THAT DRAMA THING

J.A.C.E

2012-01-21T11:53:00.003+02:00

J.A.C.E. - One of the Greek films I was consulting on has a trailer out now.

Live Theater at Edinburgh Showcase

2011-08-28T16:23:00.001+03:00

Two trends has been present in the shows, I have seen at the Edinburgh Showcase 2011 presented by British Council. Both which make the question of why we make and watch live theater present.

Trend 1: shows that rely on new media, often to the degree where the live performers are either almost absent or reduced to pawns in a tightly scripted show.
Trend 2: shows that rely on live performers and the audience, often in a minimalistic set-up, where lights, effects and set are almost absent.

The weakness of trend 1 is that it takes us away from the immediacy and humanity of theater. We as an audience are reduced to pawns, silent consumers of a finished and non-live product. We might admire the cleverness, the effects and the skill of the production, but we are not a part of it.
The strength is that even with a weak idea, such a show, might exactly survive because of the effects and cleverness.

Trend 2-shows have nothing but the idea and the courage of the performers to succeed by. So even with a strong idea, if that idea hasn't been pursued with courage, analysis and imagination, the show can easily fall short. The advantage of these shows is the courage and humanity of the performer, which can save a mediocre idea.

To me trend 1-shows are a dead end for live theater. It baffles me to see a live performance, where the performers are not really alive, but puppets in a machinery. I really don't understand why anyone would go about making a live performance and then reduce it to something like a re-enacted film. It's like going to a concert where the singer lip-syncs, where the music is exactly like on the record.

In Teater 770° Celsius where I do my work, we search for the full live-experience of theater, we allow the mistake, the unexpected, to happen and enrich us and audience. I saw a lot of the same pursuit in the trend 2-shows at the showcase, which made me happy even when they didn't entirely succeed in that pursuit.

ISFO Competition

2011-05-17T09:04:00.003+03:00

The International Student Film Organisation has asked me to post about their current short film screenwriting competition. Among the judges are Julie Gray, who has a good eye for scripts and deliver great feedback. Which is worth mentioning because the third prize for the 20 best scripts is a review of the script by the judges. Could be more valuable than the first prize of Mariner Writers Suite and the second prize, a scriptwriting book: "Screenwriting they can't resist".

So if you're curious, read more about it at their site.

And best of luck if you compete.

Out of Book

2011-05-01T17:24:00.004+03:00

An expression from the world of chess, describes the phase of the game, when you leave behind the known opening moves and systems of 'the chess book'. This is where real players prefer to be, where the challenge happens. This is the critical state, in between chaos and order, where inspiration and new ideas emerge almost by themselves.

This is also where we should aim to put ourselves when working with drama, be it as writers, directors or actors. As professionals we have an understanding of the rules and systems of drama, and often we need to follow them strictly for a while, as we build up our game. But as soon as we have enough elements brought into play, we need to get out of book.

In my experience, by understanding the rules and systems from a more principled, dynamic view-point rather than as a rule-book, we put ourselves at a starting point, from where we'll quicker reach the 'out of book'-phase. Where the magic and the 'cooking-with-gas' happens.

By disciplining ourselves to constantly look for the unexpected, by reversing our own expectations, by letting any of our own mistakes or stupid criticism from others be a potential source to bring us out of book, we can get there, and stay there, and bring our game beyond book.

True complexity and sandbox-dramaturgy

2011-04-13T00:16:00.002+03:00

Based on my effort to understand dramaturgy as principles rather than forms and my experience from creating two theater performances, developed and performed without a script, written or virtual, but with the principled dramaturgy along with devising and improv-techniques, I'm gradually getting ready to talk about sandbox-dramaturgy.

Often complexity is considered an essential quality in art. This is obviously true, but often misunderstood. An incomprehensible piece of art is not necessarily complex, but perhaps just meaningless on every level, hiding behind avant-garde rhetorics. A case of the emperors new clothes.

Science has some very simple definitions of complexity, which could or even should be applied in the understanding of art. Put simply, complexity arises when enough elements within the borders of a system are able to interact and influence each other. And enough elements are quite many, like every word, line, visual, sound etc. in a film. They all need to have connections. They need to operate within the boundaries of a system, or else their connections are not valid, but accidental and not contributing to the accumulation of complexity.

In art this creates the effect that fx. a play can be interpreted in many ways in new performances, while still remaining true to the original text. There are many connections to be made validly within the system of the play, and within its context of the larger system of the theater as an art form, and the even larger system of the human experience.

This is also why art will always be most exciting on the crossroads of the avant-garde; the formulation of new system rules; and the tradition; the established golden system rules which refer to the accumulated system experience of both the art form and human experience. If you leave the tradition completely behind, there are not really any system boundaries, and then no complexity. If you stay completely inside traditional rules, the connections of elements inside the system are bereft of value, as they have all been understood and explored long ago, and thus no real interaction and influence happens between the elements.

My sandbox dramaturgy is an attempt to define tools needed to create the framework for a live theater performance, which is both consistent and satisfying dramatically and yet never repeats itself, but will be different in every performance.

The sandbox-dramaturgy consist of building system boundaries for a dramatic universe, using simple, understandable dramatic tools, like place, time and basic conflict and theme. This is the sandbox. Then it needs to be filled with sand by using the dramatic principles to create elements inside the system; primarily the characters, but also visual, text and other elements, which can be brought into play inside the system boundaries. And actually, if this is for a theater performance, you also need a steady inflow of new elements. Which can both come from the audience, the performers/creators and/or any other other outside source.

This creates a performance, where complexity emerges by itself, which will be constantly renewed in new performances, by meeting a new audience, by accumulating experience, redefining rules as the old ones fades in substantial meaning, but still remaining the same system, exploring the same dramatic territory.

This kind of work is hugely fascinating as a scriptwriter/director, and as you let go of your control of the detail and every moment, you'll discover much more about what drama is and can do. Experiences which can also be brought into more traditional ways of creating drama.

Jokums sprogområde

2011-03-10T10:03:00.003+02:00

Debatindlæg til Politiken, d.10/3 2011 - uredigeret version

(For english readers, this is an opinion piece I wrote for a Danish newspaper, about the lack of proper development of new writing in Denmark, especially at The Royal Theatre)

Jokums sprogområde

Jokum Rohdes nye stykke, "Manson", der lige nu spiller på Det Kongelige Teater, er fremragende eksempel på, hvad der galt med udviklingen af ny scenedramatik i vores lille sprogområde og især på Det Kongelige Teater. Det stykke skulle aldrig være sat op, men det sker det desværre alt for ofte, at ufærdigt eller dårligt håndværk sættes på scenen. Magter det teater overhovedet at løfte deres lovbundne opgave om at spille ny dansk dramatik?

Det er ikke nogen nem sag at lave dramatik - det er komplekst, selv det mest enkle, og dertil en mærkværdig blanding af subjektivt og objektivt. Fra dramatikerne, over instruktørerne til skuespillerne. Især skuespillerne, der skal stå frem og levere ordene. Derfor klapper jeg gerne efter endt forestilling, selv hvis den ikke har været synderligt god, for om ikke andet at vise skuespillerne respekt for indsatsen og modet. Men efter alle ordene i "Manson" havde lydt, kunne jeg ikke få mig selv til at slå mine hænder sammen i applaus. Stykket var for pinligt.

Sådan plejer det at være med Jokum Rohdes stykker, alt for mange ord, alt for lidt dramatik. Derfor har jeg tit undret mig over hvorfor Det Kongelige er blevet ved at bestille stykker hos netop ham - men dennegang er det bare endnu værre. Nok især fordi han forsøger at slå det største brød op, så kollapset føles så meget mere pinligt. Anmelderne er er alle mere eller mindre enige. Stoffet er interessant, der er bare for alt for mange ord. Hos Information siger Anne Middelboe f.eks. “jeg kunne næsten ikke holde ud, at teksten til Manson ikke er blevet beskåret med samme kraft som ligene i forestillingen - og at teksten endte med at lemlæste sig selv med sine alt for mange ord”.

Men det ville ikke have været nok at skære i teksten. Det som mangler er en klar dramatisk idé, som værkets struktur bygges op om. Selv hvis den idé havde været noget om kaos eller lignende. Og der kræves et håndværk til at eksekvere idéen. Det er ligesom vittigheder. De virker hvis de har en klar idé og udforming - selv hvis vittigheden er absurd. Men her mangler både dramatiker, dramaturg og instruktør tilsyneladende enhver færdighed til at finde og levere vitsen. "Manson" er det værste eksempel jeg har set. Det er vel ikke alene Jokum Rohdes skyld - han har bare skrevet af karsken bælg, opfyldt af fantasifostre og civilisationsvæmmelse. Al respekt for det, men han kan bare ikke håndværket og den klare tankegang, som gør at man kan slippe afsted med det, som han forsøger på. Men hvad jeg ikke fatter er, at Det Kongelige Teater beslutter at spille stykket. At bruge så store resurser. Vi taler om Store Scene og 12 skuespillere. Det koster kassen. Så skal man for fanden være ret sikker på at stykket virker. At vitsen er en vits - og ikke en sludder for en sladder.

Jeg har selv arbejdet en kortere periode som dramaturg på Det Kongelige og er i det hele taget godt bekendt med udviklingsprocesserne af ny dramatik i den danske teaterverden. Eller skal vi sige mangel på udvikling? At skrive dramatik er ikke nogen eksakt videnskab, og der findes en milliard måder at gøre det på, men som alt andet i verden er der mønstre og principper for hvordan dramatik fungerer. Det kan man lære og blive ved med at lære. Og et teater kan tilrettelægge udviklingsprocesser, som sikrer teatret mod at stå med et halv-godt/dårligt stykke. Men alligevel sker det igen og igen i dansk teater. Man bestiller et stykke, får et ufærdigt/klodset produkt leveret, taler lidt om beskæringer og forsøger så at få det bedste ud af det på scenen. Det er simpelthen for uproft og slapt. Og et ufatteligt resursespild.

Jokum Rohdes “Manson” er bestemt ikke en enlig svale de seneste 10-15 år. Da Claus Hoffmeyer overtog ansvaret for skuespillet var det med med en erklæring om at prioritere den nye danske dramatik og bød på en første sæson med mange nye danske stykker, der desværre stort set alle floppede. Et eksempel fra perioden er filminstruktøren Carsten Rudolfs “Genfærd”, hvor alle på teatret vidste at det var et stykke som ikke fungerede, men ingen greb ind. Under Mikkel Harder blev det ikke meget bedre, selvom han stod på en konference for ny dramatik og brystede sig med at de havde haft Jokum Rohdes nye stykke, “Pinnochios Aske”, i en udviklingsworkshop, men han glemte at fortælle, det ikke var Det Kongelige Teater, men en lille forening, Dramatikercentrum, som havde arrangeret og bekostet den nævnte workshop. Og nu har vi Emmet Feigenberg som skuespilchef og man kunne have håbet på bedre, eftersom han hentede Jesper Bergmann ind som chefdramaturg, der kommer med en masse udviklingserfaring fra radioteatret. Men når deres store satsning er “Manson”, så er det håb brast.

Hvis vores lille sprogområde med nogen form for stolthed skal kunne henvise til vores nationalscene, så må vi hæve udviklingsniveauet af ny dramatik. Én ting er at et mindre teatre ikke har overskuddet og kompentencen til det, men at vores nationalscene ikke har, det er pinligt. Både for de skuespillere, der hver aften skal stå på scenen og forsvare teksten – og for publikum.

Hvis Det Kongelige Teater ikke meget snart viser sig modne til til at løfte opgaven, som jo er en del af bevillings- og lovgrundlaget, bør politikerne fratage dem opgaven og overføre midlerne til et (nyt) teater, der udelukkende varetager udvikling af nyskreven dramatik, som f.eks. Royal Court Theater gør det i London.

A Child is Born

2011-03-03T05:10:00.003+02:00

I've been commissioned to write and direct a Christmas play for Grønnegade Teatret, a regional theater here in Denmark. I'll give an account here on the blog of the process. The title will be "A Child is Born", which is the first words of a famous Danish christmas hymn. Let's recap the story of the process so far.

After sending letters to theaters around Denmark, suggesting different ideas for performances. Based on that letter I was invited by the artistic director, Peter Holst, to come up with ideas for two performances. We met and I pitched two ideas verbally. After some time and back and forth on email, they asked for a synopsis on the idea for the christmas performance. In two weeks I developed the vague idea into a full 5-page synopsis and based on that the theater commissioned the play and decided also to hire me as its director.

The initial idea was quite vague. I suggested to make a christmas performance with some edge. I told Peter Holst that I would like to work with the conflict between people who love christmas and those who hate it. In Denmark we have this expression, "hygge", which means something like being cosy. Actually its more than an expression; its a national state of mind. Something every Danish person should strive attain as often as possible. And Christmas-hygge is the ultimate kind of hygge. It is a great feeling, but of course it can also become a great pressure. Often you'll end up with families where - for the sake of 'hygge' - we never confront any issues. Still, this being a christmas performance it still has to be some kind of comedy, so I decided to have two characters, slightly exaggerated, one who loves christmas and hygge intensely, and one who hates it above all else. And to make matters worse or better, dramatically, they are married.

And as I kept thinking about christmas, I realized how much it has become the celebration of and for children. This lead me to an old fascination with the image of 'the adoration of the magi', often painted especially by the renaissance painters. It shows the three wise men bowing down before the newborn Jesus. I wrote more about it in a previous post. The main thing in my process was it made me realize the deeper level of my idea, what I call the mystery. And so I knew there had to be a child. Immediately I knew the child was dead and that this would be the reason for the two main characters' exaggerated attitudes to christmas. The mother trying to forget and move on has thrown herself into celebrating christmas like there's no tomorrow. And for the father everything is an abyss and all attempts to go on living, hollow and hypocritical.

I also felt that the child should somehow be in the play as a character. The ghost of the child, perhaps. Or as an angel? Or it could even come back from the dead. I just knew two things; I wanted the child somewhere on the stage and I wanted some kind of miracle to take place. And then I was ready to work on my synopsis. Ask all the right questions to myself about form, structure and content. A part of the set-up at the theater also demands the inclusion of some local amateur actors. And to solve this I drew upon my experience with devised, interactive, improv-theater to come up with a scenario for the play, where we can use them as guests at the wife's christmas party, along with the rest of the audience. If you are able to read Danish, you can read the resulting synopsis here.

Now I'll embark on preparing to write the play. I'll rework the synopsis with some new/modified ideas, I've had since I wrote it. I'll also take into account, that now I know my the cast - at least the actors for the two main characters, so I can write directly to their strengths and weaknesses. And here on the blog I'll try to document the process. You're welcome to comment, question or discuss.

Xmas mystery: Adoration of the magi

2010-12-28T18:07:00.004+02:00

At my recent workshop in Edinburgh, it seemed that the principle of mystery awoke most questions and curiosity. Especially about it's practical application. So here I'll give a small example of my own process.

Boticelli was one among many renaissance painters to render "the adoration of the magi", a scene depicting the three wise men bowing before the newborn Jesus. The image has always struck me as a supreme capture of the mystery of the holy child; the human infant incarnating the god - beginning and eternity in one body. What in particular thrills me about the image is the three wise men acknowledging the child as an entity even they should bow before. This is a mystery. They are the wisest, adult, fully formed men, cultivated and at their peak. Yet they kneel for a newborn child. Why?

Christmas has become a celebration of the child; the presents, the Santa Claus and the decorated tree - joys of the child. These days I'm working on an idea for a Christmas play for next Christmas. Without thinking about the Adoration of the Magi, I had inserted a child, a stillborn child, into the situation. And I kept returning to this child, thinking about how to use it, when suddenly I realized that it was the central theme and mystery of my piece; the holy child. I already had a notion that somehow this child would come back from the dead, and now with my new realization I'm sure of this. What remains is how to plot the route to this miraculous event. This will demand two things from me.

First to delve more into the mystery of the holy child. It's a variation on 'life renewed', but also different. More about the miracle that life can happen at all. That out of a lifeless cosmos, life can spring forth. And about the way a newborn is full of promise, still connected to the great unknown. Where did it come from? Who will it become? And what are the mythical circumstances under which this miracle will happen? 'Life renewed' happens when life is dying. When the times are dark and at their end. Is it the same for 'the holy child'?

Secondly I need to figure out what obstacles and conflicts are blocking the way to the miracle for my two main characters. What tests do they need to undergo? What is their problem, their unbalance and how can they resolve it? If the miracle happens in the darkest hour, I'll need to get them to exactly that point.

I'm also trying to remember great dramas with this mystery at the centre. Maybe "The Seventh Seal" by Bergmann? Or "Small Change" by Truffaut, where the midpoint is an infant's miraculous survival of a fall out of a window from 4th floor - quite contrary to Antichrist's inciting incident, where the infant dies and sends the parents into the woods to experience an altogether different mystery. Perhaps there are not a whole lot of drama based upon the mystery of the miraculous child?

This is where I am with my idea for a Christmas play. I began at a more superficial level, but with an awareness to keep my eyes open for the deeper mystery. The question which put me on the right track was: "why do we celebrate Christmas?".

Please, don't kill your darlings

2010-12-19T16:36:00.000+02:00

How many times have you heard the expression "Kill your darlings"?. It has become an almost universally accepted cliché applied to any kind of problematic element of a script. How many stop to examine the wisdom of the expression? Or what it really means?

Oh, Darling? Who are you?

A real darling is an element, which the creator has a somewhat passionate and irrational relationship to. The creator cannot offer a reasonable explanation to why it should be in the script and how it relates to the other elements. There's good reason to single out such elements, as they can disrupt an otherwise well-functioning script. And if the darling is crucial to the premise of a script, it can sour the whole affair. So the advice of killing off darlings could seem quite rational.

It is most certainly more easy, than to examine if there's a deeper rationale behind the darling. Especially for producers and script consultants. But it is more like treating a symptom, than the disease. Or like aborting a passionate love affair, even before it has begun, because its not practical.

Your mystery lover

Obeying to the dramatic principle of mystery, we should instead engage the mysterious darling. It could be the hidden river, the deep well, the source from where the underlying mystery of a great drama springs. Imagine your were Ted Tally in the early stages of adapting the book for "The SIlence of the Lambs". You are having problems incorporating the idea of Clarice Starling's childhood experience with the screaming lambs. It has become a darling for you, but it doesn't really make sense. The script consultant, the producer, everybody tells you it slows down the action, that the flashback to her childhood are clumsy and irrelevant. They tell you the film is about a young female detective trying to save another woman in a man's world, not about lambs and childhood. Under the pressure you are ready to abandon, or kill your darling. But there's just something about this image, a girl, all alone in the world, listening to the screaming of the lambs, wanting to save just one of them, that you are immensely attracted to. Then it strikes you - its about loneliness. Clarice Starling's struggle is not really about being a hero and saving others, but about escaping her own loneliness. It not about being a woman in a man's world - that's only a circumstance, an aspect of her loneliness. Its a heroic, tragic struggle, but one ultimately doomed to fail, as we are always alone. That's the deeper mystery of your drama - so even if she succeeds in saving the woman from the serial killer, she is still alone. Suddenly all the pieces begin to fall into place, you see how loneliness is present in the material; the conversations with Hannibal Lecter, who's also an immensely lonely figure, the single touch between them, the final line from him: "Tell me, Clarice, has the lambs stopped screaming" - and her lack of answer.

It could have been you, so please, stop killing your darlings. Or other people's darlings. Engage the mystery lover.

Spank your darlings

The real wisdom of Kill Your Darlings lies in the cynical treatment of something which can be sentimental or even sacrosanct to the creator. The darling might need a rough hand, before the true love can be revealed. And if it is true love, then it should be able to endure some spanking and rough questions.

When I work as either creator or consultant on dramatic scripts, I'll be the first top defend even the most absurd darlings against the meddling of producers, but also the first to ask the really difficult questions, but questions aimed at revealing the darling's real nature. Questions about how it could relate to other elements, what it reminds us of (principle of unity). Or about what kind of conflict it does or could involves (principle of conflict). How it's tonality sounds, is it comedic, tragic, and how (principle of tonality). Overall seeking an underlying theme, truth or what have we; the mystery. In this process you might very well discover that your darling doesn't really belong in the present script, but at least you will know a bit more about why, and perhaps have a strong idea for new script.

So please, spank your darlings, but don't kill them.

Workshop in Edinburgh

2010-12-14T13:04:00.005+02:00

Workshop, Friday 17th of December, 2-5 pm, Edinburgh.

As a dramatic writer, you can easily get lost in the woods of rules and dramaturgical models. I've tried go beneath the surface of models and rules in search for the basic principles of drama - to let them lead me in my own work as both a dramatic writer and stage director. So far I operate with 5 basic principles:

1. Conflict: This is the basis of drama, change and consciousness. Obvious, but the importance often overlooked.

2. Tonality: We have two fundamental tonalities in drama; comedy and tragedy - they are of huge importance for the construction of a drama, which has more similarities to the construction of music than to litterature.

3. Character: The old discussion, plot or character, I argue that character comes first, especially the will of the character.

4. Mystery: Drama has its origin in the ancient Greek religious mystery-plays. It still plays a vital part for the construction of drama.

5. Unity: Aristoteles old principle still holds great value, when applied and understood as a principle.

I'll introduce these principles and demonstrate their application in some quick exercises. If you plan to attend the workshop, you should bring a scene of around 2 minutes length for the exercises. You can also read more about the principles on this blog. To sign up for the workshop and further info, contact me at tcjakobsen@gmail.com

Troels Christian Jakobsen graduated from The National Danish Playwright Education in 1997. He has worked as a dramaturge at the Royal Theater of Denmark, as a writer for TV, film and theater, scriptconsultant for many Greek feature films and as a stage director.

Allied with the actor

2010-12-04T21:28:00.002+02:00

Here we go further examining the writers potential alliance with the actor.

Actors will often have a sense of the well-proportioned scene. It can both be a intellectual or primary, bodily sense of drama's structure. But most of all, actors are worth listening to as a scriptwriter because they will be living with your fictional work, taking responsibility for it, investing it with their own bodies and minds. They'll sense when lines doesn't work, are surplus or go in a wrong direction.

Of course, sometimes an actor can have problems with a line or element which is difficult for them personally. It might provoke a fear in them, often unconsciously, and so they will try to argue rationally, objectively why the line or element is bad. If you sense this is the case, be happy, because it is a great opportunity to strengthen the alliance with the actor. If you can explore the actors objection to the element and reach a satisfying resolution without antagonizing him or her, you'll have expanded your mutual trust.

One of my main tools to exploring differences of opinion, both in relation to actors, but also when working with writers/directors/producers, is to focus on asking questions and establishing a mutual agreement on the primary logic and mechanics of a script/scene. Its a bit Socratic, but without the didactic approach. The key is to allow for the possibility that you are wrong, even when you damn sure you're absolutely right.

In such conversations I listen a lot after what I call 'hidden gems'. Because often hidden in an objection, no matter how rational or irrational, you can find an unknown treasure. An experience, an emotion, a story or a moment which can bring a new aspect to the script.

Actors are the writer's best ally, alone for the reason that they have the most to win by making you better, by helping you to succeed - and many of the understand how to be truly collaborative.

The courage

2010-11-30T09:52:00.001+02:00

"Courage is being scared to death... and saddling up anyway" - John Wayne

The word courage has its root in the latin word for heart; cor. Courage flows from the beating heart, that wants to live in spite of fear. David Mamet argues that the most important thing the actor brings to the character is their own courage. This will give the character life; a real, living heart, so to speak, to the otherwise artificial and non-existent person.

The actor's primary virtue has always been courage. The simple act of standing in front of an audience demands courage in itself, even if you by disposition crave it and are driven to do it. One of the best pieces of advice I ever received was to connect with actors, if I wanted to write drama. As a writer, you might think you are the brain, but without the heart you are worth nothing.

After my return to Denmark, I attend more theatre performances and I meet more actors. Two of the recent performances I saw reminded me of the importance of courage. One was a grotesque, semi-spex version of Chaplin's The Gold Rush put on stage to buffoon the makers own desire to be political correct. The whole performance breathes with courage; it hides nothing, uses all the most simple, old tricks, never tries to be clever, and that is why it works so well. The courage of the performers convince. The other performance I saw was cleverly made, well-designed and full of new tricks, but in the directing and in some of the crucial parts, it lacked courage. It never left the stage. It was impressive, but without heart.

The same goes for writing and designing drama. Better to have courage than to be clever and perfect. Practice the discipline of sensing if your impulses are controlled by fear or inspired by courage and desire. I have a bunch of tricks and questions I treat myself to in the process. Like:

"What is the worst thing that could happen now?"

"- for the character?"

"- for me as a writer?"

"What is the worst possible idea I can come up with to solve this problem?"

- I leave the script and take a walk, while trying to sense and answer to: "What do I really, really want, no, not just want, but desire, crave? What can I imagine that will give me a kick?"

As writers, we have the time to reflect and ponder, so what I really admire about the courage of actors, is that they do it on stage in real time - they follow their impulses even when they know it might lead the performance astray from the planned (that is; when they do it, and not when they are just playing safe). Both in acting and writing, its the true moments of courage, where someone let go of all that is safe and well-known and take those steps into uncertainty, those are the moments, which truly touches us as an audience.

“Not just because..”

2010-03-11T19:24:00.002+02:00

Drama is essentially an examination of what people want and what they will do to get it. This seems to be the basic mechanics of the good scene or script.

Ask what your characters want and how they go about getting it. This is the fundamental tool to make weak scenes better.

Always.

Say it out loud: Always.

Now repeat it, while hitting yourself in the head, lest you should forget it.

Your best friend, the actor.

Because writers often forget it (and don’t even get me started on the directors, whom so easily get lost in their ‘visuals’). The scenes are then weak. You end up writing something else than drama, pure expo, narration or even poetry. Maybe we get lucky and the director and/or especially the actors have plenty of dramatic instinct to infuse the scene with drama. Despite the weak scene, the actors will somehow play their characters with lots of intention. This is the hallmark of the natural actor, not being able to play without clear and present intention, no matter what ‘method’ or technique they think they are applying as actors, this is fundamentally their craft, as it is ours. So learn from them. Speak your own lines. Find the intention. Feel it. Its in the body. Not the mind. That’s why you need actors. They have bodies. Physical bodies. Authors of novels don’t need them, so in their writing they can be lyrical, reflective and even acadmic. We can’t. The actor is our siamese twin and we can’t live without them. Hell, we shouldn’t even want to.

Our profession: Existential paradise

This examination of want and will demands a certain portion of cynicism from us as creators. By ‘a certain cynicism’, I’m not thinking of a bleak outlook on life, but rather a questioning, not-taking-anything-at-face-value-attitude. Peel off the illusions to better create the illusion of a drama.

Nothing is ever ‘just because’; just because he is a good man, just because that’s how the story is, just because that’s how reality is.

No, the young man is helping the woman because he wants something. What does he want? To be considered a hero? To make her fall in love with him? To forget about his own problems?

No, a story never just is. Its always a choice. At the outset, you might be making a lot of unconscious choices, just to get going, but at some point, you need to examine your choices. Are there better choices to make? More interesting? Daring? Never accept your story at face value, just because.

OK, reality is, just because it is. But you are not constructing reality. It might remind us of reality or it might be an altogether different reality from mine. So, yes, we are back at the choices. How is the world and reality of your drama?

That’s your decisions, and you have to make them. That’s how you construct drama. Satré would be in paradise (and btw, he wrote a few decent plays himself).

This is one of the most important 'tricks' in our tool-box: Never stop being the child who asks “Why?” and the child who observes the emperor and exclaims: “But he’s not wearing any clothes!”

A script workshop in Copenhagen

2009-12-16T16:14:00.002+02:00

I have been asked to do a script-workshop for teaterHUSET in Copenhagen, beginning January '10.

Her kan du læse TeaterHUSETs præsentation:

Manus Workshop – vil du blive bedre til at skrive?
Det er nemt at blive forvildet i skoven af dramaturgiske modeller. Manuskriptforfatter
Troels Christian Jakobsen arbejder med en række enkle principper, der går forud for
modellerne, og som kan hjælpe den skrivende til et bedre overblik. Det er i virkeligheden
ret enkelt at skrive dramatik, hvis det ikke lige var fordi, vi nemt gør det temmelig svært for
os selv og hinanden.
Hver session begynder med en introduktion til dagens emne, efterfulgt af samtale med
deltagerne om deres eget skrivearbejde, som kan være et eget manus eller skriveopgaver
stillet af workshop-lederen. Det betyder at workshoppen både er for folk, der er igang med
skrive egne manus, og folk der har brug for nogle udfodringer til at komme igang med at
skrive.

De 7 workshops har følgende overskrifter:
1. Principperne:
Intro til de grundlæggende principper for dramatik: konflikt, tonalitet, karakter, mysteriet og
enhed. Plus nogle noter om proces.
2. Struktur:
Intro til at arbejde med en fleksibel akt-struktur med udgangspunkt i en almen 4-akts-
model. Plus lidt mere om proces.
3. Konflikt:
Konflikt er grundstoffet i dramatik, men betydningen overses ofte.
4. Tonalitet:
Hvilken toneart eller genre er vigtig for hvordan et drama konstrueres. Alt begynder med
de to grundlæggende, komplementære genrer; komedien og tragedien.
5. Karakter:
I det gamle spørgsmål om hvorvidt karakter eller plot er vigtigst, må svaret principielt set
være: karakteren.
6. Mysteriet:
Drama har sit udspring i religiøse mysterier og spiller stadig en vigtig rolle ved
konstruktionen af drama.
7. Enhed:
Aristoteles talte om stedets, tidens og handlingens enhed - og det holder stadig som
princip.

Troels Christian Jakobsen er uddannet på Dramatikeruddannelsen i ’96 og har lige siden
arbejdet inden for teater, TV og film, både som manusforfatter, dramaturg og instruktør.
Han har især arbejdet en hel del med udvikling af nye stykker og manuskriptudvikling til
spillefilm, de seneste 4 år i Grækenland.

Tid: Torsdage d.21.januar, 28.januar, 4.februar, 11.februar, 18.februar, 25.februar og
4.marts 2010. Hver torsdag kl.19-22.
Sted: Dramatoriet
Pris: 1000 kr.
Deltagere: 6 personer.
Tilmelding: Senest 13.januar 2010
Tilmeld dig nu til projekt@teater-huset.dk. Erfaring er ikke påkrævet. Skriv om du vil
arbejde med et manuskript, du allerede har gang eller om du mere har lyst til at blive
kastet ud i øvelser.

Anden henvendelse til:
Liv Helm , Projektkoordinator
TeaterHUSET
 Rådhusstræde 13 
1466 København K 
Tlf: 35102522

The Joke

2009-11-15T17:39:00.000+02:00

I believe creating scripts for drama is one of the more difficult things you can undertake. One reason is that a script is essentially build upon one joke, and you have to make everything relate to that joke. You have to keep this simplicity in mind while creating a complex world around it. Often a script fails because it looses aim of it's joke or repeats the joke over and over without any complexity. I use the term joke, because of its simplicity, but could also talk about dramatic irony, the inner mystery or

So what is a joke. Here are some examples.
Silence of the Lambs: Starling hopes she can make the lambs stop screaming by saving the girl from Buffalo Bill, but she can't.
Seventh Seal: The Knight has lost all faith, but in facing the most meaningless of all, Death, he finds a new faith.
Sixth Sense: Crowe, the main character, believes he is supposed to save the boy, when in fact its the boy, who can save him.
Last Tango in Paris: The Brando-character has lost all faith in love because of his dead wife's betrayal, and takes out his despair on a young woman in a nihilistic sexual relationship. The joke is that he rediscovers love, but too late - death has been invited into the relationship and the young woman kills him to his big surprise.

When I work on my own scripts, I always stay in notebook-mode, collecting ideas, writing a few lines, arranging the rough structure, until I have a firm hold on the joke. Only then can I progress to treatment or script. In my work as a consultant, I have seen too many times, writers and directors setting out to write their script without a solid idea of their joke. The result is always what I call an unfinished script, even if it gets produced.

Back in CPH

2009-11-08T14:39:00.003+02:00

I have returned to Copenhagen to find better paying jobs as a scriptwriter - and right away TV2, the second largest TV station in DK, had a public tender for a prime-time mini-series for 12-year olds and their families. Episode length 25 minutes, episode budget 200.000 euro. I have turned in two concepts. "Murder of Four", roughly translated from Danish (where murder is 'morder' and mother is 'mor' - so the title has a wordplay in Danish, as well as a link to a very popular feature film series from the 60s called "Father of four") - this is a crime story where four kids have to prove their mothers innocence. The other concept is a fantasy thing - a kind of ET story, but with supernatural creatures.

"Murder of Four" already has a producer attached, the danish company Thura Film. The fantasy-concept is still looking for a producer.

In mid November TV2 will call in a selection of projects for a pitch session. Based on that, they'll choose 3-4 projects to begin development - each handed roughly 7000 euro to write a first episode and story-line for the following two episodes. Of those 3-4 projects they will eventually choose one to be produced later in summer 2010.

ATHENS SCRIPT WORKSHOP

2009-07-03T11:41:00.005+03:00

Over the summer The Athens Script Workshop will appear in a new form.

Daily 2 hour sessions will be held at Ianos on Stadiou 24 in the cafe from 4 to 6 pm. It begins Monday the 6th of July and will continue for 8 weeks.

Mondays: Introduction to script creation.
Introduces my view on drama and the creation of scripts. Participation free of charge.

Tuesdays: Principles of drama.
We talk about the basic principles of drama with examples of how they work and how to work with them.

Wednesdays: Toolbox.
After principles, we look at tools for better writing, like act models, creative methods and simple tricks.

Thursdays: Writing exercises.
Based on principles and the toolbox writing exercises to develop your understanding of them.

Fridays: Your writing.
We take a look at the participants own writing, either a project or your exercise-writing. Your choice.

The setting will be informal, discussion is welcomed and participation is flexible - meaning you only have to show up for the type of session you find useful.

Payment follows this simple form. Enrollment: 50 €. After that: 5 € per session you participate in.

If you have questions about the workshop email me. You can find my email address in my profile.

THE GREEK FILM MIRACLE!!!

2009-06-15T09:09:00.001+03:00

Isn't that a headline we all would like to see in the world news? Greece possesses many of the elements to create such a miracle - and what's more, because of it's proud heritage of ancient drama, myth and epic, the world would be ready to embrace it.

In my mother country, Denmark, such a miracle took place throughout the '90s and is still more or less going on. The international film world suddenly noticed this little country with just above 5 million inhabitants. Lars von Trier's films, Festen by Thomas Vinterberg and many other films became export articles for the international market. But even more amazing, but less well-known, is that in the home market Danish films are consistently able to go head to head with Hollywood productions at the box office - as maybe the only European country. In any given week of the year you will find several Danish films in the top 10 of sold tickets, often ahead of American blockbusters.

What already exist in Greece is a dedicated film audience - the Greeks love cinema - and as any other nation, they like to see film in their own language, dealing with conflicts of their own culture. But on a regular basis Greek films fail to garner a real audience. There is the occasional Greek hit film, but it is too little. Every month of the year should feature a new Greek hit film - a hit with audiences and/or critics. So what's wrong here? Greece has both quality actors, cinematographers, directors, set designers and so on. In my eyes there are only two really weak links in the Greek film industry - the script and the production. And I believe that by focusing intensely on improving these two factors, Greek film could turn itself into a miracle of European cinema.

For Denmark the miracle was a great thing, not only for national pride, but also for the national budget. Money was made in more than one way. And when the Socialdemocrats, who had helped the miracle happen by advancing the state's financial support for film development and production, lost government power and was replaced by a right-wing government led by a party, whose ideology included a belief in a minimal state, there were people in the film industry who feared the celebration would come to an abrupt end. Because for a small nation like Denmark (and Greece) it is imperative for the film industry to have the state share a part of the risk of developing and producing films, as we can never establish multi-billion dollar studios like in Hollywood, who are able to carry the full burden of risk.

Luckily the new right-wing government in Denmark quickly realized that we now live in a world were the so-called creative industries become rapidly more important for the economy of a developed nation. Even though oil and other natural resources are still important, it is non-depletable creative commodities like films, music, novels and theatre which can add to and maintain a nations competitiveness. Apart from the immediate financial gain, they are invaluable in building the image of the nation, as well as to help to attract companies and highly skilled professionals in fields of IT, finance and medico-industries to choose the country as their place of operation. The old global powers arose by wealth of hard resources like oil and minerals supported by the hard power of military, the new global players wield soft power in the form of culture, knowledge and economics. In Denmark, a nation almost devoid of natural resources, this is understood better than anywhere else.

Greece is in a better position than almost any country I can think of to ultimately harvest the full gain of such an image-boost from a film miracle. First because the Greek nation has it's proud ancestry - it is as a matter of fact the place where western drama was invented - which means that the idea of a Greek film miracle, once it it happens, will be even stronger and convincing in the minds of the rest of the world. Secondly because one of the main industries is tourism - and even though it is nice for Greece that the new ABBA-film takes place on Skopelos, and Captain Corellis' Mandolin was filmed on Kefallonia, these films are not Greek, and therefore they don't really add much to an authentic image and branding of Greece as an exciting place to live, work, have fun and vacation. (As a side-note its worth to mention that Denmark's attractiveness as tourist destination has been steadily climbing since the film miracle happened - and this in a country who has much less to offer in terms of sunshine and amazing landscapes).

In the 80s no one was at all excited by Danish films, and if anyone had said that in 10 years there would be talk of a Danish film miracle, it would had been met by laughter or ridicule. In Greece I have often met an attitude, that something like the Danish film miracle could never happen here - for hundreds of different reasons. But guess what, in Denmark it didn't happen by itself. And it didn't happen just because the state gave some more money in support. It mainly happened because The Danish Film Institute and a string of clever new producers understood that the script is the all-determining factor for the success of a film - blockbuster or art-house. And because the producers understood to cooperate, despite being competitors, realizing that being in a small country, they had more to think of themselves as parts of bigger whole, than just small kings with each their small kingdom. And when it started happening they could gradually produce more and more films each year, making it possible for a greater group of directors to actually shoot a feature film more than once per 5 years - which in turn made them better and more confident directors - and the self-generating circle of success had begun. As it is now in Greece my guess is that most of the younger talented directors are just thinking about making one film in Greece that will make them get away from Greece and all the way to Hollywood or some other place of greater promise. It's up to the producers and politicians to make them wish to stay.

To do this the Greek Film Center and the greek producers need to invest heavily in script development. Create a pool of professional scriptwriters by educating them and paying them for any kind of work they do - also for synopses, treatments and scripts that doesn't get produced. Make any director who is not obviously talented at writing understand that they need a scriptwriter - if they don't understand this, simply tell them their film will not be produced without a solid script. This is of major importance: Stop producing films with weak scripts. Simply stop - invest the money in more scripts. Have far too many scripts in development. Every time you plan to produce one film, develop 10 scripts. One successful film will pay for the 9 other scripts. The script is the foundation for successful films - and the brilliant script doesn't just spring from divine inspiration, or a famous book or the mind of strong visual director - the brilliant script arises from a dedication to examine and resolve conflicts by adhering to a strict logic of drama. And that dedication and that logic was invented here - reclaim it.

The Greeks are wonderful people, full of life and therefore drama and stories. They are both tremendously proud, but also at times openly ashamed of their nation. I believe this gives a unique position to be the new century's cinematic storytellers, as we are entering a period where the kind of American blindness to own weaknesses are becoming increasingly out-of-fashion, even with a mainstream audience. Greek film producers and visionary politicians, who understands the value of cultural policy in the new world of soft power, need to come together and create the circumstances to unleash the Greek Film Miracle.

Synopsis, Outline, Treatment? Part 2

2009-04-29T05:53:00.000+03:00

This time about the outline. This tool doesn't get mistaken and is virtually never used as a sales tool. It is pretty simple and straight forward. In my own process this is the tool I use consistently throughout. From beginning to end.

It is a short description of each and every scene. The basics. Where, who, action, conflict, essential information. As brief and to the point as possible. Sometimes I throw in a single line of dialogue, I find crucial.

In the beginning I sketch this out in a notebook. I separate the notebook into four acts and then I begin to fill in scenes. At first I'm looking for the important scenes. The plot-point-scenes, any scenes that have given me the inspiration in the first place and scenes that are essential in linking those together. From there on it becomes about filling in the blanks - creating the smaller stepping stones. Often I separate the acts themselves into smaller units - sequences each driven by one question, task or idea. I give everything - scenes, sequences and acts - titles to re-inforce what they are about. Some use the much beloved index-cards for the whole re-shuffling thing. This doesn't speak to me, but I see why it works. For me, when the re-shuffling becomes the main job, I move from notebook to computer, because its often the same time I want to expand my notes on each scene into something more concise and clearly written.

This process form the basis for the two other short-forms - the treatment and the synopsis. The treatment being the natural expansion of the outline and the synopsis being the condensation. I do the synopsis to demand of myself the discipline to focus on the drama's most essential plot movements, conflict and narrative strategy - and not getting lost in detail and darlings. To be able to later on verbally narrate the story within half an hour and below, without missing the key elements, but making it sound like a movie. Late in the process, working with a director, it will easily become the reference tool and your common road-map to the full treatment/script. So it's a real handy thing.

The outline is the spine of the development process in many ways. It lets you develop your whole script without actually writing it - and contrary to belief and our job title, we are really not writers in the, you know, author sense. We are more like composers, I think. The outline also lets you remain flexible, able to play and goof around with your drama (notice how I keep saying drama, instead of story - again because we are not story-writers, but composers of drama). The moment you have actually written those scenes as scenes with dialogue and all the stuff, you get bogged down by them. It becomes more difficult to change, to play and goof. I know it's tempting to get into the writing of scenes. I feel the urge. I see it all the time when I am a teacher or consultant, how people want to skip the development and just write those scenes. If you have not already become accustomed to the development through outline, synopsis and treatment - start getting there and save yourself some trouble.

Synopsis, outline, treatment? Part 1.

2009-04-24T05:16:00.005+03:00

Before ever writing a single scene or a single line of dialogue the scriptwriter should go through intermediary stages of sketching the drama. I don't know how it is in other corners of the world, but in many of the places I have been there seem to be some confusion about the different 'sketching'-formats. Fx. I hear producers, directors and writers use synopsis and treatment interchangeably. So I figured, I would describe my idea of them, their different incarnations and purpose. Here is my take on the synopsis.

The Synopsis
There are shorter formats - like a pitch or something in that neighborhood - but the synopsis is the shortest format, which is a real tool for the writer. The others tend to serve only the purpose of selling the story to producers.
The synopsis is short. But how short? In general I would say between 2-5 pages for a feature film. The synopsis of 2-3 pages is a presentation form and bordering on the verge of a sales tool, but can be useful in honing in on what your story is really about.
Being brought up in the Danish tradition I have been taught the 5-page synopsis, which has a really simple logic and formula. It goes like this:

Page 1: The first half page is used to describe the opening of the film, the hook or pitch, or what you want to call it, with some degree of detail. Then you spend the rest of the page on summarizing the action for the rest of the 1st act.

Page 2: The next half page is spend on what I call the initiating plot point - again with some detail. Rest of 2nd act is summarized on the remainder of the page.

Page 3: You guessed it, the next plot point - what I call the turning point - is again covered over a half page in detail - and then summary of the 3rd act.

Page 4: Do I really have to say it? Next plot point - I (and many others) call it the Point of No Return - in whatever detail you can fit in on half a page - and then a half page with the rest of 4th act (or almost the rest of it -- wait--wait...)

Page 5: The conclusion/climax - also a plot point - described in detail over a half page. That's it. Wait, it only tallies 4 and a half page? Well, it sounds awkward to say the 4-and-a-half-page synopsis - and anyway, the last half page, you are most probably going to use it up anyway, as you can't contain yourself to the strict half-page per plot point/act.

The obvious purpose of writing the 5-page synopsis is to flesh out the basic structure, get a feel for the rhythm and focus on the main story. Sometimes I start out with doing an outline and a rough treatment, and then I return to synopsis, to distill and purify the drama. Focus myself, before writing the first full treatment.

Later on in the process a sales synopsis might be written, either a short 2-pager or a full 5-page synopsis. Then it is the time to get obsessive about language. It really has to flow seamlessly. I often try to use some verbal language to soften up the highly condensed sentences. Especially when you find the exact right phrase, you can also reflect something about the tone of the film/situation.

Even if you don't use a 4 act model, you can figure out a similar way of writing a synopsis that fits your structure, where you detail the plot point and summarize the main body of action. Its all about rhythm.

A new experience

2009-04-24T04:24:00.001+03:00

The treatment I worked on a while back is now out in the world, trying to meet some moneyed friends that might turn it into a fully fledged film. The director and me started out - modestly - by contacting smaller production companies, that we were somehow connected to. You know, just to have a chance of getting the treatment read within a foreseeable future. And also reasonable because, even though it is an action-comedy, we have tried to keep the budget down. No big explosions. Only expensive thing is many locations as the story is one long chase in Athens and surroundings.
Our local Greek companies have been abysmal in their response. Like, not even reading the damn thing. Nothing new there. But then things looked a little more promising with a small English producer and a Danish one. They read our synopsis and agreed to have a look at the treatment. Eventually, they both passed. But not for a reason I have experienced before. They were both enthusiastic about the treatment. The English producer called it near-perfect (to my amusement, as I have a lot of things I want to improve). They both went to great length in giving a response. And they both passed on the project because they felt it was too big for them. They were afraid they couldn't handle this type of film as it deserved. We should approach a bigger player - and they delivered the contacts for that. So now the treatment is being read by two major European production companies. And we are moving into a league where neither of us, the director and I, have set foot before. But I feel ready. More than ready.

My exact words

2009-02-13T20:31:00.003+02:00

OK. So at the time being I'm trying to do my take on the structure of dramatic composition. After the intro and after the 4 act model, I had planned to write something more on how the structure of drama is very much like the structure of music. Been scribbling on it on and off during this week in between treatment writing for a feature and rehearsal for a theater production.

Then today I read this post over at The Rouge Wave. Of course it is not my exact words, but it expresses precisely my understanding and experience with structure. So instead of tiring myself out at this moment with a piece on the same subject - I want you to go and see what Julie L. Gray has to say.

The only major aspect that she doesn't touch upon in her well-written and well-supported piece is how the tonality of comedy and tragedy also plays into the musical understanding of dramatic structure. So there will be a bit left for me to expound on. Later.

Picasso's Desire and Fear

2009-02-12T02:51:00.000+02:00

”Then I understood what painting really meant. It’s not an aesthetic process, It’s a form of magic that interposes itself between us and the hostile universe, a means of seizing power by imposing form on our terrors as well as on our desires;” - Picasso

Picasso states clearly – not only what painting is about – but also what all art is about. Specifically we come to the drama to experience in action, the forms of those terrors and desires that cannot be expressed in plain words.

For some years now this has been one of my most precious quotes. We make drama out of conflicts. They arise from the clashes between fear and desire. It is where I turn to when I am stuck in my process. It is my constant touchstone, where I test my ideas. Are they born out of my desire? Out my fears?

This dichotomy of what we want and what we run away from is engraved in our two basic nervous systems, the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. They function in opposition to each other. This opposition can be understood as both complementary and antagonistic. The sympathetic system is responsible for our 'flight-or-fight'-reactions. When fear strikes us, it will pump out adrenalin, it will withdraw blood from the surface of our skin, it will accelerate our heart-rate and make us breathe quicker and more shallow. The parasympathetic system takes care of all things pleasurable. It will relax our muscles, send blood to the surface of our skin (making it more sensitive), make our breathing deeper, stimulate digestion and prepare our sexual organs for love-making.

This is our hard-wiring as organisms. Our ancient battlefield of internal conflicts and by proxy our external conflicts. Tune into it and let it be your guide to drama.

10 Reasons for the Danish Film Miracle OR How Europe Can Beat Hollywood

2009-02-07T21:56:00.000+02:00

During the 90s Danish film underwent a small revolution. From being a small nation that occasionally would get a film into the international market, as well as seeing it run away with the box office at national cinemas, the Danish film industry now has record setting statistics in all areas. Of all European countries Danish films does the best in their national market, often beating the more glamorous American productions at the box office. Every year several Danish films sell well in the international market. Almost every year there is a serious contender for the foreign film Oscar nomination. And all this in a very small country (5 mio+ population). It really shouldn't be possible. Its a case of the bumblebee that shouldn't be able to fly. Here is a look at some of the reason and circumstances that have made it possible.

1. Script is the foundation
By the late 80s or early 90s it became clear to both producers and the National Danish Film Institute that the script is the all-imporant foundation for a good movie. This should be self-evident, but in many countries the script is the weakest link. And also so in Denmark before early 90s. And not just realizing it, but acting upon it, the early 90s saw the establishment of two new national educations for writing - the script line at the National film school and the National Playwright Education (which also dedicate periods of its 3 years to film, TV and radio scripts), as well as a dramatic increase in the Film Institutes support for development of scripts. The institute changed its strategy on scripts - from selecting a few that they would eventually also support the production for - to supporting the development of way too many scripts. The wisdom being that you have to get too many scripts to choose the best. This also meant more professional scriptwriters, as even the ones who didn't make it into production got paid (to some extent) for their hard work. It also became the standard that the consultants at the institute (who are the ones that single-handlely choose which scripts and film to support) would act as proper consultants, giving advice and know-how support to projects in development. Meanwhile the production companies also got the idea and began to develop more scripts.

2. Education is vital
Denmark has had a good National Film School since the late 60s, but by the 90s it became upgraded with the new script-department, and this also lead to the students learning to work in the all-important triangle of director-producer-writer. The script-department excelled at teaching the students to work with 'the natural story', the concept of its scriptwriting-guru Mogens Rukow, who insisted on using natural stories - the family party, the dinner, the business meeting - whatever social structure, which already has it's own fundamental natural story, as a framework for all situations in a script - or even as the basic framework for a whole movie (like his own small masterpiece - Festen (The Celebration) which uses the celebration of big family birthday as its framework). The other areas of the Film School managed to attract the best Danish and international talent as teachers, as well as setting very high standards for the admittance of new students. In the same period Denmark also saw the opening of other schools around the country, which would teach film making at a lower lever, the entry level. They became the standard road to eventually being admitted to the National School.

3. Teamwork over auteur
Denmark has always been torn between the continental idea of the inspired genius and the auteur versus the anglo-saxon idea of solid work creates success. The anglo-saxon idea incorporates the concept that art can be taught, while obviously a genius can't be taught, but is something almost god-given. In the 90s there was a shift towards the Anglo-Saxon view, that manifested itself in a belief in teamwork - the Film institute stressed the need of a collaboration between the trio of producer-director-writer, and it more or less became a requisite for financial support. The production companies were quick to adapt to it, as well as most directors and writers. It became about teamwork - and this also went hand-in-hand with the new generation of actors, who were not primadonnas, but mainly relied a lot on teamwork.

4. Critical mass
In the 70s and 80s most directors would go years between making a feature film. This is not good for developing your art and skills. During the 90s the Film institute and the companies managed to increase the number of yearly productions dramatically, due to their success - as they made more money and also managed to pressure the politicians into increasing the budget for the Film institute - to support the Danish Film Miracle. And it is necessary in the small country to have a substantial state support to carry the burden of risk, as a small country can't have the big money of major studios that allows for risk taking. Also the critical mass applies to the number of production companies, which increased throughout the 90s, both in numbers and in the number of 'continually producing companies'. The critical mass also has an impact on the audiences as they get used to going to the cinema to see a Danish film, they come to expect it, even to expect that a new Danish film has always just opened its run.

5. Companies help out new talent
A tradition already existed in Denmark for established companies to give a helping hand to young talents' no-budget productions by lending or renting out equipment for free or at a very low cost. This tradition became all the more important as the 90s saw a steady growth in the amount of young people seeking a life in film-making. By staying in touch with the new talent the companies were able to both stimulate them and harvest the best of them. The Lars von Trier company, Zentropa, is especially famous for this, as well for employing a big number of volunteers, often working a year without pay for the company. At the same time Zentropa and other companies were often quick to take a chance on new talent.

6. Actors are real stars
The 90s also saw a new generation of actors entering the screens and stages. This was a generation who played more 'natural', meaning they would speak lines more organic and less artificially - but most of all they understood to reflect modern society in their acting. They became stars in a new way. They didn't become Hollywood glamour stars, but real stars, in the sense of remaining to be real people that the audiences could relate to in a more real way. The producers of both films and theatre understood to take advantage of this new generation, and make them stars of a new kind - and thereby help to attract audiences.

7. Mainstream and art
The famous division between art and mainstream is not so divisive in Denmark. Many films which could be considered art house material are just about mainstream enough to do well in box office. Also the institute support both types of films, as the philosophy is that the two oft-estranged cousins of cinema actually help each other out. Its all one big pot - if the companies make money on mainstream they are better situated to take a chance on art.

8. Dogma
There's no way around mentioning the event of Dogma-films. The stunt played a major role in re-inventing Danish cinema. It brought everything down to earth, back to basic, and maybe most importantly it made it possible to produce more films, as they were quite cheap, because the rules of the Dogma-manifesto decreed the absence of all the superfluous, expensive stuff like effects, lighting and so on. It became all about the story and the actors. The fundamentals. The general lesson here is to focus for a while on some core values of film-making that can inspire and propel forward a new generation of filmmakers.

9. Film, TV and theater are connected.
In Denmark there is not a great division between the three, which means a lot of the same talent, especially actors, work in all three fields, but this also goes for some directors and writers. This means several things. The talent are able to earn a living, because they have more options. They are more well-rounded in skills. And they can bring the experience in one field to enhance the others.

10. Lars von Trier
As with Dogma, its impossible not to mention Lars von Trier as a major influence for the blossoming of Danish Film. By his personal example, by his Dogma-initiative and by the activities of his hugely successful insurgent company, Zentropa, led by famous pretend-maverick Peter Ålbæk (always sporting a big cigar) he has brought inspiration and helped open doors for other Danish filmmakers. No matter how you rate his films, there is no discussion that he has made a huge impact on the Danish film industry and his fellow filmmakers. And unlike Sweden, were Bergmann was a huge national symbol that almost blocked out anybody else (not intentionally of course) Lars von Triers personal success seems more generous for others, more like a catalyst, than an unreachable standard.

There are of course other reasons and circumstances. But these are the 10 most important in my opinion. Some of these are easily copied by other (small) nations, who wish to stimulate their film industry. And they should do so - because the smaller countries of Europe and around the world need to step up and challenge the hegemony of Hollywood. Smaller countries can't beat Hollywood at it's own game. The country and the film studios are just too big. The money too big. They can't compete with that. This is why they most look at different strategies. There should be a healthy competition. And USA and Hollywood became big by rigging the playing field in the post WW2 situation, where USA took its payment for the famous Marshall-help by forcing European countries to embrace the American industry. Pre-WW2 European films were dominant in Europe. This all changed after the Marshall-plan had helped the war-torn countries back on their feet by force-feeding the American products.

Your First Feature Film

2009-02-07T15:55:00.000+02:00

You are not an established writer/director. You are looking to make your break-through or just to get that first feature film financed and produced. Here are some thoughts on how to make that script.

Keep it simple. One novel provocative idea. Strong characters.

Keep it simple.
This is key for several reasons. You want to minimize your budget. Makes it easier to get the project financed and produced. Failing finding a producer, you might even be able to produce it yourself. Keeping it simple also let you focus on maximizing your strengths instead of trying to accomplish everything. Example: Instead of wasting your energy on directing many different actors/characters, you can focus on a few, strengthening their performance and the audiences relation to those characters. Simplicity is not the opposite of complexity in this context. Complexity in the sense of a fascinating, inexhaustible art-work comes from simple ideas connecting to create complexity. By working under the rule of simplicity, limiting your number of location, actors, plot-lines and so on, you will be forced to make meaningful connections between the elements you have - creating complexity.

One novel, provocative idea.
The criteria for your basic idea of your script should be novelty and provocation. The novelty can take many forms. It can be the world of the drama is a world we have never (or rarely) seen portrayed in film. It can be the way you shape your drama. It can be a basic conflict we have never seen before, or at least not seen treated like you plan to do. The provocation is required for your script and film to break through the carpet bombing of film projects and releases. You need to stand out. What is provocation? Basically to question in any way a well-established truth.

Strong Characters!
In a low-budget film you can't have all the expensive stuff that attracts people to film. Instead you can utilize the one fundamental thing we also love about drama - the characters. They are not expensive. But they demand all of your creativity, logic and sense of drama. Pour all your energy into them - making them stand out, being unforgettable. The kind of characters you wish you knew in real life, or in your dreams (if that's the kind of film you are planning), or that you yourself was one of them. Really, push yourself on this aspect. And it's not only about writing great dialogue for them. Its about their conflicts (external and internal), how they deal with them, their courage, their strength and weaknesses.

A sample of breakthrough films that have these characteristics. Find more yourself.

• Sex, Lies and Videotapes
Small ensemble cast. Good actors. Main character has a huge problem - he can't commit to a relationship. The novelty is that he deals with this by questioning convention and videotaping peoples most intimate, private stories. In doing so he stirs up status quo of their lives. By shaking up their world, finally somebody emerges to shake up his world. The provocation: Questioning the existence of love. A romantic lead who is everything he is not supposed to be.

• Reservoir Dogs
Ensemble cast. Few locations. Main character is thrown into the dangerous task of infiltrating a criminal gang - posing for one of them. The novelty is that this is not a film about a detective solving a crime. This is the crime-film as an existential metaphor regarding identity. The main character bonds with a father figure among the criminals, and when they are all lying dead or dying, he realizes the futility of all his aspirations - the bond between him and the criminal was what he cared most about. Added novelty: voluminous, imaginative dialogue. The provocation in this film is the blurring of black and white - ex: Our mixed enjoyment/vehemence at the torture of a police officer.

• Festen (The Celebration)
Ensemble cast. One location. Main character has a huge problem - he can't continue his life because of his father's abuse of him and his sister in the past. The novelty is two-fold: This was one of the first Dogma-films shot on DV. It was one of the first 'mainstream' films to talk about incest. This is also more or less its provocation, but its provocation has a deeper level. We are led to believe our main character's intention is to expose his father (get justice) and in the end of the film he succeeds - but he is not really happy about it. The main character's true intention is to find reconciliation with his father, to gain a real bond between them - and this is truly provoking as the gut-reaction towards incest-perpetrators are pretty much to castrate them (socially and physically). This film actually ends up siding with both the victim and the perpetrator.

Bravo Bale!!

2009-02-04T15:53:00.000+02:00

The internet toilet-tubes are overflowing with pro et contra Christian Bale's outburst (well, tirade is maybe more like it) against the DoP on set of Terminator. Here's my 7 and a half cent (not american cents, european cents, that is).

Caveat: No one really know the full context, except to a certain degree the involved persons.

Blame McG
Don't blame Bale, blame McG: Flaming Bale for this on the basis of the recording is ridiculous as the guy supposed to take responsibility for the situation, the director, clearly doesn't do it. On the the recording the director, McG, when asked by Bale to pitch in, just flummox out of being put on the spot by the time-honored "I didn't see it" (Like one of the famous three monkeys). Even very good and professional actors can loose it - and then you, the director, must pick up the ball. McG was even thrown the ball by Bale, but didn't want to catch it - "I didn't see it" - come on, McG.

Neurotic Numb-skull
Please, please, I beg you all, stop the neurotic I will never see a Christian Bale film again, he needs anger management, he is a psycho, he is unprofessional and whatever else scaredity-analysis and conclusion you believe is the truth. The thing here is that people are way too frightned of aggression and conflict. You know what? Film and theater - the dramatic arts - they are all about conflict. We love to watch them because most of us are such huge chickens in real life. In his outburst at the DoP, Bale is actually trying to achieve something, he is not just blowing off steam (but he is doing that too). All the answers of the DoP are vague, non-commital, responsibility-avoiding. Bale is trying to make him stand up and be a man about the situation - not to act like a typical neurotic conflict-suppressing, numb-skull. I've been in similar situations where the only tool to get through to some people is the sledgehammer - then later, when you have broken down the neurotic defences, you can have a nice, reasonable talk. Hell, I've even done the same to a producer who kept displacing her responsibility. Sometimes you just have to call people on their shit in a very loud way, or else they'll keep fucking you in their polite, smiling, nice-talking ways.

So long live Bale! Go see all his movies (if they are any good). Find your own balls.

(And what has this got to do with scriptwriting? Its all about conflict)

Amerika Square

2009-02-01T13:52:00.000+02:00

A new consultant job. I'm helping Yannis Sakaridis with the script for his first feature film. He made a successful short film, "The Truth", which he and the film company Argonauts are developing into a feature. They presented the project at Thessaloniki International Filmfestival's Crossroads - a forum for hooking up projects with international co-producers - and the project picked up interest as well as a prize (Yes, they also have festival prizes for projects in development).

So far we have had one real meeting (excluding the initial "to see if we can work together"-meeting) and we have covered the fundamentals: Type of film (thriller with a social aspect, realism, comedy=ends in harmony), Basic conflict (compassion vs. greed), the main character's core characteristics (wants justice, needs love, strong compassion, weakness short tempered).

Yannis is going to the Berlin festival next week to do the network-thing and follow up on the interest from European producers. So we are working intensely on getting him ready to present the story as clearly and convincingly as possible in all those meetings. I guess he will also be seeing a lot of films - and drink a lot of drinks - and wearing a lot of clothes as Berlin can get pretty cold in winter. Ah, Berlin is such a great city. Wish I was going.

A Four Act Structure

2009-01-29T14:43:00.001+02:00

An entrance prayer: There are no golden standards and this model is by no means 'final'.
It is presented as a fairly basic model, from which variations can be extrapolated. It establishes a reference for talking and thinking about structure. It draws upon elements from Syd Field, The Danish Film School, Ingolf Gabold and Joseph Campbell.
Each act has a general purpose to play in the drama. As beginning and ending of acts, we have the major plot points, which creates essential developments for the main conflict and character(s) and the structural foundation of the drama, in terms of both rhythm and narrative logic. Each major plot point has a specific function to perform in the transition from act to act, propelling the drama towards its conclusion. The descriptions of these functions are approximations and you should feel free to re-think your perception of these functions for every drama. First a graphic representation:

Act One
The initial act serves to introduce conflicts, characters, locations and thematic elements. As a rule of thumb, by the end of first act all relevant components of the drama need to have been introduced in one way or the other. This act sets up the game and the basic rules of the drama and in the following acts you cannot change these or introduce new elements. Unless you have a very clever way to circumvent the rule, take it very literal. It can even become an extremely creative limitation and lead you to some real innovative plotting. The first act should build up, step by step, to the Initiating Plot Point, which is the 'real' beginning of the drama.

The Pitch
This plot point is also sometimes called The Hook and takes place in the very opening of a drama. The purpose is to pitch the whole drama in one scene or short sequence and to plant a hook of curiosity in the audience. 'To pitch' means to strike the basic tones (comedy/tragedy) of the drama, to lightly touch your main conflict, but in a discreet way so it doesn't come off as being forced upon the audience. Rather it should sneak in below the radar of consciousness. Really elegantly structured dramas are also able to hint at the eventual conclusion of the main conflict. There are countless ways to pitch your whole drama in one scene. In the opening of Bergman's 'The Seventh Seal' the main character, Max von Sydow's religious knight, is confronted with Death, who has come to take his life, but the knight tempts Death into a game of chess - and if the knight wins, Death will let him free. At it's core the film is about faith and the search for a meaning in a life where the plague, religious zealots and the baser instincts rule. The use of Death personified as an unsentimental figure and the chess game as a central metaphor and plot device pitches this main conflict elegantly.
The hooking is perhaps of lesser importance, because, as the drama has just begun, the audience are naturally curious, but applying a hook further strengthens this. 'To hook' can be achieved by the surprising and unexpected nature of the opening. It could simply be the novelty of what we are seeing, like an odd pair of lovers sitting in a diner, with him reassuring his wide-eyed, nervous lover of the simplicity and brilliance of his plan to rob both customers and the diner, and just as they spring into action, we cut away from the scene - leaving the audience with the question of what the outcome will be - a prologue with a cliffhanger, brilliant plotting. An example of a very standardized 'hook' is the usual opening of a Bond movie, which always features an over-the-top action sequence, but exactly because we know what to expect, it doesn't really work properly as a hook.

The Call
The Call to Adventure is a concept from Joseph Campbell, who describes it as an early moment in countless myths and fairy-tales, where the hero has not yet begun his or her proper quest. An event takes places that eventually will make the hero leave the safety of home. It is an event that will lead more or less directly to the Initiating Plot Point. In 'Silence of the Lambs' the FBI-student Clarice Starling is sent on a small errant by her future FBI-boss, to conduct a standardized interview and observation of the jailed serial killer Hannibal Lecter. It seems no more than an interesting school-assignment for a talented student, but it leads to the Initiating Plot Point, when Clarice finds a clue to hunt for Buffalo Bill, the present serial killer at large. The Call can also more directly lead into the real drama, like in fairy-tales when a young man sets out to marry the princess early on, but then again, more often than not, there is a deeper mystery or challenge to be overcome, which is not revealed at the time of The Call. Nine minutes into Bergman's 'The Seventh Seal' Jof, the traveling actor, has a vision of Virgin Mary with the Jesus child, and he hurries to tell his wife the good news, but she hardly believes him, but Jof nevertheless maintains an almost naive belief in the promise of a better future for their own son. This event is the film's Call to Adventure, in an almost classic mythical form, as it has the form of a vision - something which is not the adventure itself, but a promise of things to come.

After The Call the main character(s) will be involved with the activities set in motion by it. Often it takes the form of a new opportunity - a new job, a new person (to hate or fall in love with), a journey - something which alters the usual balance of things in the main character(s) world. Before The Call we might have been at 'Home', the initial location of the main character(s), but now we meet the real arena of the drama. Clarice Starling leaves the FBI-academy to seek out the truth about serial killers - and the prison dungeon where Hannibal Lecter is held, is just the first of such 'gothic' arenas in which she will confront him and later on, Buffalo Bill. In 'The Seventh Seal' the knight and his squire sets of on a journey through a swedish landscape plagued by death and religious madness - and we sense that this is 'the location' for the remainder of the drama - it is a 'road movie' and so we have an expectation of ever changing locations, but which are all essential the same: On the road in an existential emptiness.

The Initiating Plot Point
This is the transition between act one and two and initiates the real objective of the main character(s). Thelma and Louise left home for a road trip without any irritating men, but when they kill a man to prevent a rape, their real object becomes finding an escape from the punishment and tyranny of men, In this way the drama is transformed from being an ordinary story of two women looking for a little time off and into an existential struggle for freedom and survival. Campbell would call this plot point 'the threshold' because it leads the 'hero' from the world of the mundane and initiates them to the more mystical, unpredictable and dangerous regions of reality.
In 'The Seventh Seal' The Knight opens his heart to a robed figure, he believes to be a priest, and reveals that he is playing chess with Death, but with the only purpose of gaining enough time to do at least one single meaningful action in his otherwise meaningless life, and just as he has explained how he is planning his chess moves, the robed figure reveals himself to be Death. Cheated in this way, it becomes clear that The Knight is in for a very difficult game, but instead of losing faith, he realizes the miracle of being alive and able to challenge the meaningless of Death. This happens 21 minutes into the film and reveals the deeper level of the plot, not to cheat Death in a game of chess, but to defy Death by doing a meaningful action. In 'Silence of the Lambs' FBI-student Clarice Starling finds a clue to the identity of serial killer Buffalo Bill and becomes a part of the investigating team. In 'Thelma and Louise' the two women avert a rape by killing the man and now has to flee the law to find freedom.
So The Pitch and The Call hints at, or sets up a superficial version of the real plot, which will be revealed in the Initiating Plot Point, where the real objective has to be established.
This plot point sets the course directly for the conclusion of the drama - when the object has been obtained or lost, we know the drama has reached its end. It might sound simplistic, and it truly is, but simple is the greater art. Complexity is the multitude of simple things interconnected.

Act Two
In the second act we get into the conflicts of the drama, as well as nuances and new aspects of the elements presented in the first act. Because the main character(s) have found, realized and begun a quest for the true objective, they will now enter into conflicts with the forces standing in their way. Often they will work dedicated towards the objective, only meeting moderate opposition and making good progress - but only seemingly as they are only touching the surface of the real conflict, and hence the opposition is not strong, yet. We have left act one's introductions, but we might still be able to sneak in some additional introduction of elements, as we are still exploring the universe of the drama.
Especially throughout act two and three it can be useful to sequence the action and establish minor plot point as transitions for the sequences - depending on the type of drama. The idea is to establish a structural logic which work with the genre and content of your drama. For an externally plot driven crime mystery, the easy way to sequence and add additional plot points is to work along the lines of 'secrets' or 'clues' to be discovered. A fairy-tale-type of drama, the typical lay-out of act two could use the traditional series of tests to be passed - there would typically be three tests, so one could perhaps be the entrance to the Initiating Plot Point, one could fall midway through second act and the last would be give access to the Turning Point. Are we dealing with a theme-driven plot, like in The Seventh Seal, the plot points should relate more to the theme, than to strictly following the characters' external plot - although we still need the plot points for those, emphasis should be on the thematic conflict. Often a theme driven drama will have a broader circle of characters - and even though we want to follow all of them throughout the drama, the important plot points might be associated with different characters at different times.

Turning Point
This plot point has to make things drastically worse and more difficult for the main character(s). Often this is achieved by some kind of reversal (thus the name, turning point). In The Sixth Sense we learn that the child is really haunted by ghosts - they are real and not just his imagination. The world as we know it is turned upside down. Thelma and Louise gets robbed of all their money (by young and seemingly innocent Brad Pitt) and their plans of escaping to Mexico suffers a huge blow - but more importantly the event also reverses the balance between Thelma and Louise, where the older and more mature Louise so far has taken charge and responsibility, she now breaks down, and Thelma, realizing her responsibility for the theft, steps up and for the first time takes charge of her own (and Louise's) life.
The technical purpose of The Turning Point is to set the stage for the third act, which is characterized by serious complications to reaching the objective. The plot point can have a number of functions apart from introducing a new level of danger to the main objective. In general it is a good practice to examine in how many ways relations, perspectives, themes or any other element can be 'turned 180 degrees'.
Beyond the 'turn' there are other ways to think of this mid point of a drama. Personally I like to think of it as the beating heart of the drama. Even though the later climax and resolution is the most intense and important moment of the drama, at this mid point we could be closest to the emotional core. 'Silence of the Lambs' has a strong emotional moment right at the middle, when Clarice interviews Hannibal the last time, in secret, under time pressure, as she and her team has been taken of the case. In order to get the information from him, she so desperately needs, she has to subject to his psychoanalytic questioning, which leads her to reveal her inner, driving motive, a childhood experience of a deep existential nature: How she was not able to save a single lamb from the slaughter, the confrontation as an innocent child with the brutal realities of life. Hannibal savors her honesty and innocence, rewards her with a clue by handing her back the case file, and then, most importantly, for a moment their hands touch and his finger caress her hand, in a gesture bestowed with conflicting emotion - the love and approval of the father, the forbidden erotic love and innocence touched by corruption. This is a huge pay-off for which the drama has made a lot of set-ups - all the warnings against letting her guard down around Hannibal ("He'll get inside your head"), all the shots establishing Clarice as a lonely, single woman up against a world of men, the constant focus on sexual desire as the prime motivator for all behavior and her own childhood story of loosing her father.
Joseph Campbell refers to this moment as either 'world navel' or 'the belly of the beast', the place where the hero finds 'the elixir', the object which can restore balance to the world.

Act Three
The purpose of act three is to complicate the conflict to a point where it appears almost unsolvable. And that point is of course called Point of No Return. In act three there is absolutely no room and time for introduction or exploration. The pace has to pick up, the intensity must rise.
Going along with Campbell the job of the hero is to find the way of applying the elixir to restore balance to the world. This effort will be met by obstacles.
Usual this happens because the world around the main character(s) reacts. Things have been set in motion in the previous acts and are now being released into a re-action. Thelma and Louise are now not only wanted by the police, they are being hunted. Hannibal escapes captivity in an orgy of violence and the new serial killer, Buffalo Bill, is getting ready to skin his new victim - time is running out for Clarice.
As with act two, it can be a good idea to break down this act in shorter sequences, often two or three, each with their own mini-objective - a problem or conflict to be solved.
In conjunction with The Point of No Return there might often be one of two things happening. The False Harmony, in which something happens that makes things appear to be resolved without too much of a struggle. In 'Silence of the Lambs' a lucky break in the hunt for Buffalo Bill has given the FBI the identity and address of the killer - Clarice is not needed for the take down and is assigned to some routine task - everything seems back to normal. Or the opposite can happen, The Moment of Absolute Despair, in which it seems there is no way out of the mess and the hero might as well give up. In "The Sixth Sense" the child therapist has no luck in reaching the boy and he questions his own ability to the point where he is ready to give up.

The Point of No Return
Named so because this is when the main character(s) finally get it - they have to confront the dragon, there is no way around it - from now on everything leads directly towards the end. No time for deroutes, second-thoughts or anything but staying focused on the reaching the conclusion. In 'Last Tango in Paris' the Marlon Brando-character confronts his dead wife, which opens up the possibility for him to go after his real objective - a new love (and life). In the Sixth Sense, the therapist confronts his past in the form of audio tapes from the sessions with the boy he couldn't save and he finds a clue which convinces him that ghosts are real - and so now he can go after his real objective - to redeem himself by saving the haunted boy.

Act Four
The general purpose of act four is to quickly escalate the conflict until it reaches the fullest possible climax. This escalation often falls in a succession of quick steps of the protagonist(s) moves and the antagonist's counter-moves until they face each other. In Silence of the Lambs Clarice Starling stumbles upon Buffalo Bill at his house, she tries to arrest him, but he escapes into his underground dungeon, where she has to follow alone and without back-up. She finds the abducted woman, but he cuts the lights. In the darkness, he closes in on her using his night-vision goggles, toys with her, decides to shoot her, but the sound of his gun cocking alerts her and she shoots him. In Last Tango in Paris the Brando-character spends a night wooing his lover into embracing a real relationship with him, to which she is tempted, but as the morning breaks, so does her courage and she runs away from him. He gives chase and catches up with her in her parent's apartment. Just as he thinks everything is OK, she turns on him with her father's gun and convincing herself of a story that he came to rape her, she shoots him dead.

The Main Scene.
This is the scene leading directly up to the conclusion of the drama. In this scene the basic conflict of the drama is exposed most clearly and strongly. In Last Tango we see how the Brandon-character reaches out for love without fear and how fear of love makes her invent a story of rape. In Silence of the Lambs Clarice Starling fully becomes the object of a man's twisted desire, as Buffalo Bill toys with her in the dungeon, she is the lamb ready to be slaughtered, but exactly because the man believes himself to be superior and takes his time cocking his gun, she, not giving in to fear, has the time to shoot him. In One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest McMurphy, the Jack Nicholson character, confronts Sister Ratched as she shows her full demonic and manipulative powers over the patients, and he ends up trying to strangle her. The main scene often take the appearance of the major climax, but doesn't necessarily involve the real resolution of the conflict.

Resolution.
Here we get the consequences of the main scene, both relating to the fundamental conflict of the dramatic universe and the main character's conflict. McMurphy gets the electro-shock and is turned into a vegetable (tragedy), but Chief inspired by his example and sacrifice flees the institution to gain his freedom (comedy). Oh, and remember when I refer to tragedy it means disharmony and comedy means harmony, not necessarily funny. In Silence of the Lambs the girl is saved and Clarice graduates as an FBI-agent (comedy) ready to work for her mentor, but Hannibal is still free (tragedy) although he promises never to hurt Clarice (comedy), he will kill and eat Chilton, the obnoxious/narcissistic psychiatrist (comedy? Tragicomedy?).

Connecting the dots

2008-10-27T16:08:00.000+02:00

Introduction to structure

David Mamet likens the well structured script to an airplane. If it has been constructed well, it will fly under the guidance of a pilot. If it hasn't, it will at one point or the other crash. This is what happens when we halfway through a film or play begin to loose interest, because the plot logic and/or emotional logic doesn't lead us on towards a satisfying conclusion. Because we get confused, irritated or in other words, we are simply not persuaded by the universe of the drama. This has a lot to do with structure.

There is no single way to structure your drama. Although Mamet's airplane metaphor is not wrong, it points too much in the direction of an exact science. Rather than linear engineering the structure of drama is more of an organic thing. It should change according to the purpose and material. Any idea of 'the ideal model' for structuring scripts is nonsenses. It is like in nature, where there is vast variety of living creatures, yet there are general principles and formative patterns which always apply. And as the first principle for life is the existence of carbon-oxide, the first principle for drama is the existence of conflict.

One of the reasons to work with structure is to have a way to simplify the complex universe of your drama. The most simple thing we can say about structure is: A drama has a beginning, a middle and an end. These three parts should be connected, so one leads to the next. It is like a fish, it has a head, body and tail. As with the fishes, you can find them in many different proportions and colours, yet like the fishes, if they don't fit well together, the drama will not swim well.

This leads us intuitively to a three-act structure. An opening act to introduce characters, conflicts, locations and themes. A middle act to further develop these with complications, nuances and additional layers to the point where everything is such as mess, that something needs to be done. The final act do exactly that: it cleans up the mess (more or less) and conclude the drama's fundamental conflict. The idea of the three-act structure is very strong and widely used, both in theater and film.

Famous script gurus like Syd Field have made their models based upon the classic three act-model, inspired especially by Henrik Ibsen, the grandfather of modern dramatic structure. I don't believe these structural models are artificial inventions per se. They try to sum up our experience of how the human mind understands and interprets events unfolding in time. As all attempts at summing up experience, they are however never complete. When you examine some of these contemporary film models, like Syd Fields, they are actually four-act models, because the middle act takes up double as much time as the first and last act. So it makes more sense to call it a four act model, at least to me.

The sense is that each act, as a unit of the drama, should be similar to the others in respect to length and the basic purpose of moving us from one point and to the next. The sense is not only logical, but has to do with a sense of rhythm. Drama is in its form strongly related to music, much more than it is to literature, because as with music, drama is played out in real time. It takes place in front of us, moment by moment. I cannot stress how important it is to grasp this difference, to understand the importance of structure.

Another way to think of structure is to compare it to the structure of language. When we form sentences, our language has structural rules which helps us understand the meaning of the sentence. These rules are more or less flexible. Even though it is normal in English to begin a sentence with a personal pronoun, followed by a verb and conclude with a noun, like He walked home, we can play around with these rules, using a poetic license, like Home he walked. Exactly because the last sentence varies from the standard rules, it gives us a different impression. The first sentence seems to simply state the fact. In the second, the words home and walked are lend more significance and could for example carry a meaning that he longed for home and it was a very long walk.

We also know from language that rhythm and length plays a vital role in conveying the sense of what is being said. Urgent or commanding communication needs short staccato-like sentences. Pleasant conversation relies on harmonic structure with longer, developed sentences and a mellow rhythm.
In the structure of a drama, these basic insights from language applies. The sequence, the lenght and the rhythm are as important for the perception of the drama, as the actions taking place are in themselves.

The point is to structure your drama in a way confluent with its nature. To select a number of acts by which you separate different parts of the drama. Depending on the length and nature of your material it can be any reasonable number of acts. A short film of 10-15 minutes or a short theater play of 20-30 minutes normally consist of only one act. Most feature films running 90 minutes or more usually have four acts. Each act should be like a drama unto itself, with a beginning, a middle and an end.

The end of each act functions as the transition into the following act. The transition between acts should be major plot points, which reveal crucial new information, raise new questions and add another level of pressure to the main character(s) situation. The major plot points are of the greatest importance, as they give us the push forward, deeper into the drama, and they should always be integral with the drama's and the characters' main conflict.

Acts can also be broken down into separate units. If an act has a length of, say, 30 pages, then it could consist of three sequences of scenes. The sequences should more or less be of equal length and also have a beginning middle and an end, working as a mini-act in themselves. Scenes are the smallest dramatic unit and are of course also structured in the same way, beginning, middle and end, but unlike the act and the sequence, we get to play around with the length of the scenes. Normally they can be from just below half a page and up to around seven pages in an ordinary film script - with the standard lenght being around one to three pages for contemporary films.

The number of pages are crucial to the process of structuring a script and this is one of the reasons why the film industry is almost religious about using a standard lay-out format for scripts, making the page count reliable - and close to one minute of film per page. Before actually writing your script, when planning the acts and major plot points, as well as making an outline for the sequence of scenes within the acts, you can't be sure of the exact length, but you can, surprisingly well, make an estimate of how long each scene should be, giving you a total count that lets you affirm your structural ideas.

Some writers begin to feel mightily uncreative with all this talk of structure and page counting. That's perfectly understandable, but it is a very necessary discipline to master to create scripts, especially for a feature film script. The longer, the more need for structure. This is for example why comedians, making their first feature film, often fail as they don't haven't acquired the grasp of the feature films need for over-arching dramatic structure. A few writers have an innate sense of structure and need not think too much about it - the structure emerges by itself from their writing. Others need to do the math from the ground up, while most of us are somewhere in between, switching between the intuitive and planned.

In my experience, many writers of drama that have shortcomings, have them exactly because they haven't learned to love to play around with structure. We easily become too focused on the story itself, and forget the equally important part: How we tell it. Anyone who has ever failed in telling a joke knows exactly how important the 'how' is. The sequence of the information given, the tone and the timing. To master the structure of drama is not unlike mastering the structure of a joke. Its all about knowing what the joke is, how to build up expectation and then play against it. In postings to come, we'll take a look at the specifics of script structure.

One to One

2008-10-25T20:03:00.000+03:00

The dead-end-argument called reality

Strangely enough, when discussing the construction of a script, you can often meet arguments based upon reality: "This would never happen in reality". Of course the argument is almost always right. It wouldn't happen, at least not in reality as we have experienced it. Maybe it could happen or maybe not. The argument is despite its relative correctness, more or less invalid when discussing the construction of a fictitious script.

We are not trying to construct reality. If we were scientists trying to construct a computer simulation of reality, it would be a valid argument. We are trying to represent reality in an artistic form (yes, even when making mainstream entertainment). 'Represent' means that we somehow translate our experience of reality into a different form than reality itself. It is not 1:1 - not even in so-called realistic films. If it were 1:1 it would actually be reality. And we, the creators, would be God.

The argument should be: "This is not convincing" or "The audience will be lost" or something similar. And the argument doesn't necessarily mean that you can't have a man falling 50 meters down to a concrete surface and survive. It all depends on how important that action is for you. If you as a creator want this to happen, then the only question should be, how do you pull it of in a convincing way. Not if it could happen or has ever happened in reality.

The question if something is convincing or not has a lot more to do with your plotting, structure and the fictional universe you are establishing than it has to do with reality. In a super-hero or a cartoon universe characters can easily fall extraordinary lengths and survive intact. In the seemingly realistic french film "Small Change" a child falls from the 4th or 5th floor of a building and survives without a scratch - and although the universe of the film seems realistic, this event is convincing, because the whole rhythmic build-up to the event and a certain lyrical tone underscoring the seemingly real world, allows us to experience the survival of the child as a poetic miracle.

Reality should never be a dead-end, a stone blocking your path to fulfilling your narrative and dramatic desire. It can be an inspiration. The reality of the audience is the reality you have to struggle with, because if you can't convince them of entering your dramatic universe, suspending belief and enjoying the dramatic events you have cooked up, then it is completely irrelevant how much you have researched and obeyed the real reality.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

2008-08-07T18:37:00.000+03:00

The principle of uncertainty

“It is difficult to make accurate predictions, especially about the future” – Storm P.

Drama is exciting because we don’t know what will happen in the next moment. We are observing a conflict playing out in the moment, but we don’t know how the conflict will be resolved. Which one of the opposing forces win? Is the conflict of such a nature that only one of them can win? Or will they find a compromise, or maybe even the unknown, unexpected solution that will fully satisfy each of their wants or needs? As stated in the first principle this is the engine of drama, and the derived principle of uncertainty is a focus for one aspect of this. The uncertainty.
It is an evident fact of life that we can’t predict the future. The unexpected will happen, coming at us from an unseen direction. How we handle the unexpected when it arrives shows a lot about our character. It is the moment of truth, when we are taken by surprise and can’t easily hide behind careful laid plans or well-meaning attitudes. Do we run and hide? Do we face the difficult choice? Can we act with integrity?
Especially the main plot points of your drama should be dominated by the unexpected, because the plot points are there to dramatically change the direction, the stakes or the perception of what is going on. Nothing does this better than the unexpected. From all the plays and films we have watched these are the moments we remember. In Silence of the Lambs the initiating plot point happens when Clarice Starling for the first time is interviewing Hannibal Lecter, and we unexpectedly meet a highly intelligent and civilized serial killer, and at first she doesn’t succeed in getting information from him, but when the prisoner in the next cell, Multiple-Miggs, unexpected throws sperm at her, it also offends Hannibal and in return he gives her a clue to the Buffalo Bill-case. In Romeo and Juliet, Romeos aggressive monologue of despair as he kills Tybalt is the unexpected midpoint, which suddenly changes all plans and our sense of hope for the lovers. In Last Tango in Paris the Marlon Brando-characters confrontation with his dead wife, suddenly revealing to us the depth of his despair and the reason behind his almost nihilistic behaviour, is the point of no return. In The Sixth Sense the point of resolution comes with the unexpected realization that the main character has been dead throughout most of the movie.
How do we create the unexpected? First of all you have to constantly challenge your own confirmed beliefs. You think you know what will happen in the next scene. You think you know how your main character will convince his father to let him borrow the car. You think you know what is good and what is bad. You shouldn’t. Any kind of preconception you have about your drama should be open to a new interpretation, to taking a new direction and to reversals of beliefs. Challenge yourself by questioning these firm ideas. Play with them – the beautiful game of ‘what if…’
When you meet negative response to your script, maybe the real reason is that your script is too predictable. Mind you, I am not at all advocating for a haphazard story, because to surprise convincingly demands a lot of logic. You have to build an expectation and at the same time prepare for the ‘hidden’ logic of its reversal. See again the initiating plot point of Silence of the Lambs. In the previous scenes two clear and obvious expectations have been build up. Two men of authority have stated that Hannibal Lecter is impossible to get any information from. And one suggests that maybe Clarice can entice Hannibal because she is a woman. Clarice fails because he is too clever, but when Multiple-Miggs surprises Clarice (and us) with his sperm-assault, this unexpectedly offends Lecter’s sense of courtesy and manners and as a reparation he offers a clue. But it still seems convincing and believable that he would act like this, because we have just seen him as a man who values courtesy, who likes sophisticated behaviour, but it has been played out at a more subconscious level, and therefore still comes as a surprising turn.
If you always play on two horses, if you let interpretation remain open, if there is value on both sides, then you have a general approach to maintaining uncertainty and finding the unexpected. Even the most negative character has to have something positive, the most necessarily successful action needs a chance to go awry, or we will be bored, because as the Germans put it so well: “Mann merkt den Absicht und wird verstimmt” or in English: “You sense the intention and become resigned”.
I can recommend two ways to train your sense of scenario – that the characters and the action is a dynamic field in fluctuation, where we never know what happens next. It is all about playing. Get together with some actors and play around with some of your scenes, give changing directions about what could happen in the scenes, about the character’s intentions and also let the actors offer their take, their interpretations and improvisations. Or get together with some friends and play role-playing games, yes, that’s right, games like Dungeon&Dragons, only try and find some better ones than that old horse. There is a bunch of more dramatic, narrative, character-oriented rpg-games on the net, to be downloaded for free or bought cheaply. Play around with some stories in this form, and see how it is when you do storytelling with an interactive, participating audience.

IT’S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!

2008-08-06T23:26:00.001+03:00

The principle of economics (unity+story)

This is about spending the least to gain the most. And this is a really beautiful principle, because it not only help you to increase the chances of your script being produced as it will be a more financial appealing project, but also because the construction and cohesiveness of the script will be more convincing.
It’s about using the same locations, characters and ideas over and over again, and thus it goes hand in hand with the principle of unity, if it’s not really just another way of looking at the same fundamental quality of drama.
It also relates to the principle of story, because you will focus on being economical in starting it, developing it and ending it, meaning that when you introduce a character, you have to ask where he is going and where he is ending up. Neither leaving him as an unfinished story or over-story him in different directions.
Every time we introduce something new in a script it will cost us – time, money and energy. We will spend an amount of the script’s time in presenting the location, character or idea. We will spend production money on moving to a new location/creating an extra set-piece, hiring another actor or simply shooting/rehearsing something extra. And even more importantly we will spend the audiences’ mental energy on grasping this new locale, person or idea. On the other hand when we are using the same characters, locations or ideas, by elaborating on them, extending them, we add to them, and thereby increase our investment in them. We will be able to develop and show new aspect or depths, without spending as much time, money or energy, as we would have by introducing a new. Unless you have good reason, you should never introduce a new character, location or idea. Always check your script – as you develop it – to see if you can merge characters, re-use locations and streamline or connect your ideas into one.
It is also beneficial for the director, especially when we talk films or TV, as he or she will save energy (by not spending it on moving to new locations, dealing with new characters/actors) and can focus on getting the most out of the script in terms of acting and staging.
Many scripts look good for the first 30-60 pages, but then when closing time begins after the mid-point, they fail to do so, and this problem be could solved if this principle was adhered to. It happens either because they have introduced too many elements and forget or are unable to finish them, or because they keep introducing new elements.

Receiving response

2008-08-01T10:34:00.000+03:00

Tricks and advice
It is can be difficult to handle response and criticism when readers, directors or producers have read your script. There are a lot of pitfalls. But it is an essential part of our job, and unavoidable because it is a collective art form. Teach yourself how to get the most out of the collective.
The ideal responder will never pass judgment on you or the script, but try to understand the logic of the dramatic universe you are creating, and give all responses as either questions, suggestions or impressions, and perhaps supporting these with reasoning within the perceived logic of the universe.
But in most scriptwriters' experience there are very few ideal responders, even though it is actually pretty simple rules of engagement you have to follow, to be one.
So often we find ourselves in a situation with less- or much-less-than-ideal responders. You can't escape this, as they might be the ones who decide if your script will get produced, and neither should you try it, as even the daftest responder might actually lead you to improve upon your script, if you know how to use them.
The first step to handling this situation is to have a strong script you believe in, and more so, one where you know how the construction works. Why every element is there and how it plays together with other elements connecting to the fundamental conflict, and leading forward to its final resolution. Even when you are not that clear about everything in your script, at least be clear about what the fundamental conflict and logic is, and what you believe is your strong points.
Because then when you meet response you''ll be able to deal with it constructively. You can sort between relevant and irrelevant response. Sometimes people will say things that have much more to do with their own issues than with your script. Lets say you have a character who is controversial - she might be gay - and a reader who is not entirely comfortable with homosexuals, this person might not say this directly, but it comes out as irrational criticisms of details or concepts in the script. Obviously you should never let yourself be persuaded in any degree by this, and you will be able to argue why it makes sense that this character is gay. And you might also realize, that if you want this person and persons like him or her, as audience to your drama, then you could perhaps try and introduce this character in a way, that would make it easier for them to take the bait.
Then there is the kind of response which might be funded in something substantial but is phrased in a non-constructive way. It is often the case, when a reader is not able to phrase his or hers criticism within the logic of the script, or even within the logic of drama, and it is more rooted in a subjectivity. In this case you should try to translate it into something constructive - either by questioning the reader to find the logic behind, what disturbs them, or by making the translation by yourself - often it can be quite obvious - like if you have missed to give a proper set-up for a reader to understand a subsequent action.
Often you'll receive very specific suggestions about how to solve perceived weaknesses. Be courteous and appreciate the suggestions, but never take it at face value. Yes, maybe your main character seems to in-active, and you need her to show more initiative, for us, the audience to understand her and take an interest in her, but perhaps not by accepting the first and best suggestion of making her have a fight with her boyfriend in the opening scene, as your fundamental conflict is exactly about her problem taking a conflict into the open - so instead you have to find other ways of showing us what she wants and what she is trying to do.
Many times people might use comparisons to what they see as bad examples - other films, plays, stories - to convince you, that your ideas are wrong. This always makes my alarm go off. Most often these examples are quite superficial, and can be like "Oh, no, I don't like you have a transvestite in the script, it's like all those spanish movies by that guy Almodovar, it's passé and boring". Yes, maybe it seems so, but what if the transvestite is essential to basic logic? Maybe we don't need to get rid of him, but only to make sure, he is presented in a new original way? In these cases it is mostly about the reader's taste, and not about the quality or weakness of the script.
One of my favourite tricks when I am finishing a draft of a script is to leave something in there, which obviously doesn't work. I do this because no matter how good you make a script, people like to find something they can comment on. So I leave them this 'obvious' weakness that I know they will pick up, because then they can feel clever and better than me - and I can play the 'good collaborative writer' who accepts criticism. Also if they fail to see the obvious, then I know they haven't read it very carefully.
I will finish this post with reminding people of the test that the British film magazine Empire did in the early 90s, when they took the script from Sex, Lies and Videotapes, changed the title, the author name, the names of the characters and other superficial stuff, and then mailed it to a wide range of production companies. Not one of them realized that they had been reading Sex, Lies and Videotapes, and almost all of them completely rejected the script. This is what you are up against. Be brave and clever.

WHAT’S IN A NAME?

2008-07-23T15:20:00.000+03:00

The principle of character

“The strictest observation of the rules (of composition) cannot outweigh the tinniest fault made in the characters” – G. E. Lessing.

The defining aspect of a character is the will. This means everything can be a character as long as it has a will it can act upon. Remember we are talking construction here. Of course the background, the feelings, the profession, the relations and the psychology of a character can be extremely important – but in terms of construction all we really need is the will. What the character wants, what its intentions are in any given scene. How you go about ‘finding’ or inventing your characters are entirely up to you. But when you get down to constructing your script, you must be clear about what the basic will of the character is. This is the will, the intention that will guide the characters’ actions throughout the script. Romeo wants love – everything he does in Romeo and Juliet is done out of this basic will to find love. Even when he kills Tybalt, he does so beset by rage out of love for his best friend Mercutio, newly slain by Tybalt.

The complementary aspect of 'want' is 'need', which is a way of expressing an internal conflict or dynamic in the character. We may want something, but often what we really need differs from that. Romeo wants personal love, but maybe his need is to find the compassion that his world seems to lack. If you look at the incidents in the play, which sends Romeo on his tragic course, they might arise from lack of compassion. He kills Tybalt, which gets him expelled from Verona. For Romeo this seems almost like the end of the world, because it means separation from his personal love, and only the priest's compassionate words, which are able to encompass a broader view on the situation, persuade Romeo to leave for Mantua and bide his time. But when confusion muddles the intricate and dangerous plan to reunite Romeo and Juliet - who are being kept apart because of the lack of compassion from the parents - Romeo finally succumbs, feeling mortally wounded by the apparent loss of Juliet, exactly because what he wants is his personal love and he is not able to balance that with a compassion, which extends beyond his own personal interest, he chooses to take his own life.

Another aspect of character is what I call – a little simplistic – the heroic quality. Romeo has faith in love. Batman is resourceful. Chaplin’s vagabond never gives up. Pacino’s Michael Corleone understands the danger of the mafia-game. The knight in Bergmann’s The 7th Seal is self-sacrificing. All great characters have one fundamental quality, which makes them able to strive for they want in their world. It may or may not be enough to get them what they want. This depends on the world and their weakness.

The heroic weakness is the last main aspect of character. This is the Achilles’ heel of the hero. Romeo has doubts about love. Batman carries a personal tragedy, the loss of his parents. Chaplin’s vagabond is poor and without means. Michael Corleone has a blind love for his father or psychological speaking a father-complex. The knight doubts the meaning of life after his sacrifices in the holy crusade seems pointless. As much as the heroes will struggle with the world, they will also struggle with their weakness.

You can create a drama where you only operate with the will of the character, but adding the other two aspects and linking them together in a simple meaningful triangle, you create a dynamic which will steer the drama, and give rise to the unfolding of conflicts and their resolutions. You will probably add other characteristics to your characters, but you have to stay focused on these three. In every major conflict and turning point of the drama, it has to be this trinity, which is at play. The construction questions will every time be: What opposes what the character wants, how will the he apply his heroic quality to overcome it and how will the weakness go against him?

BUTTERFLIES AND TORNADOES

2008-07-14T13:14:00.000+03:00

The principle of unity

“Unity can only be manifested by the Binary. Unity itself and the idea of Unity are already two.” - Prince Gautama Siddharta.

Nothing stands alone. It is unified in both obvious and subtle ways. This is more or less what the first philosopher of drama, Aristotle, was talking about with the “The unity of place, action and time”. Traditionally this has been taken in a more or less literal sense. Many theatre plays take place in a single day, in the same location and all about a singular event. And this normally works really well, because they follow this Aristotelian principle to the letter. But taken in a broader sense, the principle means that things are connected. They don’t exist in and by themselves.

The reference above to the famous butterfly-effect, the idea of the so-called chaos-theory, which uses the image of a butterfly flapping its wing in Japan, which initiates a chain of reactions that leads to tornado in America, as a metaphor to explain the immensely complex and connected systems that determines events all over the world. Actually this is not chaos at all, but something called self-organizing critical systems. It only seems like chaos if you are used to think within the framework of the classical physics of linear cause-and-effect.

What we do, when we create a drama is basically to create a self-contained universe, a micro-cosmos. And the peculiar thing is that both in aesthetic and scientific terms such a universe, or system, seems to work most convincingly when we make sure that all elements are somehow connected. And this goes for any level of your script, from the obvious plot-connections, over the psychology of the characters, the weaving of your theme(s), use of visual imagery and all the way to signaling of your grand motif (the big fat secret of your drama). All these should have as many plain visible or hidden connections as possible, because this creates complexity – not in the sense of being intellectual high-brow – but in the simple sense of creating a system (a work of art) that each and every time you immerse yourself into it seems alive and able to generate a fulfilling reflection of human experience and life.

There is quite a number of well-known script techniques and models, which relates to this principle – that I will return to later on – but as a principle it simply means that when you are creating a script, you just have to keep connecting your dots inside whatever universe you have chosen, with whatever logic rules that cosmos. Every time you introduce new elements you will know that eventually they have to be integrated into your system, in the sense that they connect to other elements. If for example you have a character that only appears once, maybe it doesn’t really belong in your universe, or maybe you need to take a good long look at how the character connects, how this character, within the logic of your world, creates more ‘meaning’ than what it is in itself. This is the mechanism behind the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts – exactly because the parts ‘interact’ they generate more meaning than they have in themselves.

Again with the example of a single appearance of a character, I want to mention “Apocalypse Now” as film where even though the ‘villain’, the Marlon Brando-character, Colonel Kurtz only appears in the final scenes of the film, the script constantly creates connections to him in advance of his appearance, so when we finally experience him, it is with the full resonance of all that has gone before.
This is a good example of why I don’t really believe in rules and models, even though they can be really helpful, because what we are dealing with in drama is so complex that for every rule you can come up with, there will always come along a new rule to undo it. For me at least is has been more creative and productive to focus on principles, and only use the rules as temporary tools.

TO LAUGH AND CRY

2008-07-13T12:34:00.000+03:00

The complementary principle of comedy and tragedy

"A triviality is a statement whose opposite is false. However, a great truth is a statement whose opposite may well be another great truth." – Niels Bohr

This is obvious stuff, but often sadly neglected, especially outside mainstream drama, which of course is always painstakingly aware if they are trying to make a comedy or a tragedy. In my opinion any work of drama is either a comedy or a tragedy. At the bottom-line, that is. Because of course it might mix comedy and tragedy in any number of ways. It might seem like a tragedy, but in reality be a comedy. Or the other way around. In other words there is a lot of fun to be had in playing around with these two fundamentally different perspectives on the human condition. But in terms of the basic design of a drama, at the end of the day it is either-or. You can’t have it both ways. Or not at all.

When I’m coaching, consulting or teaching, if this is not clear, then it is always my first question to the director/writer. Is this a comedy or a tragedy? And of course most of the time it is initially a difficult question to answer (since I had to ask it). My next question will then be something like: “Will the protagonist get what he/she needs in the end?” or “Does it end in some kind of harmony or in despair”. Some people object a lot to this idea. “I am just writing a story about real people - I want it to be real, not some sort of comedy or tragedy”. Fine, but first of all, you a creating a drama, you are not creating reality (unless by chance you happen to be God), and by creating a drama, you are choosing a perspective, a reflection of reality, and the two fundamental ones concerning human reality are the comedic and tragic. All the other genres are essentially based on these two major ones. Melodrama is a kind of tragedy with some well-hidden comedy in the mix. Pure horror is a kind of grotesque tragedy. Fantasy and fairy-tales are mainly comedies as they end in harmony. Naturalism is most often some kind of tragedy. Farce is comedy in up-tempo with a razor sharp focus on the follies of our self-conceptions. Realism seems mostly to be tragedies, but has been known to spot the humorous side of real life. Teenage-silly-movies are slapstick comedies with extreme focus on sex and bodily functions. And so on.

The comedic perspective is characterized by seeing the human experience from a certain distance. It believes that none of us are so special that any kind of suffering or pain is to be taken too seriously. You are just one out of many – a number in an endless row of numbers. It makes fun of those who think they are above the rest. It sides with the little man. It believes a lot in earthly things, like sex, food, money and the body (including bodily fluids and excrement) – that these things are natural and good for us, and it readily pokes fun at any taboo regarding these, but on the other hand if any one is obsessed with them, it is also ready to bring them down to the general laughter of the rest of us – although then often with a softer landing than the one granted the high and mighty. In general the comedy doesn’t believe in very hard landings – people has to get up again and go on with their lives – because this is the ultimate credo of the comedy: Life goes on.

The tragic perspective is completely opposite. For the tragedy, each and every one of us is something unique. Tragedy demands compassion and total identification with it’s subject. It sees the human condition as a striving for the higher goals, be they justice, the truth, passion, love, immortality or whatever ideal you might have. But tragedy is a tricky bedfellow, because there’s always a price to pay for the higher aspirations. When a tragedy is closer to and tempered by comedy, then the price might be a partial sacrifice – the hero achieves his goal, but will always be marred by the sacrifice he had to pay. Or in the case of the pure tragedy, the hero must utterly fall. Oedipus is the example per se. The guy is like the greatest hero of his time. He has answered the riddle of the Sphinx (a metaphor for understanding the human condition), he has become king of Thebes, which is now smitten by a plague send by the Gods. Oedipus is a man of action and determined to save his kingdom, but eventually discovers that he is the cause of the plague, as he unbeknownst to himself has broken the taboos of the Gods by killing his father and bedding his mother. There is no way out for the poor fellow, he has to rip out his own eyes and live in torment. What we see here in the pure tragedy is what I call the blind spot. The hero is by all measures almost perfect. We can admire and identify, but there is a blind spot, a hidden truth about the hero that despite all his heroic qualities will lead to his undoing. There is no mercy in the pure tragedy – because whoever stands tall, must fall.

And here we come full circle with the comedy, as this almost sounds like something a comedy would do. The only difference being that in comedy the fall is never so hard, that life can’t go on, whereas in tragedy life as it has been known is destroyed. Now I claim this to be the complementary principle of comedy and tragedy because the two perspectives basically counter each other. One says we nothing special. The other says we are. They can’t both be right. But it works like yin and yang (if you like Eastern philosophy) where the two basic forces of the universe a mutual exclusive but in their center contains each other or like the paradox of quantum physics (if you like science) where your choice of perspective determines if you are observing a particle or a wave – something not possible as it is supposed to be either-or. And here we are with our drama – it is either a tragedy or a comedy in terms of creating it, playing it and describing it, but of course behind the outer forms they are the same, feed of each other in an eternal dialectic.

So when you go about creating your drama, you cannot escape choosing a perspective – like the scientist cannot avoid making a choice when observing the sub-atomic waves/particles – like each of us has to be either male or female, even though we contain the opposite qualities – and not only should you – at least at some point – do this knowingly, but also enjoy the kind of almost musical sense of tonal sensitivity this choice will open up for you. The choice you make never exclude the other perspective, it just means that if you choose comedy, then it has to begin with some kind of comedic harmony and also end likewise. In between that beginning and end, you can cross the line as many times as you want. Going with the tragedy, you must strike a tone of despair, loss, death or however you want to put it, in your opening, then – if you want – you can lead on with all kinds of temptations of hope, but then reaching the end, let that initial note of gloom bear the full fruit in it’s inevitable cruel logic – matching the degree of tragedy you are playing at. Let me say this in another way: To miss out on the interplay of comedy and tragedy is like missing out on the joy of sex. And like sex, its something you will never get tired of fooling around with, once you have gotten the hang of it.

IT CANNOT BE TOLD

2008-07-12T19:54:00.000+03:00

The principle of mystery

”The cause is hidden. The result obvious to all.” – Ovid

The famous Danish author Karen Blixen (pen name Isak Dinesen) said the human being is like a plant that needs roots deeply buried in the dark soil, away from the light, hidden safely. And that if you tried bare the roots, dig them up, examine them under the glaring light of the sun, the human being would wither away. She said so, amongst other things, because she was in opposition to the psychoanalysis and the academic literary analysis, which seeks to uncover all hidden motives.

That opposition is understandable, but perhaps it is more difficult than that to go about and uncover the secrets of the human existence. It might be possible to explore the realms beneath without digging up the whole tree, roots and all. At least it seems that in Karen Blixen’s own works, she was constantly referring indirectly to those forces beneath that motivate and orchestrate so much of our lives. She tried to tell stories about those forces without ever exposing them to direct light.

The root of drama, our ancestor, is the mystery play, the ritual - the enactment of the hidden. It is exactly being enacted because it cannot be told, explained or communicated in any other way than through experience. You just had to be there. The deepest kind of secrets, knowledge and insights are the founding base of drama. It is the force that keeps making us re-visit the greatest works of art, because their mystery runs deep and is really beyond the consciousness of our rational mind. We have to experience them by immersing ourselves in the drama.

This might come off as either very ambitious or pretentious, but for me it is simply a design principle. Even if you are ‘just’ trying to write a good, solid mainstream script, you should apply the principle of the mystery to some degree. Take a good mainstream movie like “The 6th Sense” which translates this principle beautifully into a story that brings us face to face with the great mystery of our mortality. It even does so almost literally on the plot-level by withholding the fact that our protagonist is already dead, and we realize this ‘secret’ simultaneous with him.

The presence of the secret should permeate the script from beginning to end, sending out constant signals just below the threshold of our ordinary level of consciousness. The tragedy deals with the basic mysteries of death, mortality and fear. The comedy deals with the mysteries of life, the birth, the marriage of opposites and joy. There are many ways to approach the great mysteries and sometimes we might find them in the most unexpected places, both as creators and as audiences.

When you work, creating a script, you have to know what your secret is. When I say 'know' it can mean a lot of things. You might know it quite clearly, like “This is a comedy about a guy with an extreme fear of dying, it controls his whole life, and the script lingers constantly on the side of tragedy, but towards the end, when it seems our guy for sure is going to die, the miracle of love let him live on”. Or you might just have a feeling guiding you to send out those signals as you write, and leading you to the eventual revelation of your mystery.

OUT OF TWO OPPOSED, A THIRD WILL RISE

2008-07-09T14:26:00.001+03:00

THE FIRST PRINCIPLE

"Conflict is the beginning of consciousness" - M. Esther Harding

Before anything else, we need to understand who and what we are - ‘we’ being the drama. A way to understand yourself is to look at what separates you from the others – what separates drama from the other major genres – prose, poetry and music? Each major genre has a fundamental nature – the core strength – what it’s all about. I believe drama is about conflict, the moment – the stuff that makes us ask, “what will happen next?” This is the core value of film and theatre – the drama. Conflicts. Who will win the conflict? How? And what will then happen? This is obvious in mainstream films and theater, but it also goes for art house films and off-off Broadway productions – only maybe in a more subtle way.

The other major genres also make use of conflict, yes, that’s correct, but let’s take prose as an example. This is the most obvious mirror for drama as this genre also deals mainly with stories. What really makes a novel great is the reflection – it’s ability to take a step back and reflect upon the moment instead of being immersed in it. To go inside people’s heads and let us listen in on their thoughts. The ability – by reflection - to connect events in time and space that are not otherwise connected. And to give meaning to events, places and persons only by description (which is reflection) is the strength of prose. We can also use reflection in drama, but if we rely on it as a major quality, the audience seems to loose interest. This has something to do – I think – with the fact that the film or the play is taking place in front of our eyes right here and now. It is unfolding in time second by second – and we watch it almost as we would watch real life. We have no time or patience for too much reflection. It takes us out of the moment.

This blog is not about the other genres, and so the analysis of their basic nature is not that well developed – but let’s say poetry is about feeling and music is about emotion - the difference being that the feeling of poetry is about a state, where the emotion of music is about a flow. So if you want to give a word for the nature of drama in the same manner, it could be ‘will’. Drama is about the will, because a character’s will to achieve an objective eventually lead to conflict with other characters or the environment.

This is the first principle of drama. The will of the character leads to conflict. This is what creates drama. This is where it all begins. Don’t ever forget that. It will save you every time you are stuck with a problem. Every time. Don’t underestimate this. It is always about the will of the character and the conflict. This is the fundamental principle of drama, so this is the thing you should check every time you are stuck. Again: Every time. Yes, I repeat this because I have seen in workshops, as a consultant and in my own work, how easy it is to forget this very simple thing. To become entangled with more complex ideas, the models, the theory, the psychology or whatever else we may use as tools when we are stuck with a problem. Because the very nature of drama is about the will of the character and the derived conflicts, then more often than not, this is were the problem and solution is found.
By stating the first principle in this way, I also take side in the old question: What is most important, the plot or the characters? The logic answer to this question must be: The characters.

The plot, and the plotting you do when creating a script, is of course immensely important. But the moment you say that the plot is more important than the characters, you will end up – to some degree – making the characters behave like marionettes to suit the needs of the plot – and thereby bereaving them their true will – their autonomy. But if you go the other way, saying characters are the most important, then you are not necessarily endangering the plot – because the plot can spring from the will of the characters, in the actions and conflicts revolving around them. Now remember we are talking principles here. In my experience, when working, there’s nothing so black and white. At moments the plot is most important – when you do the plotting. But the principle matters, because it’s your touchstone. Even when you have a great plot-idea, you want to pull off; you have to be dead sure, that it can be generated by the will of your characters. But on the other hand if you have great characters, you can let the plot be formed by them. This question of character and plot will be re-visited several times later on, when discussing the principle of character and the principle of uncertainty.

INTRO: WHAT IS THIS DRAMA-THING?

2008-07-08T12:54:00.000+03:00

”With certainty there are laws for drama, as it is an art-form; but it is uncertain in what they consist” – Pierre Corneille, french playwright.

This has mainly been written to develop a greater understanding of the principles of drama and how to apply them when you create a script for one of the dramatic media – the original live theater and the younger electronic brethren, film, radio or TV.

I always use this word – drama – to define what my job is about. Many people, when they hear this word, think about the kind of serious, sort-of-tragedy movies that has a lot of emotions and stuff – the one you find in the video store exactly under that heading: Drama. This is a misconception. Drama is the word used to describe the whole major genre, which this blog is dealing with. Any kind of play for theater, any type of script for a film – funny, sad, scary or whatever – is a dramatic work. This is our major genre. The other major genres are prose, poetry and music. We are the drama.
This is important. Over the years of struggling with creating good scripts for both theater and film – and failing a lot - I learned that - despite my failings - I was in this game for good reasons. I wanted the drama. I believed in drama as a way of approaching and understanding the world. The more I realized this and the principles of drama – the stuff that makes drama, drama – the more I could go with the flow and create scripts I could believe in.

I liked to study the many how-to-books with different script models – you know, the ones that describe how to structure a script – how many acts, different plot points and such stuff. The form is important – but form will always change – whereas principles stay the same. My advice has always been to learn about the models, but never believe in them. Principles are the stuff you should believe in. This blog will also present a variation of an act-model that I find useful when forming a script. I certainly like to think about structure and models – but they also leave me unsatisfied as a basic explanation of drama. They only deal with a form – this is how it looks. Then I always end up asking why? This is where the search for principles comes into the picture.

In our work we have to understand these founding principles of drama, so not to work against them, but with them. During our years of working with drama, we can continue to meditate upon them, deepening our understanding of drama. They will guide us in any difficult passage when creating a script. They are really simple, but that doesn’t make it easy. The simple is often the most difficult art.
I talk about creating a script, because I don’t really any longer see it as writing. There is a trap in thinking of ourselves as writers, because it associates to literature. It is not the writing that’s important. Very few people are going to read it. Most people will watch a film, a play or a TV-series. We create the script as a basis for a production. Actually instead of script I very much like the word the French and Greeks use: Scenario. The word is perfect because it implies that things will maybe turn out in another way in production, than what was imagined when creating the scenario.

Another and maybe more important reason not to think of it as writing has to do with the process of creating and experiencing a drama. A play, a film or a TV-episode has so precious few minutes. When you create a script, you have to be deliberate. There’s no time to waste. Also it is a very expensive art form. Every minute costs a lot of money, even in a small theater production, compared to literature or music. You have to construct carefully, think about production economy, a whole lot about how the audience perceive things (and here I’m not even talking about hitting mainstream, just about communicating the drama in a understandable way), and you have to think even more about what is really, really satisfying for you – because you are going to spend a massive amount of energy on the script. This is why I always spend the majority of my energy and time on a script in planning the construction of it. I never sit down to write the first draft of a script until I’m sure where I’m going and how to get there. And in my experience getting it right from the beginning saves you a lot of energy, time and anguish.

This stuff I'm going to write about here in the blog, it can’t really teach you to write a good script. This is an undertaking you have to struggle with yourself, making the mistakes and finding your answers to how it's done. But maybe I can save you some energy, time and anguish. It took me 10 years of writing not so good scripts – working for TV, film and theater - before I eventually created my first good script. One, I could read over and over without feeling bad about it, and one for which I could get a positive response from production companies. This happened after I had realized the thing. And that’s the thing I’m going to talk about here. And maybe we can even have a qualified exchange and discussion of our experiences with that thing called drama.

Giorgos Siougas

2008-05-28T16:56:00.000+03:00

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I met Christian through a producer friend with whom I’m developing a feature film and it quickly became apparent that I was talking to someone who had deep knowledge of movie-structure. Christian came onboard the feature project and is currently writing the script but at the same time we developed a short film together. He was highly professional, he worked very fast, he was very methodical and organized, he listened to my input and filtered it accordingly, he was enthusiastic and meticulous and ultimately delivered a solid script. The film was accepted to compete at the Drama Film Festival, the biggest short film festival in Greece. Having gone through the pressed-for-time short film process with him (three weeks from writing to completion of principal photography) I am even more excited about working with him on the feature. In these tough times in Greece were good screenwriters are rare, Christian is the light at the end of the tunnel. I would recommend him anytime.

Please do not hesitate to contact me via e-mail should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

George Siougas
DIRECTOR
TV MINI-SERIES (MEGA CHANNEL), SHORTS

gsiou at otenet dot gr

Constantine Giannaris

2008-05-28T16:54:00.000+03:00

Recommendation of Christian Jakobsen
After 15 months work on my script “Welcome Aboard” I was tired and had come to an impasse. I found it impossible to create an emotional connection with two of my main characters. External readers were very praiseful of the idea, the story line and the dramatic thrust of the story but missed precisely this emotional bond. Along with this praise of course came much rather ill suited and ill conceived ‘advice’ as to what I should ‘change’, ‘get rid of’, ‘restructure’, ‘rewrite’ and ‘reconfigure’. Meeting Christian and working with him over the summer was really a breakthrough. For the first time someone was able to make me to see the emotional logic of what I was writing. Much like a psychoanalyst is able to guide their patient towards a self-awareness. Working with Christian was for me a form of analysis. At times paralyzing, scary and very demanding. He is erudite direct and grounded in cinema and drama of which he has an intense love. I believe the discussions with him were crucial in unblocking me, making the writing a joy again and in taking the script forward.
Constantine Giannaris

Vardis Marinakis

2008-05-28T16:53:00.000+03:00

Recommendation for Christian Jakobsen
Christian was the consultant and editor of the script for my feature film “Black Field” which is going to be shot in spring 2008. With Christian we collaborated over a 3-month period.

With professional knowledge, patience, fantasy, preciseness, intuition and philosophical spirit Christian guided me to find again the core of what I wanted to say with this film. He also helped me to penetrate the deepest possible into my subject matter and create a script, which is bold and moving.

Hard work, square logic and humility are some basic ingredients to create poetry. This is something that the Greek directors usually forget. Christian without being dogmatic he always adjusted the scriptwriting techniques towards my personal style. He brought to life the story that was hidden in my script and he built up inside me a strong base of a scriptwriting technique that will help me in the future. The language was no barrier at all. Instead I was forced to express my self clearly avoiding the empty words we sometimes use to avoid talking about the subject matter.

Over all I am glad I worked with Christian because I met a wonderful guy, sensitive, smart and with great humor.

Vardis Marinakis
3/9/2007

PER BRASK

2008-05-28T16:51:00.000+03:00

RE: Troels Christian Jakobsen
During the last eight weeks, April 28 – June 20, 2003, Mr. Troels Christian Jakobsen has been doing a Directing Intensive with me. He has directed student actors in various projects, amounting to 18 scenes and 12 monologues. The work was presented every two weeks, three batches of scenes and a batch of monologues. The particular focus of Mr. Jakobsen’s work was the interaction with actors, specifically in terms of discovering the kinds of director-actor communication, which would release the best possible performance from the individual acting student.
Throughout the session Mr. Jakobsen’s work was sensitive to each acting student’s needs and the requirements of the scene or monologue being worked on. Though not working in his mother tongue, he was often remarkably subtle in his communications and always effective. The acting student benefited greatly from working with him.
During this Directing Intensive, it became clear to me that Mr. Jakobsen has a rare gift for zeroing in on the fundamental human dilemma a well-written scene provides and from there leading his actors into a persuasive theatricality vested in their own persons. Consequently, Mr. Jakobsen’s theatre is deeply engaging and thought-provoking.
Mr. Jakobsen is a very talented theatre artist and I am delighted to give him my highest recommendations.
Yours sincerely, Per Brask