I'm still pretty steep on the learning curve of screenwriting, and something that has really become more and more clear to me over recent months is the need to make sure a reader/viewer can quickly, and in one or two sentences, explain what your story is about. Veterans, I am sure, are very well aware of this, so this discussion is for newer writers, unless a vet wants to kick in and help me out.

I'm going to hit on two quick examples: The King's Speech(recently discussed in another thread) and The Godfather.

You have to assume the viewer comes into the movie without having seen a description, that the viewing expereince is pure. All he has is the title, which you see at the beginning. Ideally you can connect this title with early scenes so that the viewer(or reader) from a very early point can answer the question, "what's it about?".

At the beginning of The King's Speech, we see the prince giving a speech to his nation, addressing a gravely important topic(the Depression), and botching it because of a severe speech impediment. Connecting this to the title, we know what the movie is about. We know he will be king, will have to give a critical speech, and will have to overcome his impediment to succeed. Simple enough. If anyone left the theater at that moment they could still tell friends what the film was about.

One of my favorite films is The Godfather. I've never read a review or discussion about it, and haven't seen it for a while, so forgive me if I get something wrong. But let's take quick look at it.

As far as I know, up until The Godfather, ganngster movies were always about power. Pursuing it, maintaining it. There were movie gangsters that struggled with moral questions and issues like loyalty, but these films were generally about power.

What about The Godfather?

The film begins at a wedding. So we know it's about family. And it starts with the Godfather in his office receiving requests, since we are told it is Sicilian tradition that no father can refuse a request on his daughter's wedding day. So it is about tradition, but more importantly, it is about responsability. And now we know this is not like any other gangster film that's been seen, is not what we expected coming into the theater.

What about our protag? Where is he? Isn't he supposed to be introduced right away? For the protag is not the Godfather. As everyone knows(now), Michael is the protag, but how does the movie reveal this? For one thing, everyone important is asking for him. So we know of him before we even see him. The first son we meet is Sonny. How do we know he is not the protag?(mostly through hindsight!) I don't think we know for sure actually until we meet Michael. Sonny is the stereotype we expect: hot headed, hyper-sexual, full of swagger.

Then Michael enters. We've been expecting him, so the spotlight is on him when he arrives. And then when he does, he stands so completely out, we know he's the protag. Unlike the other characters, he's in military uniform, clean cut, the all-American boy. We find out through his expostion about the family business, but through that we also find out about Michael. He is determined not to be in the business, but he does still have a pride in what they do.

By now we know what the movie is about. Anyone who was thinking about it probably knew by now that Sonny would die. It's inevitable from the perspective of telling the story, because Sonny is the oldest, and we need Michael to be in the position of having to decide whether to take the crown, to take on the family business. Not for the sake of power. But for the sake of responsability, as established in the opening scenes. Responsability to his family first, but also to his community, those that depend on the Godfather for protection.

There's even the powerful symbolic moment of the family photo, when Michael drags Kay into the picture. Kay is an outside influence who tries to pull Michael away from the family business, and he perhaps instinctively latches on to her for that reason. But the power of the family pulling them all in is much, much greater.

I thought about these things in the context of some of my own work, when I tried to answer the question of "what's it all about?" And I want to point out that this is not at all the same as theme, though theme can help with this situation. I'm not sure what the theme is for The King's Speech, I can think of several possibilities, but none answer the basic question of what's it about. Theme can help tie things together and keep the story clean and clear, but it doesn't answer the question.

Nor is this necessarily the same as a logline, though that can be very close.

The key thing, I think, is that a viewer should be able to understand what the movie's about just from the title and scenes that come relatively early in the story, the earlier the better. If this seems obvious to people, well, you're smarter than me. It took me a while to know this, I mean really know it. I've seen films where this is not achieved, where you kind of need the whole film to really know what it was about. That's a big handicap for a movie, and a huge handicap, I expect, for a spec script. Probably an insurmountable one.

If you made it to the end of this ramble, thanks!

I made it to the end of your ramble!  ;D

IMHO, the most important thing wether it's reading the script or watching the film is to make people want to continue. That's all. Sometimes I think people try too hard and overanalyze things too. Just write...something that interests people.  :)

I didn't. Sorry, Kev.

As with most things, there is not really a cookie-cutter approach, and your discussion will not be complete without consideration of the term "High Concept".

Not every movie can -- or should -- be easily summarized.

A classic example of a high-concept approach is "Jurassic Park", which was probably a complete breeze to pitch -- with two words -- "Dinosaurs!  Today!" -- whether you knew the book or not.

Then there are movies like, say (the first that comes to mind for me), "Donnie Darko".

I have seen it several times and still do not even know what it is "really" about.

But both are really good films.

I would not say it is your "job" to always be operating in the high-concept arena, nor to make everything crystal clear for your audience at the outset.

But you should at least be cognizant of the fact that one of those roads is much easier to navigate than the other -- in terms of the viability of your script.

Lol! That seems ironic, Sniper. You must have reached the end, unless you skipped! No skipping. Hey, is that a red dot on my chest? Ok, you can skip.

Pia, I don't think it's over analyzing, it's learning and discussing. One thing I know is that I am not guilty of is breaking down and reviewing scripts or film but never writing anything. I think it's helpful to stop and look at what you're doing and what others are doing. And as far as writing what interests people...well, yeah.

Bert, excellent point, and something to consider. And make that spider go away! I hate spiders. Plus the flashing is giving meeeeee seeeeisures!

I'm not sure if what I have been descriging is exactly the same as high concept. Maybe it is. Let me ask, is The Godfather high concept? And that's a sincere question from a rookie. The King's Speech is clearly high concept. I'm not so sure about The Godfather.

I'm not against films that are more random and exploratory. I am not a film guru, but I would imagine that those would probably be more to my taste. I do think that maybe spec scripts need to be pretty well focused around the idea of being able to answer the question what's it about.

Ok, then that goes back to what I was originally saying. That you should be able to answer the question, "what's the story all about?", and this should be established as early as possible. And this is not the same as "high concept".

The contour of the story should be clear and established early. In the movie The Fighter we see early on that he will have to escape the overbearing influence of his family in order to succeed. The question is can he do it without betraying who he is. Boxing is just a vehicle for that dilemma, and we understand what the heart of the movie is very early in the story.

Quoted from leitskev Ok, then that goes back to what I was originally saying.

Well, in all fairness, you actually said a BUNCH of stuff.  Was kind of hard to sift out what you were really after.  (Apart from idle chatter, which I was kind of in the mood for, too).

Quoted from leitskev ...you should be able to answer the question, "what's the story all about?"

As the author, damn straight you should.  As the reader / viewer, not necessarily.

Quoted from leitskev And this is not the same as "high concept".

In the interests of full disclosure, not everybody would defines it the same way.

Quoted from leitskev The contour of the story should be clear and established early.

I would say the TONE should be established by the very first scene.

But the whole story?  The theme?  That is where I was arguing against ironclad criteria.

And I am not even sure what "contour" means in this context.

Quoted from leitskev Ok, then that goes back to what I was originally saying. That you should be able to answer the question, "what's the story all about?", and this should be established as early as possible.

I think this is probably true in terms of what will most likely be successful within the studio system or with those hoping to be within the studio system.  

That said, I also think it's one of the major things that's wrong with films today.  Blockbusters are so desperate to get to their concept that they don't introduce people to characters or to a world.  I was watching Mimic, Guillermo Del Toro's (rightly) disowned film from 1997, the other day, and remarking on what a slow build the film is, and how much I enjoyed that (the movie sucks, that's for sure; but it had some good elements).  In the case of that film, the build may ultimately end up being too slow, but the point is that it was still an era of filmmaking in which characters and the world they inhabit are treated as a mystery that the audience should enjoy discovering and learning about in itself.  First we set up the backstory, then we get introduced to the characters, then the horror elements start to seep in slowly; things continue to happen to the characters as the story builds, and it's a very, very long time before things kick off.  Perhaps a better example (a better film...) would be Die Hard, which takes a great deal of time not only introducing us to the lives of its characters but also building mystery as to what is going on and what the full premise of the story is going to be.

Films today are in such a hurry to get to the premise that we already know from the trailers -- perhaps, to put it another way, in such a hurry to assure the audience that they're receiving the exact product they paid for -- that when things kick off, there's not any particular reason to care.  We haven't really become acquainted with these characters or their world, and by the time these things are in motion, it's already too late.

As Bert said above, the writer, of course, should be able to answer this question in succinct fashion -- and I think that's true of any film, no matter how complex (what is Melancholia about?  The end of life and the way we deal with it) -- but the audience shouldn't necessarily be able to do so until well into the film, or heck, maybe even after it's over and they've had a chance to think about it.  I mean, what is Die Hard really about?  Is it about "New York cop John McClane gives terrorists a dose of their own medicine as they hold hostages in an LA office building"?  Or is it about "John McClane proves that love conquers all"?  Which (if either) is the actual "concept" of the film?  Which is most important?  Which (if either) should people be able to sum up?

Thanks, Chris. Interesting points. Pressed for time, so can't respond, but good points.

Not sure I fully understand what you're getting at...but I think I essentially agree.

Go through the IMDb top 250 and in almost every case what the film is about is established in the first scene...often in the very first shot of the film (a lot of the top directors tell the entire film in the opening shot...you just don't realise it at the time):

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2006/06/movies_101_opening_shots.html

Looked at the article, Rick, and that is pretty close to what I'm saying, with it also understood that this should be done in film so that most of the audience gets it on first viewing.  And I'm not saying every film should be like this, I never apply that kind of absolute.

Chris, I don't think what I am saying needs to inhibit world or character building. Look at the example I used of The Godfather. That world and those characters are carefully portrayed and developed. I;m just saying at some point we need to make clear to the audience what the film is about, and better sooner than later. Doesn't have to be in the first shot.

I'll through this crazy idea out there, maybe it's close to what Rick is alluding to: it can be portrayed like a fractal. The opening shot can reveal the shape of the story, but we don't perceive that fully until we have more perspective.

Rick, you're amazing!  You always have answers.  :)

Hey Kev,

I totally agree with what you're saying then.  I misunderstood.  It's extremely satisfying when you can watch just the first couple minutes of a movie, your head starts whirring with ideas, and you subsequently discover that those are the ideas that the film is exploring.  I think that's very important.  Run Lola Run is a great example of this, as we fly into the mouth of the clock and then directly into a crowd of strangers bustling every which way.

I think a small part of what may account for this being pulled off well in some films, too, is that the writers/filmmakers are just extremely good at establishing style, tone, etc.  I mentioned Mimic earlier, which, again, is not even a good film, but the opening sequences firmly establish a tone and style that suggest and support the main ideas of the film.

Hey Kev,

King's Speech, this was the Writer's Speech! ;D

You asked for newer writers perspective and I'm happy to oblige.

I don't think it's absolutely necessary to always know "what's the story all about" in the first five pages but as a new writer myself and one trying his hand at a feature script. I can tell you that I have spent more time on the first ten pages than any other part so far because I felt it was so important to not only the development of the plot but also to entice the reader.
I'm probably wrong about that but that's my opinion anyway.

Anyway as to beginnings of films and knowing what it's all about, I always enjoyed "Goodfellas". It started with just one single statement "As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster," I immediately understood what this was going to be about and what the main protagonist's goal was going to be.

Keep bringing the speech's Kev

Steve

Hey Kev!

My whole point of view changed about structure after I studied a course on writing some months back. Damn interesting course and its really teaching me a lot.

The main thing it showed me is that most of the "rules" about grammar are there just because some guy (usually born a looong time ago) decided thats the way it was, and for no other logical reason that that.

I think Pia and others may be on to something when they suggest that if you can keep a reader interested, you have something. Be damned with "rules".

Ive read scripts that where so "fast" you could brush through them in no time. But I'll be damned if I can remember what was in em, not very interesting IMO.

Hey Steve and Hugh

I had posted before somewhere where I try to follow this goal: TTP.  Turn the page. Try to write so that the reader always has a reason to turn the page.

Another way of looking at it is pretend a feature is like a tv show, with a commercial every 10 minutes. A good tv show always has something right before the commercial that keeps you from changing the channel.

None of these things really have much to do with the thread topic. Write something interesting? Well, yeah, but that's about as helpful as saying "write something good". I just don't learn anything at all from that, no offence to anybody.

Hugh, I see you are working on a sci feature. Sci fi can be very complicated, involve a sophisticated plot. I think for that can kind of project it can be very helpful to force yourself to answer the question what's it all about, and see if you can establish that in some way early on. Doesn't have to be first scene, but it should be clear by the end of act one, or the end of the intro.

I think Steve's example is perfect. There's a lot of ways Goodfellas could have started, but nothing establishes what that story is about better than that.

I think with Alien you see right out of the gate that the movie is going to be a debate about whether to do the right thing or to do what it takes to survive; about whether to look out for others or watch out for yourself. The debate never ends. The film could have been done differently, with a theme of sticking together to survive, but it wasn't, as far as I can remember.

Hugh, I was in no way even thinking about rules. Just about what works. In the great rules debates, I am always on the other side of the rules people. What I have been referring to is the idea that it's good story telling to frame the story early on if possible. That gives focus and power to the things that follow. For example, from the opening of Godfather, we know this is not about the family "winning". It's about Michael getting sucked into the family business out of a sense of responsibility. And it shows how that kind of thing perpetuates. That was all framed in the opening scenes. Nothing was random about the way that was done.

Thanks guys.

Quoted from Heretic Hey Kev, I think a small part of what may account for this being pulled off well in some films, too, is that the writers/filmmakers are just extremely good at establishing style, tone, etc.  I mentioned Mimic earlier, which, again, is not even a good film, but the opening sequences firmly establish a tone and style that suggest and support the main ideas of the film.

An example of this for me is, "A Knight's Tale".
Not one line of dialogue by a principle character during the credits.
And I know EXACTLY what kind of movie I'm in for. ;D

http://youtu.be/HmaTIJtWrME

E.D.

Hey Kev

Yes I'm going to do a Sci-Fi feature. Always wanted to do one, so here it goes.

And I agree, its a good idea to capture your reader right off the bat, asap.

HGW

Quoted from leitskev I'm still pretty steep on the learning curve of screenwriting, and something that has really become more and more clear to me over recent months is the need to make sure a reader/viewer can quickly, and in one or two sentences, explain what your story is about. Veterans, I am sure, are very well aware of this, so this discussion is for newer writers, unless a vet wants to kick in and help me out. I'm going to hit on two quick examples: The King's Speech(recently discussed in another thread) and The Godfather. You have to assume the viewer comes into the movie without having seen a description, that the viewing expereince is pure. All he has is the title, which you see at the beginning. Ideally you can connect this title with early scenes so that the viewer(or reader) from a very early point can answer the question, "what's it about?". At the beginning of The King's Speech, we see the prince giving a speech to his nation, addressing a gravely important topic(the Depression), and botching it because of a severe speech impediment. Connecting this to the title, we know what the movie is about. We know he will be king, will have to give a critical speech, and will have to overcome his impediment to succeed. Simple enough. If anyone left the theater at that moment they could still tell friends what the film was about. One of my favorite films is The Godfather. I've never read a review or discussion about it, and haven't seen it for a while, so forgive me if I get something wrong. But let's take quick look at it. As far as I know, up until The Godfather, ganngster movies were always about power. Pursuing it, maintaining it. There were movie gangsters that struggled with moral questions and issues like loyalty, but these films were generally about power. What about The Godfather? The film begins at a wedding. So we know it's about family. And it starts with the Godfather in his office receiving requests, since we are told it is Sicilian tradition that no father can refuse a request on his daughter's wedding day. So it is about tradition, but more importantly, it is about responsability. And now we know this is not like any other gangster film that's been seen, is not what we expected coming into the theater. What about our protag? Where is he? Isn't he supposed to be introduced right away? For the protag is not the Godfather. As everyone knows(now), Michael is the protag, but how does the movie reveal this? For one thing, everyone important is asking for him. So we know of him before we even see him. The first son we meet is Sonny. How do we know he is not the protag?(mostly through hindsight!) I don't think we know for sure actually until we meet Michael. Sonny is the stereotype we expect: hot headed, hyper-sexual, full of swagger. Then Michael enters. We've been expecting him, so the spotlight is on him when he arrives. And then when he does, he stands so completely out, we know he's the protag. Unlike the other characters, he's in military uniform, clean cut, the all-American boy. We find out through his expostion about the family business, but through that we also find out about Michael. He is determined not to be in the business, but he does still have a pride in what they do. By now we know what the movie is about. Anyone who was thinking about it probably knew by now that Sonny would die. It's inevitable from the perspective of telling the story, because Sonny is the oldest, and we need Michael to be in the position of having to decide whether to take the crown, to take on the family business. Not for the sake of power. But for the sake of responsability, as established in the opening scenes. Responsability to his family first, but also to his community, those that depend on the Godfather for protection. There's even the powerful symbolic moment of the family photo, when Michael drags Kay into the picture. Kay is an outside influence who tries to pull Michael away from the family business, and he perhaps instinctively latches on to her for that reason. But the power of the family pulling them all in is much, much greater. I thought about these things in the context of some of my own work, when I tried to answer the question of "what's it all about?" And I want to point out that this is not at all the same as theme, though theme can help with this situation. I'm not sure what the theme is for The King's Speech, I can think of several possibilities, but none answer the basic question of what's it about. Theme can help tie things together and keep the story clean and clear, but it doesn't answer the question. Nor is this necessarily the same as a logline, though that can be very close. The key thing, I think, is that a viewer should be able to understand what the movie's about just from the title and scenes that come relatively early in the story, the earlier the better. If this seems obvious to people, well, you're smarter than me. It took me a while to know this, I mean really know it. I've seen films where this is not achieved, where you kind of need the whole film to really know what it was about. That's a big handicap for a movie, and a huge handicap, I expect, for a spec script. Probably an insurmountable one. If you made it to the end of this ramble, thanks!

King's Speech: http://www.youtube.com/user/clickokdotcodotuk#p/search/0/WQt7Ro9MZ4Y

Godfather: http://www.youtube.com/user/clickokdotcodotuk#p/search/0/Ho2MjMdUHT4