The Screenwryter's Toolbox

by Steven Haas

  What is an 'arc?' How does a character have an 'arc?'

  These questions are daunting to the uninitiated however the process is actually very straightforward.

  Let's back up and define the word 'arc.' According to FreeDictionary.com, an arc is “a part of the circumference of a circle or other curve.”

  So essentially: “a character must have a part of the circumference of a circle or other curve.” Simple enough.

  In order to go forward, let's go back a little further. What exactly is the definition of “circumference?”

  Circumference: “The enclosing boundary of a curved geometric figure, especially a circle.”

  To state clearly: A character must have part of the enclosing boundary of a curved geometric figure, especially a circle, of a circle or other curve.

  Which brings up a fair question: How can your character have a part of the enclosing boundary of a curved geometric figure, especially a circle, of a circle or other curve?

  After all, your characters are flesh and blood, not curved geometric figures.

  Or are they?

  Your job as writer is to analyze and articulate decision making in storytelling. As such, it is your job to quantify emotional change in your characters. To do this, let's look at some simple pictures:

 

  In the above diagram, the character's emotional journey is represented by curve AC with point A being the starting point and point C being the ending point.

  SIDE NOTE: Many amateur level screenwriting books prefer to use the letters A and B due to a lack of knowledge about screenwriting and radial geometry.

  The dihedral angle (omega) represents the degree to which the character changes. Some characters change 180 degrees, causing their character arc to look thusly:

 

  SIDE NOTE: This is how the term 'shaping a story' came into popular use. As a writer it is your job to determine the size of your character's dihedral angle.

  If this explanation feels too simple, do not worry, for the above example assumes the character only has two identifiable points (Vectors A and C). However this is hardly realistic so let's give the character additional points of change, represented below with vectors b1, b2, and b3.

 

  We have now given the character three distinct vectors, AKA points of change. And we can still notice the dihedral angle, AKA spherical angle, representing the degree of overall change.

  Now if I may read your mind, I understand the term “overall change” is vague to the point of embarrassing so let's define it in more detail:

 

 

  And if I may read your mind again, I hear you questioning whether it is not overly simplistic to give a character only three points of emotional change represented by the b values. After all, in real life change occurs on a micro scale and that should be reflected in your screenplay. These micro scale moments come in the form of dialogue and actions and, for this reason, we must elevate our discussion from the novice level to the master level, AKA the atomic level:

 

  And with that we have quantified the micro emotional beats a character experiences so let's bring it back to the macro by computing the character's dihedral angle.

  To do this with your own character, first pick an arbitrary vector V that is not tangent to either of the two planes. Then, applying the Gram-Schmidt process to the 3 vectors (A2 – A1, A3 – A1, V), produce an orthonormal basis of space, the 3rd vector of which will be normal to plane A. Doing the same with the vectors B2 – B1, B3 – B1, V, yields a vector normal to plane B. The angle between the two normal vectors can then be computed by any method desired.

  And that's the definition of a character arc. Well executed character arcs can be found in such films as The Godfather, Citizen Kane, and Herbie: Fully Loaded.

  HOOKING THE READER

  Since your screenplay is a sales document, it is essential that it accomplishes the most important goal of any sales document: to entice, interest, intrigue, and arouse the individual you are selling it to, AKA the patsy.

  To translate this idea into story terms, the primary goal of your screenplay is to “hook” the reader. You need to make the reader WANT to keep reading. And this is a tricky task considering every reader has a near infinite amount of options for things they could (and would rather) be doing instead of reading your god-awful screenplay.

  SIDE NOTE: I apologize for calling your screenplay god-awful.

  Some amateur level screenwriting books talk about hooking the reader in the first five pages. Why five pages?

  Because why not five pages?

  Picking an arbitrary number like five is proof that writing something in a book is the easiest way to give credibility to whatever an individual thinks should be viewed as fact. Having read thousands of screenplays myself, I can promise you that “hooking the reader in the first five pages” is nonsense. In reality, you only have four pages to hook the reader.

  So what does that mean for writers? How do you properly utilize the first four pages so the reader becomes hooked? How do you prove to the reader you are a good writer in so little time? Do you simply throw all your best ideas into the first four pages creating a cacophony of action, sex, and wordplay?

  Yes!

  A good writing exercise is to take a screenplay you have completed, pick out the best parts, and figure out how to jam all of that into the first four pages.

  However four pages is the maximum amount of time you have to hook the reader and, as master level craftsmen, it is paramount that you hook the reader as quickly as possible.

  Look at your first page. It should contain no extra words, no unnecessary descriptions. It should be terse and compelling poetry. It should be a demonstration of the English language's power and rhythm.

  And that's great for a macro level analysis but dig in further. How does the first clause in the first sentence look? Does it establish a steel emotional bond between the reader and the main character?

  How do the first four words of your screenplay sound? Say them aloud. Repeat them. Are there other people around you? Are they weeping at the beauty of what you've created? If not, it's time to reconsider what you've written.

  Take the first three words of the screenplay. Have these words ever been uttered before? Google them. Are there any results? Maybe your prose isn't as original as you thought.

  Do the first two words of your screenplay introduce relevant conflicts and themes? Is that space on the page being used to its full potential? I can't say. Only you can.

  What is the first word in the screenplay? What part of speech is it? Is it an article? Is it “A?” Is the first word of your screenplay seriously “A?” Seriously? Go back to working retail.

  INCITING INCIDENT

  The most important part of a story is called the Inciting Incident. It is a fancy vocabulary word for whatever gets your story going. You may have heard other terms for it: Exciting Incident, Inciting Element, Instigating Event, Story Starter, Titty Twister, Twinkie Twirler, etc...

  Whatever term you're familiar with you know what it means: Something has happened to start this story. Pedal to the metal. Shit is going down.

  In Star Wars the inciting incident is when Luke gets the voicemail from Princess Laya.

  In The Tree of Life it is when the universe starts.

  In Up it is when the old man abducts the child.

  The most common question asked about inciting incidents is “when should it occur in my screenplay?”

  Amateur level screenwriting books will tell you it should occur halfway through the first act. Maybe between pages 12 and 15. Others will tell you it should occur after you've established the characters and setting. If these answers sound confusing or vague it is because they are wrong.

  As you just learned, you don't have long to hook your reader. If even the most idiotic screenwriter will tell you that the first five pages must hook the reader why would you place your inciting incident after that?


  For this reason, the inciting incident should occur as soon as possible in your screenplay.

  In the most recent screenplay I wrote it happens in the very first line:

  My screenplay immediately stands out among murder mysteries. If the conventional murder mystery waits until page 15 for the murder to occur then I've already got a 15 page lead.

  Now I know what you're thinking: “isn't that technically the 2nd line? The slugline is the first line.”

  You're absolutely correct. That example was nothing more than a test. My actual screenplay reads:

  A lot of script purists will tell you this not only breaks screenwriting rules that have been in place for decades but is also difficult to understand. Thankfully, the rules are meant to be broken and the inciting incident needs to occur as early as possible. And for that reason I recommend making it the first line in whatever script you are writing.

  But let's elevate our discussion to the master level.

  How do you make your screenplay stand out among others when everyone is placing their inciting incident in the first line?

  The title.

  Putting the inciting incident in the title hooks your reader before they even crack open the script. The title of the script I used excerpts from above is “Clive Finds a Body.” There is literally no way to make the inciting incident occur any earlier in the script.

  SIDE NOTE: Remember that your screenplay is not the only thing that needs to hook the reader. Look at the return address on the envelope you sent the script in. Does it hook the reader? What font did you choose? Times New Roman says “I'm doing this by the book” but Arial says “I'm not afraid to spice things up.” Does the color of the envelope complement the themes of your story? What about the stamp? Did you go with a generic American flag? Why not something with more pizzazz?

  STRUCTURE

  If you've got a story idea in mind to write, you must decide how to “structure” it. How to organize it. How to order it.

  And what is the best way to do that?

  Imagine an assortment of puzzle pieces. Structuring a story is simply finding a way to put them together so that someone looking at the puzzle says “that's a pretty picture” as opposed to “that piece isn't motivated to sit next to that piece.”

  Screenwriting guides often have entire sections on structure. Chapter after chapter on all the necessary pieces and how to organize them properly. We will skip all of this and jump to the important part.

  The key to understanding structure is to understand that you have to make a choice:

  Are you structuring a story?

  OR

  Are you structuring a screenplay?

  Most screenwriting books will recommend using a three-act structure. They parade around great movies that used a three-act structure.

  The Shawshank Redemption, Saving Private Ryan, Die Hard

  There are a few good movies that used three-act structure so I guess you should as well? Okay, but keep in mind that for every great movie that used three-act structure there are four dogshit movies that used three-act structure.

  And that brings us to the essential truth about screenplay structure:

  A “well structured” screenplay is nothing more than a “conventionally structured” screenplay.

  And how did the the conventional structure become the convention? Well at some point in screenwriting history someone decided to start referring to it as “good” structure and screenwriters followed like mindless geese begging for bread crumbs rather than creating something original.

  Why isn't a four-act structure considered good? Because it's not conventional. And why isn't it conventional? Because it's not considered good. If it's conventional it must be good because the definition of good is what's conventional.

  But why don't we have some fun with this. Let's put on the horse blinders and use some selective perception to figure out another element of all “well-structured” screenplays.

  “Well structured screenplays should have a moment of apparent defeat at the end of the 2nd act where the protagonist seems doomed to fail.”

  That's fancy sounding so it must be right. Should we take the time to think of movies where this story development was used and the movie turned out terrible?

  Nah. Instead here are some examples of movies where this story convention worked: Kiss. My. Ass.

  I can think of six good movies where the main character had a mustache. I guess all main characters should have a mustache?

  But if other screenwriting gurus want to look at good screenplays for patterns like Gregory Nash looking for Russian codes that is their business. Instead, let's go back to the other option you have instead of structuring a screenplay.

  Structure a story.

  There are no requirements in structuring a story. Let's look back in history at some examples of the greatest stories ever told:

  The Odyssey, Ulysses, Hamlet

  Do those stories follow similar structure? No, they don't. I read all of their Wikipedia pages just to be sure.

  And what about the most famous story of all time? You know, the one where Jesus died for everyone's sins and came back from the dead.

  If “conventional” structure was utilized, Jesus would have sword-fought Pontius Pilate on the rafters of a burning church while Mary untied herself from a ticking bomb. (WGA Premise Copyright #113255-23A. Jesus Lives is Intellectual Property of Arnold Wryter.)

  There is no “correct” way to structure a screenplay. There is only the “conventional” way.

  And now that we've identified the difference between structuring a story (unique) and structuring a screenplay (conventional), what does that mean for you? Which option should you go with?

  Conventional. Obviously.

  Remember that conventional = good. And if readers are judging your script on a scale from “not good” to “good” that means they are actually judging it on a scale from “not conventional” to “conventional.”

  If you're not sure how to structure a screenplay conventionally you definitely shouldn't have read this far into the book. Go pick up literally any other screenwriting book ever written. Read two if you want to hear the same thing twice. Or maybe just pick up the script for Titanic, set the story in modern times, and change the characters' names from Jack and Rose to Mitch and Mandy.

  SIDE NOTE: Actually don't do the Titanic idea, think of a different one. (WGA Premise Copyright #216334-13G. Titanic Reborn is Intellectual Property of Arnold Wryter.)

  PACING

  A common critique of screenplays is that they have poor “pacing.” Readers will give notes such as “the script has pacing issues” or “there are pacing issues in this script' or even “this script, pacing issues it has.”

  But what does that mean?

  It means, quite simply, that the reader got bored.

  So why doesn't the reader just say that?

  Remember the different types of readers. The one thing they all have in common is that they have bosses. For this reason, readers need to sound intelligent when critiquing a script. Simply saying “it was boring” is overly simplistic and not nearly as impressive sounding as “the screenplay has pacing issues.”

  And while you have so far learned how to make your verbage more exciting, your characters more intriguing, and your prose more dick-poundingly awesome, there is another technique to fix a boring script.

  And that involves asking yourself “where does the story actually start?”

  Oftentimes writers start their story too late. There may be scene after scene showing the main character eating breakfast, going to work, or simply not killing anyone. These pages are devoid of conflict, AKA boring, AKA creating pacing issues.

  One surefire way to make sure your story does not drag in the beginning is to take your finished screenplay and throw away Acts 1 and 2. The remaining 3rd act is now your 1st act. And with that, your story starts early enough and doesn't have pacing issues. And you're already a third of
the way done writing the screenplay!

  Now let's take this lesson to the master level.

  In order to accomplish this, finish the screenplay with the 3rd act as the 1st act. Now throw away acts 1 and 2, leaving you with only your 3rd act. That is now act 1. Repeat this process two more times.

  The completed process is as follows: write three acts, throw away the first two. Write two acts, throw away the first two. Write two acts, throw away the first two. Write two more acts and throw away the bottle next to your computer you've been peeing into.

  Your completed screenplay's 1st act is now what would have been your original screenplay's 7th act. How's that for accelerating the plot?

  Some of you may be thinking: why stop there? Why not repeat the process a few more times?

  Go for it. Keep doing it until the unemployment checks stop coming.

  And if the screenplay you end with doesn't much resemble your original vision, don't panic. This is normal. Keep in mind that Schindler's List was originally about Oskar Schindler's struggle to graduate from technical college.