“When things aren’t working, it’s like walking through a desert;
you don’t like it, but
you keep walking.”
Fernando León de Aranoa,
Screenwriter, LOS LUNES al SOL.
Storytelling in the context of cinematic structure is different from other forms of storytelling. There exists, hopefully, a beginning, middle and end. The form is limiting, especially when writing an original screenplay on speculation. Submissions that are longer than one hundred twenty pages, or shorter than one hundred five pages are routinely passed on, or thrown in the trash. So, it is in every aspiring screenwriter’s best interest to do their best to stay within these limits, and to create maximum atmosphere using minimal prose. Enter scenes late and leave them early. Exit scenes with a question and enter the next with an answer wherever possible. Create negations to the protagonist’s efforts, then have your protagonist negate those negations through character choices: All of this within a three act structure and under one hundred and twenty pages.
But for writers who are trying to tell an epic story in spec format, this limiting, three act classic structure presents problems which can seem insurmountable. Either there is just too much necessary information, (without which the story cannot be illuminated in cinematic context), or too much back-story.
The solution that screenwriters usually employ in early drafts of their spec screenplays is an overuse of flashbacks. They cannot find a way to include information about their characters without showing us that childhood injury, or fractured narrative, without actually bringing us back and forth in time, too frequently, during the course of their screenplay. The effect of excessive flashbacks in a spec screenplay is a disinterested reader. This is every screenwriter’s nightmare, and leads to a pass on the top of the coverage page. This leaves the screenwriter with a dilemma: ™How do I include this information without taking these huge leaps back and forth in time, and risk exhausting my reader?∫
There are several ways to accomplish this goal. The first is by employing a five sequence structure, as opposed to three acts. One of my favorite examples of this type of structure is used in the film GOODFELLAS, by Martin Scorsese. Take a look at the opening sequence of the film. After a brief introduction of the three main characters as they drive to upstate New York, with Billy Bats, half dead in the trunk, we freeze on the character of Henry Hill closing the car trunk. We exit the scene with a question posed in cinematic context after Ray Liotta’s character utters the line: ™For as long as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster.∫ The visual of Henry Hill’s freeze-frame visual as he slams the trunk shut, begs a question in the mind of the reader/viewer: ™And just how long has that been, Mr. Hill?∫
What follows is the first of five sequences. We join Henry during his childhood and watch him finding his way into what will become his family, the world of organized crime. From the taxi stand, into school, into the underground casino. The reactions of his mother and father. His first arrest and, as a result, his subsequent threshold crossing into a court of law.
“When things aren’t working, it’s like walking through a desert;
you don’t like it, but
you keep walking.”
Fernando León de Aranoa,
Screenwriter, LOS LUNES al SOL.
A close up of a pair of patent leather shoes follows up the pant leg of a silk suit and stops on Henry, now all grown up. This begins the second sequence of the five sequence structure. The plot point that would normally occur at the very end of Act One, where the character leaves his ordinary world and enters Act Two, would be at this moment in a three act structure. The film is about Henry’s life of crime and its consequences for all who were involved. But, what if the structure did not include this first sequence, where we learn all about Henry’s upbringing, his entre into a life of crime? Would the audience have the same experience and same understanding of the character of Henry Hill? Maybe with some flashbacks, yes. But then, if flashbacks were employed in place of using a five sequence structure, would the film flow as seamlessly? Definitely not.
Sequence number two covers Henry’s world. He introduces us to the comical characters that surround him every day. We follow him into the nightclub and discover how the ™family∫ extorts from unsuspecting businesses. Sequence number three covers his courtship, relationship and marriage to Karen, and how she interacts with Henry’s thug friends. The fourth sequence covers the beginning of Henry’s downward spiral as he serves a jail sentence, gets out of jail, and then deceives his boss, played by Paul Sorvino, in order to make quick money. Again, if this were a three act structure, it is this moment of discovery by his boss that would occur at the Act Two plot point, that moment at the very end of act two that takes the story, changes its direction and creates conflict for all of the characters.
This now brings the reader/viewer to the fifth and final sequence of scenes, or beats in the film (reminder: a beat is nothing more than a unit of dramatic action). Henry and Karen begin to use too much cocaine. They are now partners in crime, and set up a score that goes wrong. They are busted. After being bailed out of jail, Henry discovers that he and Karen are being set up to be killed by Jimmy (Robert DeNiro’s character). Having no other choice, they opt for the witness protection program.
By employing the five sequence structure, the need for the flashback is eliminated and the story can still be effectively told in cinematic context. Without the information about Henry’s childhood, the story is not as satisfying in the mind of the audience. However, if it were to be included as flashback, consider for a moment what the result would be. Does the story move as quickly? No.
Another example of an alternative structure is that of Anti-Structure. This can be found in almost any Quentin Tarantino film. Though I am not fan of seeing the brains of a human being splattered against the rear window of a car as the punch- line of a joke, I must concede that Tarantino is a masterful screenwriter, especially when it comes to rendering a cinematic story in the anti-structure model. To accomplish this, write your treatment in linear form; beginning, middle and end. Then create the list of dramatic beats from your treatment. It is at this stage that you begin to rearrange the order of the beats in an order that is non-linear. Can you still tell the same story, but in a more interesting way? In this process, you attempt to find ways to render the story in cinematic context by rearranging the order of the beats. For instance, you may take a scene from the end of the second act, and place it as the opening scene in the film. From there, you weave and wind your way back to that scene. This creates a sense of disequilibrium in the mind of the audience, but not one of disorientation. It takes practice and is not for the novice screenwriter. But, when rendered correctly, it can set your work apart from the rest of the pile. Even when employing these alternative models, remember: Enter late, leave early. Exit with a question, enter with an answer. Create negations that your character must, in turn, negate through actions, not dialogue.
Peter Fox is a freelance writer and screenwriter who lives in Connecticut.
