FAULTS - DARK DRAMEDY

LOGLINE: An expert on cults is hired by a mother and father to kidnap and deprogram their brain-washed daughter. He soon begins to suspect the parents may be more destructive than the cult he’s been hired to save her from.

WRITER: Riley Stearns

SCRIPT BIO: 19 votes on the 2013 blacklist. It has since been made into a film directed by the writer. This is Riley's first feature.  It has a 6.7 rating on IMDB. Metacritic has it on 70/100 and rotten tomatoes gives it a 90% rating.

Interesting to note this film didn't get a box office release yet and I imagine it won't. 

STORY:

Ansel Roth is a weird character to say the least. I think this character is the core reason this script placed so high on the 2013 blacklist - the blacklist is becoming more and more a celebration of the weird. If you go through the blacklist loglines of the last few years, you will find a large percentage of scripts dealing with cancer, and lead roles that are either mostly dislikable or straight out serial killers.

The story to this script is pretty straight forward - Ansel Roth is a 40 something professional deprogrammer - that is - a person who deals with people (mostly young adults) that have been brainwashed by cults. He takes them away from the cult - locks them in a room then spends 5 days deprogramming them.

This story is pretty much that - we first meet Ansel at a seminar he's giving where there's only a handful of people present. One of whom is a member of a family that Ansel worked for deprogramming a young lady. That same young lady killed herself - this man believes it is as a result of Ansel's deprogramming and he punches Ansel hard in the face. 

Ansel doesn't seem fazed by this - he takes the punch and moves on. At the same seminar a husband and wife approach Ansel and say that their daughter has been brain washed by a cult and that they dearly want him to kidnap her and deprogram her.

At first Ansel is reluctant - but being that he is in debt to his manager for the cost of all his self-help books he had printed on credit but has failed to sell, he decides to take the 'case'.

He then kidnaps Claire - a 19 year old lady - sequesters her in a remote motel and begins deprogramming her. 

As the logline suggests - what he discovers makes him question who is more dangerous - the cult or Claire's parents. 

DECONSTRUCTION:

The first thing that hit me as I was reading this - was how much I disliked Ansel. In fact, the first 18 pages are nothing but negative empathy. I wrote in my last post the importance of making the audience like your hero BEFORE showing us their flaw. 

The writer has done just that here. The entire first 5 pages of this script are devoted to showing Ansel run out on paying a food bill. He does it in a fashion that makes us hate him.

He's an asshole to the manager, he's an asshole to the waiter, he's just a plain asshole. 

Now what was the point in opening like this? I imagine the writer was trying to SHOW us that Ansel is down and out - he can't even afford a meal. But why convey that story point in a negative light. Why couldn't it have been written in a positive light? 

Here's an alternative - instead of having Ansel steal a lunch, then be abusive toward the manager and waiter of the diner, why not have him out the back of the restaurant, picking through the rubbish bin after scraps thrown away - then have a couple walk past and see him and recognise him 'hey, aren't you Ansel Roth, the author?' He denies it, as he's embarrassed, then when he's up on stage giving his presentation, that same couple are in the audience. In fact, that couple could BE the couple that come to ask him to deprogram their daughter. 

This way we have conveyed that he is down and out on his luck in a positive light - this execution of this character point is an example of passive empathy. Which is FAR better than ACTIVE NEGATIVE EMPATHY. 

Just for those that aren't 100% up to date on the 4 types of empathy --

ACTIVE POSITIVE EMPATHY is when the hero DOES something we like them for. They save someone, they run after the mugger, they whistle blow on the bad guy etc.... 

PASSIVE POSITIVE EMPATHY is when something bad happens to them and we feel sorry for them. 

Then there is ACTIVE NEGATIVE EMPATHY and PASSIVE NEGATIVE EMPATHY.

Active negative empathy is when the character actively does something we don't like them for. As in this instance, Ansel is an asshole to the waiter and the manager. 

PASSIVE NEGATIVE EMPATHY is when something bad is happening - and the hero chooses not to do anything about it. Say, your hero is watching someone being mugged and they don't try to stop it. We don't like them because they DIDN'T do something. 

The next 13 pages in this script are one active negative empathy beat after another.

When you don't have empathy for the hero in a story - there is no vicarious connection between the audience and the film. People will still watch, but that's all they're doing - is watching - they're not FEELING the film. We get feeling when we have a connection with the characters on screen. The first 18 pages of this script are spent alienating the reader/watcher. 

The first positive empathy beat comes in the form of a threat from a strong-man who threatens Ansel that he has 1 week to pay off his debt or he'll be beaten up. 

But even that is PASSIVE POSITIVE EMPATHY. What really gets the audience connected is ACTIVE POSITIVE EMPATHY. In fact - I don't recall ONE SINGLE beat of ACTIVE POSITIVE EMPATHY in the first 50 pages of this script. 

Ansel goes and kidnaps Claire - that's active - but is it positive? I would argue no. His intentions might be well placed - but forcibly kidnapping someone is never something that endears us to a person. 

OKAY....

Empathy beats aside - my next big problem with the first half of this script is...

EXPLAIN THEN HAPPENS

What does that mean? 

It's a beat in a film - where you have a character saying - 'Okay, this is what I'm going to do. I'm going to kidnap your daughter and take her to a motel where I'm going to deprogram her.'

Then after saying that - we spend the next 5 - 10 minutes watching - exactly that. There is nothing more boring than being told what's about to happen, then it playing out exactly as we were told it would. 

If you do have a character explain what's going to happen - then it's on YOU the writer to make sure that SOMETHING GOES WRONG. 

If you just have it play out as it was explained - then that's dull screen time. It's boring as hell.

This script is also guilty of TRAVEL TIME. 

Right after the kidnapping goes completely to plan... (boring) ... we then have a series of shots of Ansel driving for about 24 hours. 

It takes up almost a full page. That's 1 minute of screentime. Why do we need to see them driving for a minute?

Then, when they get to the motel, they have the problem of walking Claire from the van into the motel room without her causing any trouble. 

This was a great opportunity for something to go WRONG.

Nope - nothing went wrong - not really - Claire tried to walk away - but one of Anel's minders grabs her and forces her into the motel room without incident. 

So there was really no point to showing the kidnapping as NOTHING WENT WRONG.  

Then there was no reason to show the travel time of driving as NOTHING WENT WRONG.

Then there was no point in showing them get Claire into the room as - you guessed it - NOTHING WENT WRONG.

I'm not gong to break this script down completely like I have many other scripts. But I do want to look at another few aspects of where this script went wrong.

Next is ANSEL'S FLAW.

What is it?

He's down and out. That's not a flaw. That's a by-product of a flaw. What is it that's causing him to be down and out?

He's an asshole? Is that a flaw? Not really. Again, it's a by-product of a flaw. 

So to this end... I can't really see what Ansel's flaw is. When a hero doesn't have a clear flaw, it makes it harder for the audience to connect with them. 

When a hero doesn't have a clear flaw, there's no inner journey - the story becomes spectacle only. Surface level. 

Why is Ansel a deprogrammer? Wouldn't it have been more interesting if he went into this bizarre profession as he himself was once a victim of a cult? 

Remember in Jaws - the famous monologue from Quint about being on the USS Indianapolis that sank in the pacific. He spends days in the water, watching his buddies being eaten alive by sharks.

That made Quint's hatred of sharks personal. We understand what his flaw was. Why he was the way he was. When you understand WHY a person is flawed - you are far more likely to be forgiving toward their flaw. 

If someone is an asshole for a good reason, we forgive them. If someone if just a plain asshole, we dislike them.

Let's look at the goal here. 

What is the goal? Deprogram Claire. 

We are given a tentative timeline - one week - or Ansel will be beaten up - but we get the feeling Ansel doesn't really care if he's beaten up or not. He's kind of psychopathic like that. 

Let's look at the stakes of the goal. What happens to Ansel if he fails at de-programming Claire? Nothing really - he goes back to his normal life and he's been paid.

So there's zero stakes. 

IF - say - Ansel was really messed up BECAUSE he blamed himself for the suicide of the other girl that he tried to deprogram - and he reluctantly took on this case - not for the money - but for the opportunity to prove to himself he can succeed - then we have a great motivation for his flaw! And we also have great personal stakes. We - as the audience - are suddenly SOOOO much more invested in this story. 

If Ansel fails deprogramming her - then he is a failure. We can get behind that as a story line. 

As it stands - there's nothing personally invested for Ansel. He doesn't really want to do this deprogramming - he's really only in it for the money.

Okay -- so that's a lot of negative for this script - there is one ounce of goodness here...

This script is 90% contained in the motel room. That brings the production costs waaaaay down... which is a good thing. I had a look around but could not see a production budget for this film. I' going to guess less than $5m - and assume it was more likely around the $2-$3m mark. 

Looking at the setup of this film - the lack of empathy for Ansel, the lack of flaw, the lack of personal motivation for the hero - I can see why this film played well at film festivals - but then did not make any money at the box office. 

There's no big idea here - this script is a DRAMA - it's got darker elements - but it's definitely not a thriller and definitely not a horror. 

It could have been both a thriller and a horror if it had been executed differently. Look at Jason Blum's THE GIFT - that was a straight forward drama that was told as a thriller/horror. The dark/suspense elements of that drama were played up and it found an audience. 

Faults could have gone in that direction - but instead it chose the dark dramedy route (drama/comedy). 

Dark drama's almost never make money. And a dark dramedy is even less likely to make money.

So how to apply what we've learnt to your script?

Take a look at the moment you reveal your hero's flaw. Do you do it in a positive or negative way? If you do it in a negative way, re-write it until you can convey the point in a positive way - a way that makes us LIKE your hero despite their flaw.

Second tip: - personal investment. Look at your story. Is your hero PERSONALLY involved in the storyline? If not, then go through and re-write it until your hero has a personal reason to want to go on their journey. 

When your hero is personally invested - WE the audience will be personally invested. 

In the original draft of Jaws written by Peter Benchley - Quint had no personal reason for hating sharks. It was Spielberg who wrote that monologue about Quint going down with the USS Indianapolis, and the film is all the more powerful for it. 

SCREEN WRITING BASICS #1

I was watching some films recently and noticed how often screenwriting 101 rules are broken by scripts deemed good enough to warrant being green-lit. 

The following are some screenwriting fundamentals. 

What I'd suggest you do is take a screenplay you've written that you feel is finished. Something that is ready to go out, then before you send it out - do some specific passes on the script focusing each pass on one or all of the following caveats that appear in far too many films... 

1 - TRAVEL TIME.

Many screenwriters are guilty of this. Travel time is where we see the characters in transit, be it from the living room to the car outside, or on a plane from X country to Z country. 

UNLESS we learn something of importance about the character - OR - there is a major story point to be expressed while the character is in transit - then - CUT ALL TRAVEL TIME.

There is nothing to be learned about watching a character walk up to a front door - hit the bell, wait the requisite period of time for it to be opened - then for the conversation to begin. 

CUT straight to the conversation.

But even further than that - cut straight to the important part of the conversation. 

Skip the pleasantries. I know it sounds obvious - but so many films have characters saying hello and asking how each other are before getting into WHY the conversation needs to take place in the first place. 

That's the first pass I urge you to do. Go through and eliminate any travel time. 

2- SUBTLY

Go through and check that scenes aren't overt. I recently watched Hardcore Henry - which is literally a dramatisation of a first person shooter game. While it's entertaining in its own right - I can see why it failed to be a critical or box office success (okay, it did make $14m. but it could have made more). 

It's too much like a computer game - the humour and acting are sub-par - the scenarios are ridiculously over the top. It's full of fan-boy teenage dreams - the super hot wife - the ubiquitous coke den with hookers... mass over-kill murder... chaos... impossible fight scenarios... this film (like it or hate it) is the epitome of OVER THE TOP. 

The main reason this film didn't 'hit' as well as the hype suggested it would - is because of just how over the top it is. 

I then watched DARK WAS THE NIGHT - and while this film is no perfect screenplay - the story is subtle. The dialogue is subtle - the emotion in the scenes is realistic because of the subtly.

Take a look at your screenplay - look at each scene - at the execution of each scene - and ask yourself - how extrovert is your writing of that scene. It is fist-in-face like Hardcore Henry? Or is it subtle like Dark Was The Night?

Rather than having each character SAY all their dialogue - can you have a character speak silently? What do I mean by that? 

Watch season 4 - episode 13 of House Of Cards - a character asks Doug if he has been with someone in their final moments - as they die. He could have said yes, but it's waaaaay more powerful for him to stare quietly at the dashboard of his car. That's the same as saying yes, only it's more subtly - and consequently - more powerful. 

Are you able to have a character ask a question without speaking? Can you get a character to simply look at another character - then for the second character to understand that a question is being asked? If so - go for this option. Subtly trumps over-the-top every time. 

If you're worried you might lose your reader by only having your character look at the other character - you can write it: Jake looks to Michelle as though to ask (insert question here).

You've written the question so the reader knows what's being asked - and given the context of the scene your audience should understand the question being asked. 

3) EMPATHY BEFORE FLAW

This is a simple one - but it's missed far too often.

Make me like your hero BEFORE you show me what's wrong with them. More often than not a hero's flaw is a negative. If you show me your hero in a negative light BEFORE you make me like them - my first impression of them will be - asshole - then it's a push up hill from there to get me to like them.

4) EMPATHY BEAT COUNT

Go through your screenplay - count how many scenes you have. Should be between 30 - 60. There's no magic number. 

Then go through your screenplay and write down every time there is an EMPATHY BEAT for the hero. Break these empathy beats down into ACTIVE and PASSIVE. 

You should know the difference - but just a quick re-cap - ACTIVE EMPATHY is when the hero DOES something we like them for. They save someone, they run after the mugger, they whistle blow on the bad guy etc.... 

PASSIVE EMPATHY is when something bad happens to them and we feel sorry for them. 

How many ACTIVE empathy beats do you have in your film after the first act?

Empathy is not something that we setup in the opening 10 pages then forget about. Empathy is an ongoing thing. Think about real life. If one of your friends was a nice person 10 years ago, but they've now stopped being a nice person - do you still think of them as a good person? 

The more empathy for your hero you have in your script the more the audience will connect with them. 

There's no perfect ratio - but if your script has 40 scenes - try to get more than 15 active empathy beats for your hero. If you can make those beats happen ergonomically within the present storyline with only minor adjustments - your script will benefit greatly.

5) BIG GOALS AND MICRO GOALS

Okay - we all know that we need a major goal to drive the story. A film without a major goal will not work. But what you need are micro goals ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

Best way to test if you have micro goals is to look at each scene and ask - what is the scene objective here? 

It's better if your hero is the one that has the scene objective - but if they don't have one - then there must be at least ONE other character in that scene that has a solid scene objective. 

If there are no characters with scene objectives, then re-write that scene until there is at least one scene objective. 

Take the example of Dark Was the Night - there's a lot of scenes where there's just a couple of characters talking.

Take the scene where the Sheriff is in the grocery store buying food. One of the town folk ask him about this monster they think is in town. He dismisses it, saying it's likely just a prank - then that same town fellow tells a story about how the native americans used to tell stories about a creature that lived up in the hills.

That's the scene. 

What's the hero's (Sheriff's) scene objective? Buy some food? Talk to the town person?

Neither of those are goals toward the main goal. Neither of those are scene objectives. Then what's the scene objective of the town fellow? To tell his story about monsters?

That's not a scene objective. In fact, this scene has no concrete objective for any of the characters. This is why the scene falls flat on its face. 

Now had the hero been after that particular town folk - as someone had said they'd seen him lurking around at night - then the Sheriff would have an ACTUAL scene objective - to find out the town fellow's whereabouts last night and to find out if he could have been the one that is responsible for the 'prank.'

While I'm on goals - I need to stress the importance of closed ended Vs open ended goals.

A closed ended goal is something broad and general like - fight evil.

A closed ended goal is something concrete - like - kill Darth Vader. It's something we can latch onto. There's nothing tangible about 'fight evil'.

Look at your screenplay and ask yourself what is the main goal? Is it open? Or closed?

Also - what are the scene objectives of each scene?

FILM COMPARISON - LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE/DEAD MAN DOWN

Today I thought I'd do something different. 

This is not by design, but by chance. I just sat down to watch Dead Man Down and found it so bad I couldn't keep watching. So I figured I'd figure out what was going wrong from a screen writing angle. But even with the added intrigue of analysing why each scene wasn't helping the story, I eventually had to give up on watching Dead Man Down. 

I then stumbled upon Little Miss Sunshine on Netflix and started watching. LMS seemed to be doing everything right. So I started taking notes to look at what was going on at a screen writing level that made that film so successful. 

DEAD MAN DOWN Vs LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE.

You might think that comparing these two films is like comparing chalk and cheese. They're completely different genres, DMD is a noir crime thriller, while LMS is a feel good family drama. 

But here's the thing.

It doesn't matter what genre you're working in, the principles of story are the same. 

Firstly before I get into the story element comparison, let's look at the stats... 

IMDB: 

LMS: 7.9 (79%)
DMD: 6.5 (65%)

METACRITIC: 

LMS: 80%
DMD: 39%

ROTTEN TOMATOES:

LMS: 91%
DMD: 38%

BOX OFFICE:

LMS:
Budget: $8m
Gross: $100m

DMD:
Budget: $30m
Gross: $18m 

So....

From looking at these numbers LMS was a runaway critical and financial success, while DMD lost a huge amount of money, and is an overall critical failure. 

Let's compare elements of the two films to see where LMS went right and where DMD could have done better. 

CONCEPT:

LMS: (From IMDB) A family determined to get their young daughter into the finals of a beauty pageant take a cross-country trip in their VW bus.

DMD: In NYC, a crime lord's right-hand man is helped by a woman seeking retribution.

Okay, so they've both got one thing in common - there's nothing terribly new or interesting about their concepts. One is a straight up road-trip family drama, the other is a run of the mill revenge story. 

So neither had the advantage going into production. Some stories have such HUGE ideas behind them that the concept is what sells the film. Not here. They both had the same disadvantage from the start.

ENSEMBLE vs SOLITARY PROTAGONIST

LMS is clearly an ensemble film. Each character is introduced individually in the opening sequence. We meet the suicidal brother, the son who doesn't talk, the daughter bedazzled by beauty pageants, the heroin snorting grandpa, the irresponsible mother, and the father who believes blindly in his own work. 

There is no doubt that LMS is an ensemble film. Each character is equally important as all the other characters. Sure, it could be argued, that perhaps Olive (the daughter) is the 'main'  character, as the film is about getting her to the pageant in California, but here's why it's not a SOLITARY PROTAGONIST FILM...

First of all, the POV is constantly shifting between all the characters. We never spend any more time with one character over any other character. All the characters (with the exception of the mute son and the suicidal brother) are active, they're all doing things that drive the story forward. And they all have FLAWS. I'll get into flaws soon... 

Now let's look at DMD. In the opening scene it is Colin Farrell's work colleague - Darcy who we first meet by way of his opening monologue. In the opening scene of the film - our hero says NOTHING. He is not active and not moving the story forward. MISTAKE #1. 

As the opening sequence ensues, still, Colin is not the one driving the story forward, instead, the protagonist shifts from Darcy to Alphonse. 

It's not until after the first opening sequence that we finally settle on Colin's character. What's he doing? He's sitting at home. Literally doing nothing. MISTAKE #2. 

The problem with this kind of opening is the audience doesn't know who the main character is. If the film is going to be an ensemble piece, then let us know that EACH of these characters is going to be equally important, as LMS does. 

DMD turns into a solitary protagonist film, but it does it too late. After 17 minutes of watching, we finally assume that this story is about Colin. But even then, it's almost just as much about Beatrice (Noomi Rapace's character.)

So the lesson learned from this is - know what kind of story you're telling and be clear to let the audience know right from the start. Is it ENSEMBLE? Or is it SOLITARY PROTAGONIST?  

As a side note, there's also another type of film that neither LMS or DMD are, which is called a TWO HANDER - where you have two clearly defined protagonists -- best example is AMERICAN GANGSTER. 

The next main thing to consider about these two films is...

EMPATHY

In DMD, there is absolutely no positive empathy for Colin's character in the first 20 minutes. Then we get TOLD by way of clunky exposition that Colin lost his family - and he's infiltrating the gang that killed them. 

Now empathy via clunky exposition is better than nothing - BUT imagine if we had actually SEEN Colin with his daughter and wife, loving and caring for them, THEN we see them killed. That way, we would have REAL empathy for Colin. 

It's like when you read an article about someone you've never met who has died untimely. Sure, it's sad, but really it doesn't touch you in any real way, as you didn't have any connection to the person. 

Now let's look at LMS. 

There's not a lot of obvious empathy beats in the opening 20 minutes of the film here either. Hmmm, so why is it that we CARE so much more about these characters?

There's two main reasons -- 

Firstly, IDENTIFIABILITY. 

The characters in LMS and their quirky dysfunctional lives are much closer to the lives of the majority of viewers. 

I hate broad generalisations, but I think it's safe to say that one of the few broad generalisations that actually holds water is that most families are dysfunctional on some level or another. 

We can identify with the family in LMS. 

Now look at DMD. Colin's character is a strongman for a drug boss. How many of us have experience in that slice of life. I'm sure many have, but I would argue that the majority of viewers would find it easier to identify with the characters in LMS than with the characters in DMD.

The second aspect that endears us to the characters in LMS over DMD, is believability and reality check. 

The characters in LMS are only 10% surreal. Slightly amped up versions of real people you'd meet in real life. 

The characters in DMD were wholly unrealistic. Take the first time that Colin and Noomi meet in the restaurant (which was so obviously shot on green-screen it was horrible).

There was nothing real about that meeting. As well as it was acted, the CHARACTERS didn't feel real. When a scene feels phoney and unrealistic, we're less likely to be drawn into the scene - we're less likely to develop any empathy for the characters. 

FLAWS.

As I've discussed before on this blog, the flaw in your character/s is what defines their inner journey. Their flaw is an ill personality trait that holds them back from being in a better place.

Now look at LMS - EVERY CHARACTER HAS A FLAW.

The son hates the world and refuses to speak. 
The grandfather is a heroin addict.
The father believes his own garbage. 
The brother is suicidal because of unrequited love and being usurped by a work colleague. 
The daughter places too much value on beauty. 

It took me a while to realise what the mother's flaw was. 

It's responsibility, or rather the lack of it. She smokes cigarettes. Which kill you. That's irresponsible. (The smokers out there will be shaking their heads at that, but really you're lying to yourself - smoking kills - fact.) She also serves her family take away food. She doesn't shield her daughter from any of life's ills. She allows her daughter to enter in beauty pageants. All of this is summed up when Pual Dano says to his mother at the end, 'You're her mother, you're supposed to protect her..."

For an ensemble film to work, every character needs to have a flaw, and every character needs to go on a journey. It is this INNER journey that we as an audience relate to. 

When we see characters with flaws, we also empathise with them - why? Because we recognise that no one is perfect, including ourselves, and that's what life is all about - identifying and over coming our flaws to become better people. 

Now look at DMD. 

It can be argued that both Noomi and Colin are flawed characters. What's their flaw? They're both obsessed with exacting revenge. Now the problem with typical revenge films is that REVENGE is not treated or considered a FLAW in these types of films. 

It's actually considered an honourable trait. 

Think about how that works in real life. 

Granted I couldn't bring myself to finish watching DMD - but I'm pretty damn sure that NEITHER of these characters LEARN by the end of the film that REVENGE is a negative flaw in their personality - something that is filling their life with pain and misery. 

I guarantee you, that this film is a celebration of REVENGE. 

Being obsessed by revenge is not a positive personality trait. It only leads to more sorrow and pain. 

So if you take that flaw out of the equation, what flaw is there in either of the two main characters in DMD? 

Nada.

Zip.

Nothing. 

When you don't have a flaw in your protagonists, you don't have an inner journey. Without an inner journey you don't have a vicarious connection between your audience and the film, nor do you have any guide for the structure of your film.

The second and third acts of your film rely heavily on your character/s having inner flaws. Protagonists without flaws means your film's structure is going to wander. 

GOAL

The goal in LMS was set at the 17 minute mark. Get Olive to the beauty pageant in California in two days time. 

In DMD - the goal was unclear. I think Colin wanted to kill his boss. But he was also being forced by Noomi to kill the guy who caused her to crash in her car, and caused her face to be 'scarred.'

Lesson to be learnt here is that your story goal needs to be CLEAR. 

TICKING CLOCK:

In LMS they have 2 days to get to the pageant. 
In DMD there is no clock. No time frame what so ever.

When a story has no time frame, it will start to wander, and drag out. 

We also have to believe in that goal.

Now while I personally think beauty pageants for pre-teens are sick - I got behind this one in LMS - as it meant a lot to Olive. Because there was such a good job of making me like and empathise with Olive, I really wanted for her to go to it. 

In DMD - in principle I'm vehemently against revenge - especially if it's murder. No one has the right to take another person's life, regardless of scenario. But if you give me the right reasons, perhaps I could get behind it. Now the problem with DMD is that there is no really good reason given. 

Firstly, he's going to kill the guy who hurt Noomi to stop her from going to the police as she has dirt on him. That's hardly a good reason to kill someone. 

Secondly, he's out to kill his boss, but because I didn't get to know his wife or daughter, I haven't been given the chance to care about them. So the motivation to get behind Colin's goals isn't there. 

STRUCTURE:

LMS has a really clearly defined structure. We can see a very well executed ordinary world, where we met all the characters, learn their flaws - then we're hit by the call to adventure - which is the phone call saying that Olive got into the Little Miss Sunshine contest. 

We then have a clearly defined first act turn, where we see them on the road to California  

The structure of act two plays out well, then segues into act 3. I won't break the whole script down, as that'd actually justify a blog on its own. But suffice to say because all the characters have clearly defined flaws and there is a clearly defined goal with a clearly defined ticking clock, the structure was great.

Now look at DMD.

Firstly, I'm not even sure who the main character is for the first 20 minutes. When it finally settles on Colin's character there's no real flaw or inner journey going on. There are TWO goals, which splits the focus of the story up, and consequently things get confusing. As there's no ticking clock there's no urgency to anything that's happening and the story structure falls apart.

CHARACTERS:

The people in LMS feel real. As I said, slightly elevated versions of real people. 
In DMD, the characters feel like stereotypes. There's nothing real about any of the characters at all. 

DIALOGUE:

The way the characters speak in LMS is brilliant. It feels REAL.

The way the characters speak in DMD, feels fake, it feels written. And you can't say, well, DMD had lesser actors who couldn't deliver the lines so well.

IN FACT I would argue that the actors in LMS were not as well known as COLIN FARREL and NOOMI RAPACE.

Everyone knows who Colin is, and I would argue that a huge number of people have seen The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

So there you have it. The core elements of why the STORY in LMS worked and why the STORY in DMD really needed a hell of a lot more work before it went into production. 

Both DMD and LMS are available on Netflix in most countries around the world. I'd highly recommend watching both films and comparing the STORY elements. 

There's a lot to be learned about story telling from both films...

    

LOGLINES - ARTICLE

What is a logline?

It started out back in the day when big studios had countless unproduced screenplays and they needed a quick reference system. Rather than reading a synopsis that can be up to ten pages long, they needed a short form answer to the problem. 

Thus - loglines were created for each script - a single sentence summary of the entire story.

Why is it so necessary to have a logline?

As a writer you will be asked countless times, what's your film about?

The worst possible answer is -- "Well, it's about a lady, and she's got some problems, with her family -- but she really wants to --" 

You see where I'm going with that. It's boring as hell, and what it really says about you as a writer is that you don't actually know what your story is about. 

A logline is less than 50 words. You can memorise less than 50 words really easily. If you have two or three stories you've got ready to pitch to people - then you can easily memorise   two or three sentences. 

Loglines can be tricky to write. 

There's a saying, if you want me to speak for an hour give me the day to prepare, if you want me to speak for five minutes give me the week. (Or something like that.)

The idea is, the fewer words used, the harder it is to make your point. 

To distill an entire story into less than 50 words is incredibly difficult.

Fortunately there's a formula to it. 

The following are the elements you need to know about your story to formulate a good logline.

FUNCTION, FLAW(S), GOAL, INCITING INCIDENT, ANTAGONIST, STAKES, TICKING CLOCK

Your Hero's FUNCTION is how they fit into society.

Nurse. Doctor. Fire Fighter. Police Officer. Etc. 

It's not limited to job titles. it could be vagrant. Or serial killer. Neither vagrant or serial killer are 'jobs', but they do describe a position in society. 

Next you need your Hero's FLAW. Your Hero's flaw is the inner demon that is holding back your hero from achieving what it is they need to achieve to live a better life. 

So, take the example of Police Officer. Our Police Officer's flaw could be that he's aquaphobic. He has a terrible fear of water. 

Now wait up - what does aquaphobia - a fear of water - have to do with a police officer? 

This is a major point that needs to be made - the FLAW of your HERO should be RELEVANT to your STORY. 

Now, in most scenarios a fear of water is not relevant to a police officer's life or career. So unless your story is set on - say - an island - where there's lots of water - or your police officer is part of the coast guard, auqaphobia isn't relevant. 

This is one of the great things about writing a logline. It tests your story concept before you go on to spend months writing it. 

There's nothing worse than finishing 100 pages of writing - then distilling your screenplay into a logline and ONLY THEN realising that your Hero's FLAW doesn't really have anything to do with the story. 

So....

Once you have your characters FUNCTION and FLAW.

Next you need the film's INCITING INCIDENT.

First - what's an inciting incident? 

An inciting incident is something OUT OF THE ORDINARY that TESTS the Hero's FLAW, and propels them on a journey. 

Now that - TEST THE HERO'S FLAW - part is really important. 

If you have a police officer who is afraid of water, then the inciting incident MUST have something to do with water. 

So let's take the example of JAWS. 

What's the inciting incident there? It actually happens in the opening scene. 

The Girl is eaten by a shark. 

That's your inciting incident, as it will test Sheriff Brody's flaws.

That's right - FLAWS  - plural.

Sheriff Brody has two flaws. 

ONE is that he's afraid of water when he's a police officer on an island. 

The second and most important flaw - is that he's IRRESPONSIBLE.

What? I hear you ask? How is Sheriff Brody irresponsible?

He hasn't fixed the kids swing set and one of his children gets hurt playing on them.
He lets his kids play in a boat - when he knows there's a shark out there.

That's just two examples of how Sheriff Brody is irresponsible. 

The inciting incident is JAWS is great as it propels Brody on a journey that will test both his flaws. He will have to become responsible for the lives of everyone on the island, and to do that he will have to face his great fear of water to go and kill the shark. 

So, we've got our -- 

Hero's FUNCTION, his FLAW(S), and the INCITING INCIDENT.

Next we need a GOAL.

What is Brody's goal in Jaws?

Protect the people of the island? Yes, that is a goal, but it's an OPEN ENDED goal. It's a general goal. How is he going to protect the people of the island?

Goals that are closed ended work better. In this instance - he must... 

KILL THE SHARK. 

That's his closed ended goal. 

Next we need the SHADOW. 

The shadow is the bag guy - the villain, the antagonist. 

In JAWS the MAYOR of the town is the bad guy. He's the one that wants to keep the beaches open. 

Next is TIMELINE - or TICKING CLOCK. 

In this instance, the town Mayor insists on keeping the beaches open for the fourth of July. 

Jaws is a funny one - it doesn't have a perfect ticking clock, but there is the notion that if Brody doesn't go out to sea and kill this shark immediately, there WILL be another death. So in that sense, there is a ticking clock. 

Because the beaches are kept open by the mayor - it's only a matter of time before someone else gets eaten by the shark.

The final element is STAKES:

In this instance, there is the stakes of SOMEONE'S life. That's pretty big stakes. There's also the financial stakes of the entire town. If the shark is not killed - the town will not earn enough money during the summer months to carry them over for the winter months. 

So.....

Let's look at all our elements for the logline:

FUNCTION: Island Sheriff
FLAW(S): Fear of water. Irresponsible.
GOAL: Kill the shark
INCITING INCIDENT: Young woman eaten by shark.
ANTAGONIST: Island Mayor
STAKES: More shark victims. Town bankruptcy.
TICKING CLOCK: Before the next victim is killed. (While important to the story, it's not essential for this logline.)

These are the elements you need to make your logline sing.

Here's a logline using ALL the elements.

When a young woman is eaten by a shark, an irresponsible island sheriff terrified of water must go to sea to hunt and kill the shark before the next victim is killed when the island mayor insists on keeping the beaches open for the tourist trade to save the town from bankruptcy. 

But there's no hard and fast rule.

Remember, what you're trying to do with your logline is to create an interesting hook to sell the idea of your story. 

Here's a leaner version of the same logline.

When a young woman is eaten by a shark, an irresponsible island sheriff terrified of water must go to sea and kill the shark to prevent more deaths, when the island mayor insists on keeping the beaches open for the tourist trade. 

That reads much cleaner. 

I'd call this your BASE LOGLINE.

Once you have your base logline - you can then embellish a little -- add some adjectives to spice it up, rearrange the structure a little to see what works best.

After a harrowing shark attack leaves a young woman torn to pieces, an irresponsible island Sheriff must overcome his phobia of water and take to the sea to hunt the man eating monster before it strikes again, which is sure to happen as the imbecilic town mayor insists on keeping the beaches open for the tourist trade. 

Best of luck with your logline writing...