Stories "starting on page 1"

[marktapiokines]

In a recent thread here, I noticed a couple people stating, very confidently, that a screenplay's story must begin on page 1. (This was in response to the poor writer whose story began on page 17.)

Frankly, I think this is bad advice. But it did make me curious about how individual writers define a script's "story" and where it begins.

I personally agree with the widely-held belief that a dramatic narrative first needs a little time to establish the main characters going about their daily routines before upsetting said routines. In short, it's the "Once upon a time, there was a kingdom..." bit that comes before the "When suddenly, one day..." bit.

The idea is that you first need to get to know the protagonist(s) when they're at ease, so to speak, so you can better appreciate how they react to major change. This major change is what many call the "inciting incident", or what I call the "Routine Killer", which I think is a less confusing and more all-encompassing term.

And yeah, in most 2-hour movies this moment comes in around page 10. Not page 1.

But what of a movie like "Star Wars"? Our hero, Luke Skywalker, doesn't even show up until a half hour into the film - and when we meet him, he's going about his routine. Yet there's a fair amount of story before that: Princess Leia plugs the Death Star plans into R2D2, she gets kidnapped by Darth Vader, etc. So what is the real "story"? Strictly in terms of dramatic structure, could R2D2 be the actual protagonist of "Star Wars"?

 

[sfoster]

Why would you ever have anything on film that isn't part of the story.
Every page. not just the first

 

[Birdman]

Why would you ever have anything on film that isn't part of the story.
Every page. not just the first

"Part of the story"

I've seen this sentiment posted numerous times, but I've never seen an example of something on film that wasn't part of the story.

Here's an example of something that's not part of the story, yet it still works within the scope of the movie. Here we have Owen Wilson and Jackie Chan (Shanghai Nights) pondering "Spotted Dick". It has absolutely nothing to do with the plot, but it's still fairly funny based merely on the characters' reactions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpPlXQuLHKk

...I think the "Must be part of the story" card is played way too often when referencing movie scripts. If everything is 100% story-based or plot-driven, then what you end up with isn't really a movie. It's a cold, heartless instruction manual with no whimsical scenes that's been somehow turned into a movie.

Sometimes it's fun to have characters doing things totally unrelated to the plot ...because "life" doesn't follow a predetermined set of rules either.


-Birdman

 

[maz]

What, then, is "non-story", since you're counting exposition as story? What's going on in those scripts on page 1 that couldn't count as either exposition or action?

Anyway, there is something more to this conversation than semantics.

For the record, here's why I don't count exposition as story: Because far too many screenwriters get bogged down in exposition. I think a lot of writers get caught up in their characters' backstories, and as a result, they try to squeeze every detail of those backstories into their scripts, which makes for a lot of exposition. This makes their narratives slump, and it's the #1 problem that I've found in people's screenplays. Stories go nowhere while the characters talk about themselves.

So if it's a matter of saying, "This here is story, and this here is exposition," then I think that will help screenwriters better discern between what propels their narratives forward and what doesn't. But by letting them say, "My character talking about himself for two pages is just as valid as him actually doing something, because exposition is story," that's just giving them more rope to hang themselves with!

Good films (and good scripts) very efficiently convey the essential exposition without requiring lots of scenes dedicated to it. The best films/scripts manage to do all that in scenes/dialogue that are already moving the story forward. In both cases, exposition is very much part of story.

On the other hand, many bad films/scripts tend to begin with a series of unconnected vignettes about a character's life that either contribute nothing to the story (other than delaying its start) or repeatedly drums home the same character point over and over again (look how tough this guy is! look how sexy she is! look how much of a slacker this guy is! etc.), thereby delaying the start of the story. In this case, I would say there is a disconnect between exposition and story.

I wish I had the encyclopaedic memory of film to illustrate the above with examples, but alas, I don't.

"Part of the story"

I've seen this sentiment posted numerous times, but I've never seen an example of something on film that wasn't part of the story.

Here's an example of something that's not part of the story, yet it still works within the scope of the movie. Here we have Owen Wilson and Jackie Chan (Shanghai Nights) pondering "Spotted Dick". It has absolutely nothing to do with the plot, but it's still fairly funny based merely on the characters' reactions.

...I think the "Must be part of the story" card is played way too often when referencing movie scripts. If everything is 100% story-based or plot-driven, then what you end up with isn't really a movie. It's a cold, heartless instruction manual with no whimsical scenes that's been somehow turned into a movie.

Sometimes it's fun to have characters doing things totally unrelated to the plot ...because "life" doesn't follow a predetermined set of rules either.


-Birdman

A screenwriting seminar I attended said that, in general, every scene/line of dialogue should either progress the plot, shine light on a character or be a joke (ideally one that also manages to do one of the first two). That offers a lot of scope to have fun outside of just plot.

 

[Flicker Pictures]

Okay, here's the deal, a spec script is a blueprint. Period. If you compare a spec script to the final movie there are often significant differences. The spec's purpose is to present an engaging story with interesting characters with balanced, well-paced action and dialogue. Its layout should facilitate budgeting, scheduling, and shot planning. Once you option or sell your script, you are largely out of the equation. You can ask to be involved but it's by no means assured. Your main focus is to sell STORY from start to finish. Once it's out of your hands, it's the director's and producer's baby.

>>a spec script is a blueprint.

I tend to feel similarly; the trick is crafting an incredibly detailed blueprint and finding the right producer, prodco or director who can visualize the end result.

** maz, sent you a PM re: that cold open

 

[marktapiokines]

maz, you are absolutely right. There is useful exposition, and useless exposition. Useful exposition moves the story forward. Useless exposition does not. That doesn't mean a movie that engages in offbeat tangents that don't propel the plot forward can't still be fun!

Sorry if I came down too hard on the concept of exposition. Of course it's important, and can be a fundamental part of the story. For instance, in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, when the feds meet with Indy and Marcus to tell them about the Ark, the scene is nothing but expository dialogue - yet it is absolutely crucial to the story. In contrast, the opening sequence of the film may give us a lot of information about Indy's character, and it's certainly tons of fun and Raiders would be a lesser film without it, but it is not at all crucial to the plot. You can walk into the film 10 minutes late and never feel confused or like you missed anything.

But yes, I still do think that the status quo typically laid out in the first 10 minutes of a feature is not really story, even if it serves a purpose in showing us these characters in their ordinary lives. It can be important to show this - even if it takes up the entire first act, as in BACK TO THE FUTURE and THE INCREDIBLES - so that audiences can better appreciate the characters' reactions to change. But the challenge for every writer is to draw the line between exposition that will eventually serve the plot, and exposition that exists solely to make us fall in love with the characters - or with the writer.

 

[ahennessey]

I think it is helpful to think of page one as the Opening Image or the Opening Shot of the film.

If you watch great movies, this first moment encapsulates the mood, the time and in some cases the theme, etc.

For instance, here are the first lines of Joel and Ethan Coen's screenplay for Fargo:

The following text fades in over black:

This is a true story. The events depicted in this film took place
in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names
have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been
told exactly as it occured.

FLARE TO WHITE

FADE IN FROM WHITE

Slowly the white becomes a barely perceptible image: white
particles wave over a white background. A snowfall.

A car bursts through the curtain of snow.

The car is equipped with a hitch and is towing another car,
a brand-new light brown Cutlass Ciera with the pink sales
sticker showing in its rear window.

As the car roars past, leaving snow swirling in their dirft,
the title of the film fades in.

Even on the page, you get the ominous tone, the bleakness of the winter, the isolation. The opening text references "survivors" and "the dead", so we know something bad will happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw-juxQ5Sj4

Here is the opening of Chistopher Nolan's Memento screenplay:

FADE IN:

1 INT. DERELICT HOUSE DAY [[COLOUR SEQUENCE]] 1

A POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH, clasped between finger and thumb: a crude, crime
scene flash picture of a MAN’S BODY lying on a decaying wooden floor,
a BLOODY MESS where his head should be.

The image in the photo starts to FADE as we SUPER TITLES. The hand
holding the photo suddenly FANS it in a rapid FLAPPING motion, then
holds it still. The image fades more, and again the picture is FANNED.

As TITLES END the image fades to nothing. The hand holding the photo
FLAPS it again, then places it at the front of a POLAROID CAMERA.

The camera SUCKS the blank picture up, then the FLASH BURSTS.

The Polaroid camera is lowered, revealing the sweaty, heavy- breathing
face of LEONARD (mid-30’s). There are droplets of blood across his
face. Leonard stares, satisfied, at something on the ground in front
of him. There is WET BLOOD on his BLUE SHIRT and BEIGE SUIT. His hand
opens and catches a HANDGUN which leaps up into his grasp.

Still staring, he crouches down and pulls a BODY off the floor by the
wet hair of its BLOODY HEAD. He slowly inserts the barrel of the gun
into the bloody mess where the mouth should be.

Leonard FLINCHES. A DEAFENING ROAR as wet red leaps off his face and
suit and head, with a SPASM, reassembles itself into the face of TEDDY
(40’s, moustache) and we-

Here is the sequence from the movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmK0eQ2GC6U

 

[Birdman]

FADE IN FROM WHITE

Slowly the white becomes a barely perceptible image: white
particles wave over a white background. A snowfall.

A car bursts through the curtain of snow.

The car is equipped with a hitch and is towing another car,
a brand-new light brown Cutlass Ciera with the pink sales
sticker showing in its rear window.

As the car roars past, leaving snow swirling in their dirft,
the title of the film fades in.

----------------------------------------------------

...Now this is a published script, correct? Had anyone here written this script we would have been criticized for "passive present tense", "brand name usage" and "unnecessary prose".

----------------------------------------------------

The car tows a brand-new light brown car.
A pink sales sticker shows in its rear window

The car roars past. Snow swirls in their drift.
The title of the film fades in

The car towing a brand-new light brown car.
A pink sales sticker showing in its rear window

The car roaring past. Snow swirling in their drift.
The title of the film fading in

...As usual, the rules that apply in these forums apparently don't apply in real life. If I posted this as my script you all would have my ass for breakfast.

-Birdman

 

[ahennessey]

It is sometimes beneficial to read screenplays that were sold on spec and make note of how they were changed for the eventual movie.

If you read the opening pages of the spec script for Wedding Crashers, you will see that it opens on a law firm office with a lawyer negotiating a personal injury claim on the phone. Then it cuts to his friend in a different office listening to a client, a woman getting divorced, lament how she thought marriage was forever and an "institution." Meanwhile, the lawyer is listening, but his eye keeps wandering to his hot secretary walking by. Finally he explains to his client why marriage is a fake institution.

Below is the actual filmed opening of the movie Wedding Crashers, it has the director's commentary. It is quite different from the opening in the screenplay. Note the changes that he made and the importance he puts on the opening and closing images of the film. The commentary is interesting because the director references wanting to keep the ideas the screenwriters had in their original script.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLWTFhiqYog

 

[Birdman]

The commentary is interesting because the director references wanting to keep the ideas the screenwriters had in their original script.

Whoa!! ...Careful, there! ...You're backing up a major point that I've been crucified many times for stating. The opinion of the majority of know-it-alls here on this forum is that nothing we "Spec Script" writers do matters to a director. Our opinion doesn't count. We don't share in the "vision". ..We are SCUM!

Very Interesting!

-Birdman