Whose is the story...?

« BIG News for Stephen O'Reilly

Whose is the story...?

by CutToCreative @ 2007-06-12 – 09:58:43

we're seeing a lot of people making the same mistake about their stories, and it's a surprisingly simple and basic mistake. which is, unfortunately, hard to fix if you're on your first or second draft.
Think - whose story am I telling? In which character's company are we going through this movie? You might already think you know the answer to that - but there's a strange and unusual blindness that afflicts screenwriters who have lived with their stories for a while, and you won't even know you have it.
try this. Write down in a paragraph or two the story AS TOLD FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A SECONDARY CHARACTER. as if they were narrating, or as though they are the key character. make him or her your star for a moment.
I think you'll find this throws up insights...

and remember (in life, as well as in cinema) everyone is the hero of their own story...
Options:

39 Comments to Whose is the story...?

Hide subcomments

- RichardP
- http://www.myspace.com/richardparkin
- 2007-06-12 @ 19:07:24
Ha. The Blind Screenwriter. That's me. How many times have I overlooked the obvious and fallen flat on my proverbial. But you can get corrective surgery now, I've heard.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- Baz G (Visitor)
- 2007-06-13 @ 15:22:24
Thanks for the advice! But just a hypothetical one to add:
If the piece you are writing is an ensemble piece, ie. many different stories verging into one ending, from whose perspective is it told?
I guess each of the individual stories is told from the perspective of the lead character in that story but at the end, when they all converge, who takes the lead, in ballroom dancing fashion?
- - Peter Curran (Visitor)
  - 2007-06-13 @ 18:42:17
  A couple of suggestions on this one Baz:
  (a) the character you most identify with should take the lead.
  (b) the character you think the audience will most empathise/sympathise with should take the lead.
  (c) if it is purely an ensemble piece (with every character given equal time and treatment) then an impartial narrative should take the lead.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- RichardP
- http://www.myspace.com/richardparkin
- 2007-06-13 @ 19:37:19
"An impartial narrative should take the lead." Eh?
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- Peter Curran (Visitor)
- 2007-06-13 @ 22:01:30
As in an ensemble piece requires a certain amount of empathy for all the characters than I feel can be provided by an impartial narrative structure (we're referring mainly to treatments and short stories here, I think) which should help in structuring the final scene.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- RichardP
- http://www.myspace.com/richardparkin
- 2007-06-13 @ 22:36:13
Sure. Right. So, the third option is that 'no one character takes the lead,' as happens in Robert Altman's ensemble pieces. But wouldn't that tend to lead to a dispersal of empathy, allowing space for the audience to take a more analytical, perhaps critical attitude to the characters? Perfectly valid, if you ask me.
I wonder what our lords and masters make of all this idle talk of multiple-protagonists.
- - Spence (Visitor)
  - 2007-06-14 @ 15:21:09
  Whose Story is it?
  
  I’ll never forget my first meeting with a producer. I had my first ever draft of my first ever script in my sweaty mitt and was raring to go. After the chit chat was dispensed with.. The air stilled … he clasped his hands sage like, closed his eyes (can you guess who it is yet kids?) and asked “So whose story is it?” …. And my reply? Delivered in my most incredulous, broadest, Ballyclare, bemused tone “It’s mine you header!”’ I even pointed to the ‘Written By Spence Wright’ legend on the cover sheet and declared “See?” …. Nightmare. A ghastly nightmare.
  
  That was the first time I’d ever thought in those terms as it was it was very clear whose story it was. A few scenes had pov shifts which were easily amended and soon cleared up any doubt.
  
  I rarely stray into ensemble type stories; I’m a monogamous kinda guy that way. I prefer to have a protagonist that will focus the reader’s attention. Layer them sufficiently that they appeal to as many imaginations as possible and let them loose. Countering with cuts to the antagonist closing in etc
  
  Who is the best person to lead us through a story?
  Whose eyes do we want to see this world through?
  Who will be doing what in this world? – Who will be most active? Solving the crime, Looking for love, Healing the sick??
  Who will be ‘like’ us enough to gain empathy but not too alike as to be too familiar?
  
  This isn’t nearly as much as a problem as it all sounds. Just so long as we give it some thought in advance. I think most writers know exactly whose story it is but allow other characters to overshadow them, muddy the waters.
  
  Teenage Kicks – A script currently in development and being co written with John Cairns. ‘A group of teenagers’ plans to hold an illegal rave end in murder.’ On the surface an ensemble piece. But from day one it has been one characters story. The others all have their time in the spotlight but Gemma (the new arrival to the group and the one who didn’t take part in the murder) is the girl we are following.
  She becomes the reader in many respects. We join a group of friends with an already established hierarchy. As a reader/audience we are going in blind. Therefore - Gemma ‘the newcomer’ effectively becomes us in the story, through her we learn the interrelationships and tensions between the others. Gemma doesn’t take part in the brutal murder of one of the group therefore edging her morality closer to the readers’ perceived morality.
  
  I watched HOSTEL not so very long ago. Brutal oul tripe for the most part. But it did have an interesting moment in terms of whose story is it?
  The ‘story’ involves some Americans backpacking around Europe on the hunt for sleazy fun and frolics etc. One character ’appears’ to be set up as the lead. He doesn’t buy into the ‘everything is for sale’ ethos of the others. He appears more sensitive and less of a prick than his friends.
  
  Spoiler Alert – but from what I recall he is the first to meet his maker. The story is then shouldered by the more maverick, sleazy character. Reason for this may be a) - it was a cheap “Oh I didn’t expect him to die first” shock moment’ … Eli Roth …probably. Or b) – I prefer to think it was a conscious decision by the writer. The sensitive, good guy had nothing to learn about morality. Whereas, the guy, who believed everything, was for sale, did. Therefore it almost ‘had’ to be his story in terms of following a character change and develop.
  
  Point being- which of the characters circling your story, vying for supremacy has the biggest journey to take? Who has the most to learn? Those might be questions worth asking when trying to decide ‘Whose Story is it?
  - - RichardP
    - http://www.myspace.com/richardparkin
    - 2007-06-14 @ 16:08:04
    Cool. I finished a first outline of PAPER WASPS last weekend and have just stopped to consider who, out of three candidates, should emerge as the protagonist. It's not clear from the outline. So this discussion is well-timed.
    
    The character I favoured was way too passive, so I'm faced with the decision: make her more active, or switch. It's a tough one because hers is by far the most interesting journey (for me, at least), but it's not one the audience will ever want to go on! Mind you, who wanted to follow Edward Woodward's journey in The Wicker Man? [That wasn't a spoiler, by the way.]
    - - Spence (Visitor)
      - 2007-06-14 @ 16:28:33
      I had these very problems with Red Mist my good friend. In earlier drafts Catherine (the girl trying to bring her brother out of a coma) was wracked with guilt. When her wonder drug began to take effect (in the form of kenneth's old tormentors biting the dust in weird circumstances) Catherine was in denial. All she allowed herself to see was that his coma state was improving, his brain activity increasing. Which was all very well and groovy. I loved the fact she was so driven but on paper it appeared passive. People were dying and she couldn't/wouldn't admit her possible role. I got a lot of suggestions to switch the story to Jake (ex boyfriend, now town cop ... and cliche with legs) as he was the guy investigating the crimes (which isn't convnient at all!!) thankfully that never happened Catherine's guilt was always the stories 'home key' for me. In time a lot of things changed (brother and sister relationship is gone / back story etc) but the essence of the original character is still in there. SO the point I'm floundering for is - in the case of Red Mist shifting to another cahracter wasn';t the right way to go. If you love the character as is find new ways to bring her to the fore of the action.... just like that !!!
      - RichardP
        
        http://www.myspace.com/richardparkin
        
        2007-06-14 @ 16:42:29
        
        Cool, thanks. That's something I'm considering, yes. And I'm glad I wrote an outline first - a kind of short pass through the whole story - rather than a full draft. If radical changes do have to be made, striking through a few paragraphs will be so much less painful than thirty or forty pages!!!
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
  - - RichardP
    - http://www.myspace.com/richardparkin
    - 2007-06-14 @ 16:22:17
    You know, Spence, I don't reckon you get multi-protagonist horror films, even if they feature groups of people up shit creek together, one character always emerges as the protagonist, as you say; but you do get ensemble
    - - RichardP
      - http://www.myspace.com/richardparkin
      - 2007-06-14 @ 16:24:41
      ... you do get ensemble dramas: you know, like Magnolia or Crash or Nashville or Diner? Who was the main protagonist in those?
      - Reply to comment
      - Permalink
  - - RichardP
    - http://www.myspace.com/richardparkin
    - 2007-06-14 @ 16:28:46
    If I remember rightly, Eli Roth, who also wrote, said he killed that character off - Josh? - to destabilize the audience, in much the same say as Hitchcock did with Marion Crane in Psycho. It worked. But, reading between the lines, I sense he also found the replacement protagonist a more interesting character; a bad boy. (Dunno if he layered the stuff about speaking German and being vegetarian (?) into the script before or after that decision.) But I've gotta ask, did that guy really learn anything? Don't follow your dick to Slovakia? I don't know.
    - - Spence (Visitor)
      - 2007-06-14 @ 16:35:24
      Thought as much. 'Wolf Creek' did it as well. It's a few more flicks away from being 'Oh the old make him look like the hero trick" routine. The director of Red Mist and I were trying desperately to get Catherine's love interest nailed first but it wasn't to be ... although ... just wait and see.
      Not sure how much the guy learned out there right enough but he had potential to learn something. Mutli protaganist horror films?? There's a niche ...
      - Peter Curran (Visitor)
        
        2007-06-14 @ 19:13:15
        
        I actually quite liked Hostel, the second act had a great Wicker Man/Don't Look Now vibe about it. Mind you, it's a bit rich making a film about the perils of exploitation when your first act is pretty much soft core porn.
        
        From hearing Roth talk about the film, you're both right, the killing of Josh (the male Jamie Lee Curtis, so to speak) is designed to put you off guard and serve the moral of the story as his friend learns a harsh lesson. Needless to say in Hostel 2 he learns a harsher lesson.
        
        As for Wolf Creek (a lousy, lousy film) it's pretty much a ridiculous cheat that a character you assume is dead just suddenly frees himself and goes for a walk. Mind you I'd contend this is the least of this film's many sins (I'm not a fan funnily enough).
        
        As for ensemble horror, there are plenty of books I can think of but horror films generally seem to require a central protagonist for the audience. The only one I can think of is A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master in which the survivors of the third film again take precedence only to be killed off at the end of the first act and replaced by their friends. Though again a single character is given precedent.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        Peter Curran (Visitor)
        
        2007-06-14 @ 19:28:43
        
        Funnily enough, pap though it is, The Grudge 2 (u.s. version) is pretty much an ensemble movie though this really hurts it at the end.
        
        Also (possibly) Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978).
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        RichardP
        
        http://www.myspace.com/richardparkin
        
        2007-06-15 @ 00:04:49
        
        Nah, Donald Sutherland is our man all the way there!
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Spence (Visitor)
        
        2007-06-15 @ 09:53:24
        
        Hostel- was grand but there are plot holes the size of a east belfast puddle in there. But more than that I just have the sneaky suspicion that Eli is getting his jollies during all the blood letting, I never warmed to the guy since an interview in which he said he was born to be a director ... always a bit suss. This recent trend of 'let's see how much gore and nastiness we can get away' with harks back to the cannibal nasties of yore. I enjoy it to a degree.. in Red Mist I have a few equally visceral gems but I worry that horror is veering too close to 'snuff fetish' and further from old style chills .. this from the guy who loves dawn of the dead and kills someone in red mist by making them drink industrial acid ...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        RichardP
        
        http://www.myspace.com/richardparkin
        
        2007-06-15 @ 10:36:25
        
        Now here's one for you: 'Wolf Creek' was made for $1m (more or less) and took over $16m at the US box office alone. It was a spectacular success for such a small Austrailan movie by a first-time director, precisely the kind of success DN must be eyeing. And yet ... and yet, the story repeatedly and deliberately switches protagonist; and in no way delivers a 'proper' resolution. Go figure.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        Spence (Visitor)
        
        2007-06-15 @ 11:21:05
        
        Yes 'THAT' ending sheesh....... there was the usual smattering of I don't believe htis moments (girl being chased by insane hillbilly .. decides to have a quick shifty through loads of discarded video camera's which is only slightly more acceptable then the ... 'guy and girl being pursued by (INSERT BADDY) so they pause to have a shag' which so gets on my goat!!!!!! All that being said first time I watched Wolf Creek (as with every film) I got sucked in to the tension the other cinema goers were watching from behind pocorn tubs and fingers, with gasps and screams and nervous giggles aplenty, so from a 'Did it scare the audience?' point of view wolf creek worked. Only later do the holes start appearing for me. In terms of Dark North Wolf creek is a cinderella story but we'll make sure they realise that you can have all the scares (or laughs / thrills / romance) but it doesn't have to be packaged in a poorly executed/plotted or contrived story .. think how much money THAT will make em!
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        Peter Curran (Visitor)
        
        2007-06-16 @ 16:58:52
        
        Yeah, Creek just doesn't work for me, primarily because the central characters have no personalities and do incredibly stupid things in order to get themselves killed. The bit where the girl gets killed in the car is shocking simply from the perspective that she didn't see the large Australian Deliverance-wannabe sitting in the backseat.
        
        Gore for gore sake is aggravating too, I think Roth is actually a better director than perhaps he knows but he has an annoying habit of drenching his films in gore and poor comedy when he should just let them play out. At least in Hostel the voyeurism was part of the plot.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        Peter Curran (Visitor)
        
        2007-06-16 @ 17:27:57
        
        Then again, horror movies aren't really about the central protagonists anymore, they're really about the antagonists. That's why you can kill off the heroes/heroines in franchise movies at the start of the sequel (or in-between if the actor doesn't want to come back) without anybody really caring in box office terms.
        People will still flock to see Freddy, Michael, Jason and friends regardless of who's spleen is being used as a hat.
        
        Consisering they're remaking Don't Look Now it'll probably be told from the point of view of the dwarf. Meanwhile the upcoming Halloween remake is going to focus on Michael's (no doubt fascinating) trailer trash origins with only the final 30 minutes being devoted to Laurie Strode. Ingenious.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        Spence (Visitor)
        
        2007-06-18 @ 09:47:51
        
        Peter tell me your joking about the 'Don't Look now' remake ... I mean some things just should not be.
        
        I agree with you about the upturn in all the gore splattered nonsense that seems to be masquerading as entertainment. 'Vacancy' (snuff themed film although at 15 cert I'd hope it isn;t to icky. But even so the subject matter for a 15 is pretty dark)Films like 'Paradise Lost' (people in a jungle getting their organs removed ) Saw etc There's a film called 'Snuff' out to rent which ... dear only knows. I could go on and on. It seems to be 'let's make lots of schlock (without the humour) and make it seem as sickening real as possible'. I'm sure thre is some deep rooted psychological need being met by these films, (a blowing off some modern living accrued steam perhaps?) maybe its uber violent console games (steady peter!). When the news can show bodies strewn across the desert at tea time and then cut to 'Hre's the winner of Britains's got talent' we can probaly safely assume there is a certain amount of desensitising going on. Whatever it is I'm a bit jarred off with it all. In fact i think i am going to either A) refocus my efforts on making an intelligent, character driven horror OR knocking it on the head and having a stab at romantic comedy .. you heard it here first my lovelies!!!
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        RichardP
        
        http://www.myspace.com/richardparkin
        
        2007-06-18 @ 13:02:43
        
        But Spence you've barely started!!! Don't give up on it, baby (as David Soul once sang). It'll come full circle. Maybe you'll be the one to swing it around. Or the one who prepares the ground for me. Yep, now I'm sure you've gotta keep going!
        
        http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070618c.php
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        Spence (Visitor)
        
        2007-06-18 @ 14:12:19
        
        badass!! I will keep at it in fact I have to admit on a purely capitalist, my fence needs painting level I almost envy the sods who can get paid to churn out storyless films (I'm assuming they still got paid and a credit is a credit is a credit ... I need to think up a pen name!) Lovecraft has had a hug eimpact on many a writer old Stephen King for instance so I reckon its no mistake our stuff has similarities. (his dialogue and characterisation is for the most part really hard going ... but the idea of other worlds and terrible creatures lurking just beyond our thin viel of 'reality' has always gave me the shivers .. try a fe wof his short stories forst mate .. in fact your good frend richard crawford has two volumes of hp lovecraft .. you may to talk nicely to him though .. the horror.. the horror.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        RichardP
        
        http://www.myspace.com/richardparkin
        
        2007-06-18 @ 14:45:09
        
        Did you follow the attached link? There may be hope on the horizon ...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Peter Curran (Visitor)
        
        2007-06-18 @ 18:44:38
        
        Hate to be the oracle of tragedy but Paramount Pictures, who own the U.S. dvd rights to Don't Look Now are planning a remake that is in pre-production. No director or cast yet but I assume it'll be full of computer generated effects, be shot in Vancouver (doubling for Venice) and have a happy ending. That's if we're lucky.
        
        I'd agree with you about violence in general in films, I personally don't have a problem with it and in no way advocate censorship but the level of violence in films (particularly those aggressively marketed at pre-teen children) is of a pretty high watermark (Casino Royale, Spider-man 2+3) and more sadistic than ever.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        RichardP
        
        http://www.myspace.com/richardparkin
        
        2007-06-18 @ 19:10:25
        
        Yes, and apparently it will be sexier and there will be no dwarf. But it will get plenty of publicity from pundits complaining about remakes, guaranteed column inches there. Speaking of which, let's see if we can't continue this thread to the point where there is room for only one character per line! Or not.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        Peter Curran (Visitor)
        
        2007-06-18 @ 19:44:14
        
        Sounds like a challenge.
        
        Yeah, no point complaining about lousy remakes, they make business-sense (many make profit on dvd sales of the original film being re-released alone) even if they're nearly all terrible.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        RichardP
        
        http://www.myspace.com/richardparkin
        
        2007-06-18 @ 19:51:03
        
        It is.
        And there isn't.
        The first 'Body-
        Snatchers' re-
        make was better.
        I'd like to see the bad films re-
        made. That's to say, ones that could have been so much better. The ones that got away.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        Peter Curran (Visitor)
        
        2007-06-18 @ 19:57:43
        
        I agree.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Peter Curran (Visitor)
        
        2007-06-16 @ 17:50:13
        
        As such one recent film that really did unnerve me was David Fincher's Zodiac. The four or five suspense sequences are really frightening because (a) they're shown from the point of view of the victim (b) they're based on reality and so don't rely on narrative convention/cliche and (c) they are part of a larger narrative of the unknown and incomprehensible that never coheres.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        Spence (Visitor)
        
        2007-06-18 @ 16:27:19
        
        Yeah I liked the look of that one meself. Will check it out.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- Peter Curran (Visitor)
- 2007-06-13 @ 23:19:31
In an ensemble drama, by definition, you get a dispersal of empathy, particularly if the narrative is fragmented. I would suggest the analytical/critical approach is more a question of tone and narrative voice. I think Baz's point was the difficult point at which these characters and their narratives converge.
- - RichardP
  - http://www.myspace.com/richardparkin
  - 2007-06-14 @ 12:40:20
  'Narrative voice', 'dispersal of empathy', 'impartial narrative': I think we're both getting a tad academic here. I mean, does anyone really consider these things when they're hammering out a script? It's a wee bit premature, isn't it? Better to concentrate on making the darned thing work first, if you ask me (which you didn't).
  - - RichardP
    - http://www.myspace.com/richardparkin
    - 2007-06-14 @ 12:52:48
    And perhaps better, at this juncture, to let Richard C respond to Barry's query about how his recommendations on choosing the main character might apply to multi-protagonist narratives; as they would seem, at first glance, to be excluded altogether.
    - Reply to comment
    - Permalink
- Peter Curran (Visitor)
- 2007-06-13 @ 23:20:40
In an ensemble drama, by definition, you get a dispersal of empathy, particularly if the narrative is fragmented. I would suggest the analytical/critical approach is more a question of tone and narrative voice. I think Baz's point was the difficult point at which these characters and their narratives converge.
- - Peter Curran (Visitor)
  - 2007-06-13 @ 23:22:58
  Is the one thing worse than a double post an apology?
  Do I know what a rhetorical question is?
  Do I know how to rip-off The Simpsons?
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- Baz G (Visitor)
- 2007-06-14 @ 13:28:26
Thanks for all the comments in regards to this query. i was also thinking myself that possibly the emphasis at the end should be on the main character that was introduced first into the story, within the first segment, as they will have been the first charcter the audience should have identified with. i also think that the story should end on this first character but this is just an opinion and in some ways biased by an emsemble piece i have already an outline for.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink

Whose is the story...?
by CutToCreative on 2007-06-12 – 09:58:43
BIG News for Stephen O'Reilly
by CutToCreative on 2007-06-08 – 14:11:40
BLOGLAND - A GUIDE
by CutToCreative on 2007-05-31 – 08:50:53
GENERAL - Discuss the Rich Tapestry of Screenwriting Life
by CutToCreative on 2007-05-31 – 08:42:27
LINKS - Share Your WEB LINKS Here
by CutToCreative on 2007-05-31 – 08:41:46
BUSINESS- Development Process and Production Forum
by CutToCreative on 2007-05-31 – 08:41:10
STYLE - For Questions on Tone and Genre
by CutToCreative on 2007-05-31 – 08:40:28
TOOLS - A forum to nail all those writing puzzles
by CutToCreative on 2007-05-31 – 08:39:45
Thank You
by CutToCreative on 2007-05-29 – 15:31:51
Dialogue and thank you .. and stuff
by CutToCreative on 2007-05-29 – 15:25:31

39 Comments to Whose is the story...?

Leave a comment (Login)