Love and hurricanes and gladiators
Saturday, August 27, 2011 at 9:04AM in Alexandra Sokoloff First of all, I’m sure I speak for all of us here at Murderati when I send out heartfelt wishes for the well being of all those in Irene’s path this weekend. I hope everyone is prepared or GONE, and I hope it isn’t as bad as some of the kind of surreal projections. Please, everyone, let us know how you are.
As for me, I feel another kind of pressure bearing down on me in the form of a Wednesday book deadline. The marathon hours I’m putting in (and it’s nothing like what, for example, Cornelia puts herself through, I’m still getting a full night’s sleep) mean that I have no brain left for the few hours before I fall face-first onto the bed and get up to do it all again the next day.
So I’ve been watching a lot of movies. A wildly eclectic assortment – The Thief of Baghdad, Lawrence of Arabia, a William Hurt marathon, last night It Should Happen to You.
And Gladiator.
In fact, I’ve become kind of obsessed with Gladiator.
Now that’s work, actually, because I know how very happy some of the men who take my writing workshops will be if I can use Gladiator for story elements examples. I may get marriage proposals out of this.
Those of you who have been reading my craft posts or my writing workbooks for a while know that I am always, always harping on – I mean stressing – the usefulness of working with a master list, a top ten (or more) list of your favorite movies and books in the genre that you’re writing,
In fact, the bottom line of my Screenwriting Tricks workbooks and workshops is just that: Take ten movies and books that you love in the genre(s) you’re writing in and break down what those storytellers are doing to create the experience of those stories, and then do it in your own stories.
The story structure elements that I’ve broken down here and here are applicable to any genre.
But there are other story elements that are just as important that are specific to whatever genre or genres you’re writing in, and also elements that are specific to the KIND of story you’re writing.
I really had that driven home for me as I was writing Writing Love (Screenwriting Tricks II), because I did exactly that: to write the book I made a master list of ten love stories (in this case not always my favorites, because I wanted to have a broad range of romantic stories) and broke them down in depth to find the key story elements specific to that umbrella genre. And oh, man, did it turn the lights on for me.
Just a few of the elements I found that are used over and over that I never really noticed before: Handcuff the Couple Together, Fate (or the Weather) Intervenes, Mistaken Identity or False Identity, Getting to Know You, The Couple Forced to Share a Room (or Bed), The Bet, The Magical Day (Year, Place, Hour), The Dance, Why Them?, Falling in Love with the Family, Oops Wrong Brother (or Wrong Sister), Ghosts of Girlfriends/Boyfriends Past, The Kiss, The Awful Truth....
I could go on and on. Well, actually I do, in the book - that’s sort of the point.
But after writing that book I am finding that I am much more attuned to key story elements - not just in romantic comedy or romantic suspense, but in any genre I happen to be looking at.
Which brings me back to Gladiator. War movies are absolutely not my favorite, and neither, really, are epics. But sometimes it’s easier to see how a film or book delivers on the promise of its genre when it’s NOT your favorite genre.
Gladiator does all manner of things excellently, and it’s really brilliant in that first battle sequence – watch and see how well it does a number of things that are specific to and EXPECTED by the audience of a war story.
- First of all, it starts with an epic and spectacular battle SETPIECE, which gives you all the glory (for those who call it that) and gruesomeness of war. It tells the audience: Oh yeah, you’re going to get what you want out of this puppy, just sit back and let us deliver. SPECTACLE is one of the key elements of an epic is and you need it in a majority of your setpieces.
- The sequence focuses on the internal life of the hero first, with that odd and lyrical and bittersweet vision (the OPENING IMAGE) that Maximus has right up front. We know absolutely this is the hero and that there’s more to him than being a warrior. CREATING A MYSTERY ABOUT YOUR PROTAGONIST from the beginning pulls your audience or reader into the story.
- The sequence has a RALLYING SPEECH by Maximus to his men. This is a huge tradition of war stories (look at Shakespeare’s Henry V, the St. Crispin Day speech for one of the most famous and emulated examples).
Here's the Kenneth Branagh version.
I’ve seen about a dozen productions of Henry V over the years and that speech, and the Prologue, never fail to take the top of my head off.
The rallying speech is almost an obligatory element in a war story (although the deliberate absence of one could be a powerful statement, too). But it’s also an element that you can steal and use to great effect in different genres, a con story or a heist story or a detective story.
- It has a BATTLE CRY as well, a variation on a tag line: “At my signal, unleash hell.” And a troop motto that also serves as a tag line: “Strength and honor.”
- It has a clear BATTLE PLAN. It’s often most effective to spell the plan out before the troops go into battle, so we know what we’re looking at, but in the hands of a master director like Ridley Scott the battle plan is clear in the action (even for someone like me who has to watch a scene like this from under my chair). First, Maximus’s forces use flaming arrows and machines to attack from a distance and kill a great number of the barbarians horribly, right at the beginning. Then the troops move slowly forward in a single unit, protecting themselves from enemy arrows in the front and top by using their huge shields as a wall. And then once a great number of the enemy have been slain or maimed and they are closer, they finish the greatly reduced numbers of them off in hand-to-hand combat.
A clear BATTLE PLAN is a must for every fight sequence in a war story, but is incredibly useful in other genres too, from comedy (THE HANGOVER – figure out fron the clues in that trashed room what happened last night and where the groom is) to romantic comedy (MEAN GIRLS – the strategy against the Plastics) to capers (INCEPTION: think of how many times they spelled out that plan, with scale models to demonstrate).
- We are also emotionally manipulated into CARING ABOUT THE OUTCOME of the battle in several ways, but particularly the use of the dog in the battle, which makes the action excruciating (we are much more apt to care about an animal than a person) and also linking Maximus with the dog defines qualities of Maximus’s character (he is loyal and true), and makes us care more about Maxiums surviving the battle, by associating him emotionally with the dog.
These are just a handful of the war story story elements that just that one sequence in this film does well.
Well, what I’m suggesting is that if you’re writing a war story or a war epic, that you make a list of ten of those stories and watch or read them in a row, looking for those common and pivotal elements that are specific and expected in that genre. I can do this for you until the end of time and it will never be as effective as you doing it for yourself.
And that holds for any genre of story that you’re writing.
By the way, I’m just making up a lot of those names for those elements, and I’m encouraging you to do the same. It’s more fun and personal that way, and it will define elements you particularly love and hate. Or love to hate. Make yourself a glossary for your structure notebook, and keep adding examples to it as you see them. I’m not kidding, it really works.
So of course my craft question of the day is - What are some specific genre elements you’ve noticed – in any genre?
And otherwise, let’s have some reports on Irene. Be safe!
- Alex
Reader Comments (21)
As always your posts are an education. I'm going to go and rewatch 'Gladiator'. I was just a bit put off by reports of how unpleasant Russell Crowe apparently was with the writers, particularly over the 'father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife' scene.
No Irene here, but we've just had a monsoon-type downpour. Wow, haven't seen rain like this since the flash-floods a couple of years ago. Ah, think I'd better go check on the water level in the beck at the bottom of the garden ...
I've heard those stories about that speech but what you never hear is what the dynamic was BEFORE he said that. My experience in Hollywood was that all manner of people on a production would scathe the actors and treat them like children with absolutely no respect for the excruciating craft that a good actor puts her or himself through. I'm not saying that Crowe WAS justified, only that he MIGHT have been justified, from what I've seen myself.
I call that scene you're talking about THE AWFUL TRUTH - most rom coms have at least one volley like that from the hero and the heroine. And the most important thing is that every word is true.
Interestingly, I've had a few students who would boil you in oil for saying Tom Hanks is a good guy in YOU'VE GOT MAIL. People feel very strongly about how NOT a good guy he is in that one.
Regarding INCEPTION: does its structure mean that Syd Field's paradigm of Beginning-Middle-End is looking a bit tired? I've no doubt Mr. Field would gather the narrative threads of this movie together and show how exactly they fit his paradigm. But B-M-E has been around since the Greeks wrote their tragedies. So what's new? Well, what fascinates me is how really good writers play around with structure. Think of Pinter's play BETRAYAL, where he tells the story backwards.
Just finished reading THE UNSEEN, and loved it. A very visual book that never lets up on suspense. Thanks for an excellent read.
I'm looking out at the late-afternoon sun on the Alpine forests, but I do have family in the States, so I'm anxious.
Can you believe I've never seen Spartacus? You'd think, growing up in San Francisco, someone would have forced me.
I will, though. I will.
BUT - I would say that iNCEPTION perfectly follows the classic three (really four) act structure I teach, I use it as an example in workshops all the time.
And BETRAYAL actually was written forwards as a conventionally structured play. Pinter found it boring and at the last minute he just reversed it.
I'm no fan of Syd Field, though - he's too simplistic for words.
How about this - A Great Love Had and Lost Forever, Never Appreciated Until It's Too Late.
I'm thinking of the film WAKING THE DEAD, with Jennifer Connelly and Billy Crudup. Have you seen it? I'd be interested in your analysis - it has a back and forth structure and it really works for me.
Steve, I've never seen it, and that's kind of odd that I missed it, with that casting - I can see the two of them being really explosive together.
thanks for another excellent post, Alex.
Just got back after a week at the Oregon coast where it's been beautiful, but I do have sisters on the east coast, so I'm hoping they're not being hit too hard this weekend.
Cheers!
The comments I saw about Mr Crowe came from one of the writers/script doctors for the movie, so I agree he might have been biased.
I stand rebuked ;-]
One of the elements I loved about GLADIATOR that is often missing from war films -- or is done cheesily -- was the spiritual element. The Roman view of the afterlife was very compellingly rendered, I thought, and gave Maximus an even more profound heroic dimension than he otherwise would have had.
I also think your insight about analyzing story elements in a genre in which you don't normally write is brilliant. Thanks.