlin has to reject the old way. We’re saying go ahead, you’ve got your kid, we’re

giving him back to you. It’s all you wanted. On page 15 you just wanted your kid. Here

he is. Get out.

But he has to act in accordance with the theme. So he rejects that and he says, “No. Go

ahead, son. And try and save her.” And that simple decision is how he acts in accordance

with theme. And it is terrifying. And now you get one last chance to punish him. Briefly.

Go ahead. Let’s see Nemo coming out of that net and let’s think that he’s dead. And

let Marlin hold him. And let Marlin remember what he was like when he was in that little

egg. And let Marlin kind of be OK with it. Because that’s what it means to live in

accordance with theme.

If you say, look, sometimes if you love someone you have to let them go, that’s one thing.

Actually having to let them go is another thing. Letting them go and seeing them get

hurt is yet another. That is the ultimate acceptance of that idea, isn’t it? And that’s

what he sees.

But then, of course, faith in the theme rewards. And Nemo is alive.

So then you get this denouement. What is the denouement? Why is it there? It’s not there

because we need to be slowly let down and back out in the movie theater lobby. It’s

there because we need to see the new synthesis. You have successfully fired a billion antitheses

against a billion theses and come up with one big, grand, lovely new synthesis. Please

show it to me. So we now see that the after story life is in harmony with theme.

And here’s the deal with the first scene and the last scene of a movie. If you remove

everything from the story except the introduction of your hero and the last scene of your hero

there should really be only one fundamental difference. And here it is. The hero in the

beginning acts in accordance with the anti-theme and the hero at the end acts in accordance

with the theme.

Now, this should all help you create your character. When you’re creating character

I want you to think of theme. I want you to imagine a character who embodies the anti-theme.

You can be subtle about this. You probably should be. It generally works better if you

are. And I want you to think of your story as a journey that guides this character from

belief in the anti-theme to belief in theme. Remember you’re god – angry, angry god.

You have created this test. That’s what your story is. In order to guide your character

to a better way of living, but they have to make the choices.

Oh, if you’ve heard, “The worst character is a passive character,” that’s why. They

have to make the choices or you’re making it for them. And then, well, it just doesn’t

count, does it?

If you can write the story of your character as they grow from thinking this to the opposite

of this, and guess what, you will never ask well what should happen next ever again. You’ll

only ask how can I make the thing that I want to happen next better. That’s a whole other

talk. Maybe I’ll do that one in like five years or something.

I hope that you found this interesting. It was kind of fun to do. I mean, I’m not going

to do it frequently because it’s scary. I mean, John really does run this show. But

I’m all here all alone. But I kind of liked a chance to at least talk to you directly

about all this stuff and I hope that you got something out of it. If you did, great. And

you can let us know.

And here comes the boilerplate. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by

Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by, well, I don’t know. But it’s a surprise

and we’ll let you know who it was the week following.

If you have an outro you can send us a link to [email protected]. That’s also a place

where you can send longer questions. For shorter questions on Twitter I am @clmazin and John

is @johnaugust.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s

also where you will find transcripts. We try to get them up about four days after the episode

airs.

Some folks have also started doing recaps and discussion on the screenwriting sub-Reddit.

If that continues, terrific. You can check there.

And you can also find the back episodes of the show at Scriptnotes.net or download 50-episode

seasons at store.johnaugust.com.

And I get none of the money.

You may want to check out the Scriptnotes Listener’s Guide at johnaugust.com/guide

to find out which episodes our listeners recommend most.

And with that, I bid you all good luck. Go torture your heroes.