John August

Story and Plot

Littlest Plot Shop

Episode - 39

Go to Archive

Scriptnotes, Story and Plot, Transcribed

Craig and John take a look at the difference between plot and story with some help from the Littlest Pet Shop and Game of Thrones.

Plot answers the “what” questions: What happens next? What is in the mysterious vault? What secret was the dowager keeping?

Story, however, is much more concerned with the “whos” and “hows” and “whys.” Characters have their own needs and impulses. The trick of good writing is to match up what the characters want to do (motivation) with what the screenwriter wants them to do (plot).

Mild spoiler alert: In the last few minutes, we discuss recent developments on Game of Thrones, but in a general-enough way that it’s not likely to impact your enjoyment if you’re behind. Still, caveat spectator.

Finally, two bits of housekeeping:

* We post [full transcripts](http://johnaugust.com/transcript) of every show a few days after they air.

* If you [subscribe to us](http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/scriptnotes-podcast/id462495496) on iTunes, please leave us some feedback. For next week’s show, we’ll read the reviews ranked “most helpful” live, no matter what they say. Which may be a terrible idea. We’ll see.

LINKS:

* [Littlest Pet Shop](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRgWqd36Mww) videos
* [Plot Wizard](http://plotwizard.com/)
* [Plotto: The Master Book of All Plots](http://www.amazon.com/dp/1935639188/ref=as_li_tf_til?tag=plottomatic-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1935639188&adid=1GY1MPCHFA0R96HJ5TC6&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fplotwizard.com%2F)
by William Wallace Cook
* Craig recommends Joe Nienalt and Daniel Vang’s [Will-Read-Your-Script Fundraiser](http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/showthread.php?t=67391) for the American Heart Association
* John recommends this [all-your-barcodes-together card](http://keyringthing.com)
* INTRO: [My Little Pony](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9J2vF3Q3o8)
* OUTRO: [Black Horse and the Cherry Tree](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz_1UXMXKP0) by military band Sidewinder at the White House

You can download the episode here: [AAC](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_39.m4a).

**UPDATE** 5-30-12: The transcript of this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/scriptnotes-ep-39-littlest-plot-shop-transcript).

Casting and positive outcomes

Producers, Scriptnotes, Story and Plot, Transcribed

Craig and John discuss the screenwriter’s role in casting, then segue to the New York Times profile of producer/executive Lindsay Doran and her approach to story.

Doran argues (persuasively) that successful movies are often less about whether the hero wins or loses, but rather how his achievements are measured. For example, a character’s victory is much more satisfying when there is someone to share it with — the real moment isn’t the game-winning touchdown, but when the quarterback kisses his wife afterwards.

She’s not pitching happy endings, but rather positive outcomes. It’s an interesting way to look not just at how we tell stories, but also which stories we tell.

We also touch on the advantages of mentally casting your movie as you write, writing (or rewriting) for the cast you are given, and the delicate art of making someone think he came up with an idea on his own after you plant it in his head.

This and more mind-control tips on the 21st episode of Scriptnotes.

LINKS:

* Go [casting sides](http://johnaugust.com/downloads_ripley/mannie_audition.pdf) for Mannie
* The Remnants [casting sides](http://johnaugust.com/downloads_ripley/remnants_audition.pdf)
* The New York Times on [Lindsay Doran](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/movies/lindsay-doran-examines-what-makes-films-satisfying.html?pagewanted=all)
* [Martin Seligman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Seligman) on Wikipedia
* INTRO: [Wild Wild West theme](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFf85RxteI8)
* OUTRO: [Pizzicato Five – Sweet Soul Revue](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D4ueFzla04)

You can download the episode here: [AAC](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_21.m4a).

**UPDATE** 1-26-12: The transcript of this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/scriptnotes-ep-21-casting-and-positive-outcomes-transcript).

How long is Rope?

Geek Alert, Story and Plot

In an [old article](http://www.antonellapavese.com/papers/damasio_remembwhen.pdf) that Scientific American recently reprinted, Antonio Damasio looks at how Hitchcock’s “no cuts” feature Rope squeezes 105 minutes into 80:

> Where do the missing 25 minutes go? Do we experience the film as shorter than 105 minutes? Not really. […]

> First, most of the action takes place in the living room of a penthouse in summer, and the skyline of New York City is visible through a panoramic window. At the beginning of the film, the light suggests late afernoon; by the end night has set in. Our daily experience of fading daylight makes us perceive the real-time action as taking long enough to cover the several hours of the coming night, when in fact, those changes in light are artificially accelerated by Hitchcock.

His analysis of Rope’s timeline is a sidebar to a longer article about how the brain time-stamps information to make the past seem orderly and the present feel “present.”

But in terms of Hitchcock’s film, I think Damasio overstates his case.

All movies exist in unreal time, not because of cuts and gimmickry, but because the experience of watching a movie involves surrendering to that film’s reality. We go into dream mode, especially when watching something on a giant screen in a dark theater.

Psychologists could — and I suspect have — shown test subjects a hour-long continuous shot of humdrum video. When asked to report its duration, guesses would vary considerably.

That’s not cinematic mastery. That’s our brains being only so-so at gauging time, particularly when denied outside clues.

In movies, unless something seems wildly impossible — driving from LA to New York in an hour — audiences are extremely forgiving about time, particularly if overall story logic seems to be consistent. In many of my favorite movies, I couldn’t tell you how many hours or days or months have elapsed in story time.

When movies work, you don’t care.

The rest of Scientific American’s special [A Matter of Time](http://www.scientificamerican.com/special/toc.cfm?issueid=40&sc=singletopic) issue (on newstands) is fascinating, by the way, touching on quantum matters, ancient clocks and other geekery. My very first screenplay was about Boulder’s atomic clock, so I’m a sucker for these things.

Dear Cindy in Blue Valentine

Random Advice, Story and Plot

blue valentine

So, hey, you’re pregnant. And it’s not welcome news, because you’re in college and hope to go to medical school.

You’re not sure if the champion sperm belongs to the scruffy-cute ukelele player or the asshole college wrestler. (But you kind of know it’s the wrestler.) Neither is exactly well-positioned for fatherhood.

You live with your parents. Let’s be frank; your family is not great. Your dad is an asshole. Your mom is a doormat. I doubt they’re much help right now.

We don’t see a lot of your deliberation process, but you decide to get an abortion. Then, just as the procedure is starting, you call it off. And that’s fine. Choice means choice. The doctor, nurse and everything about that clinic seemed appropriately sober and professional.

You decide to marry ukelele guy. I won’t offer any spoilers about how that turns out.

I’m actually writing to call your attention to one other undramatized choice: adoption.

Yes: it would have messed up the plot of your movie. But in terms of the plot of your life, I think it could have worked out pretty well.

Many young women in your situation would be wise to keep adoption in the mix. But I can’t blame them if they don’t strongly consider it. **Movies and TV shows generally do a crappy job portraying adoption,** either ignoring it as a choice or getting the details wrong.

For instance, maybe you watch Glee.

Quinn’s first-season pregnancy seemed fairly well-handled — given that it’s a show in which characters break into song without practice or provocation. But Glee whiffs it in the last minutes, sending the infant off to live with a troubled diva for thematic convenience rather than logical sense. That’s not how it works.

So, Cindy, I want to talk you through what would actually happen if you or another woman in your situation considered adoption.

And since this happens to be a site aimed at film and television writers, it might be a handy guide to how to portray such scenarios.

How it actually works
—-

First, you’d probably Google “adoption” (or “private adoption”) and quickly realize that there are a bunch of agencies that try to match up pregnant women with people hoping to adopt children. A lot of them are essentially attorneys who specialize in adoption.

They’re not attorneys in the scary sense. They’re attorneys in the getting-things-done-legally sense.

Clicking through the websites, you’d read the FAQs. You’d realize that a pregnant woman has her pick of families, each of which has written a letter to potential birth mothers explaining who they are and why they’re hoping to adopt a child. They’re not strangers. There’s no mystery. And in order to adopt, they all had to go through state screening.

If you called the number on the site, you’d speak to a case worker who would talk you through the process and answer your questions.

And you should ask a lot of questions. Let’s be clear: the agency and the case workers are getting paid by the prospective parents. Strictly speaking, that’s who they’re working for. But you hold all the cards. The agency’s job is to match pregnant women with prospective parents so that everyone has a good experience.

If you get a bad vibe from an agency, keep looking. You have your choice of places.

If you decided to go ahead with the process, you’d read a big pack of letters from prospective parents (all addressed “Dear Birth Mother”) and pick one who seemed like a good fit. Depending on the situation, you might hang out with them for a while before giving birth. Or not. There are a lot of ways it can work, and it mostly depends on how you want it to work.

Adoptions in the U.S. are increasingly open adoptions, which means that there’s no mystery about who the birth parents are. (That’s another thing TV and movies tend to get wrong.)

In addition to private agencies, there are public agencies, plus adoptions arranged through clergy, doctors and other groups. Basically, there are a ton of people who will find a family for this kid if you decide to continue the pregnancy.

I don’t want to sound Pollyanna here, Cindy. Nine months of pregnancy is a big fucking deal. But all the choices in front of you are big choices, so I want to make sure you give them all a fair shake.

Screenwriters: same advice.