As I watched this very enjoyable movie recently, I found myself trying to identify the main character, central story problem, and possible Save the Cat genre, as I tend to do when presented with a story idea or finished script or manuscript.  Below (SPOILER ALERT!) is what I came up with…

It’s a true “ensemble” movie, meaning that it consists of several mini-stories, each of which has its own “main character” with a problem, whose point-of-view we take on when we’re watching “their” story.   This wasn’t immediately apparent to me, as their problems are presented somewhat subtly.  For a while I was wondering if Julianne Moore was really meant to be the central point-of-view, since she’s the one with the biggest problem that we experience from the inside (she’s attracted to, then having an affair with Mark Ruffalo – the sperm donor she and Annette Bening used to each give birth to one of their teenage kids – who they all just met for the first time).

But eventually it became clear to me that we’re to relate, from the INSIDE, to each of the five characters at various times, and each of the five has a clear story problem.  Each gets scenes separate from the others where that problem is explored, and each has a clear resolution.  Some of the problem aren’t all that big and urgent, which is why this feels more like a “small” movie – it’s got an understated slice-of-life realism that is very appealing, but never grabs the audience by the throat conceptually like most studio-type movies try to do.

So Julianne Moore has a problem regarding feeling like the “beta” in her relationship, which leads to the affair.  Annette Bening has the problem of Mark Ruffalo seemingly taking over and shaking up her family (which climaxes with her learning about the affair).  Mark Ruffalo has the problem of wanting to be part of this family, wanting Julianne Moore, and not being able to truly find his place there.  And the kids each have the problem of questionable friends, lack of true direction or success in their social lives, and wanting something from this “father” relationship.

In the Save the Cat universe, the only real subgenre that has room for an ensemble story like this is the “Issue Institution” (under “Institutionalized”), as seen in The Big Chill, Crash and He’s Just Not That Into You.  Usually these kinds of movies have more developed story problems for the multiple “main characters”, which lead to clear resolutions.  The stories tend to be more dramatic and complicated, with more turns to them, than what we have here.  And they tend to be more separate from each other, though intertwined.  Here, you really have one story, which is how Mark Ruffalo shakes up this family, so it doesn’t really feel like five separate stories, but more five points-of-view on the same story.  (I guess you could say the “Issue Institution” here was “this family is changed by Mark Ruffalo’s presence” and each person has their own unique take and concerns regarding their part of that “Insitution.”)

I think this is VERY hard to pull off successfully in a script.  It’s incredibly execution-dependent, and so much depends on the direction and the cast.  I think it makes more sense for a writer-director piece like this, than a script being submitted into the marketplace by a writer hoping to advance their career and maybe get a sale.

That being said, I think it does have an intriguing hook at its premise, which sounds entertaining in a logline:  Two teenage kids track down the sperm donor their lesbian parents used, and introduce him to their two moms, which shakes up the family’s dynamics a lot – especially when one of the moms starts to have an affair with him.  Sounds entertaining, dramatic, and unique, right?  And I did find it to be all of those things.

The entertainment value, as I saw it, was mostly carried by comedy until Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo slept together – after which there was great drama.  I think the writer-director did a good job of making sure to always entertain.  Sometimes small, slice-of-life realism pieces forget that, and there aren’t big enough problems, grabby enough situations, or an entertaining enough tone to engage an audience.

Structurally, I thought it was pretty solid – the kids meeting Mark Ruffalo was a clear Catalyst, and the new situation of Julianne Moore working with him, and him having an ongoing relationship with the kids, was a good Break into Act Two.  The affair was a great stakes-rising Midpoint, and Annette Bening’s discovery a great All is Lost or Crisis moment, which interestingly was a crisis for all five characters – from each of their points of view.

I thought the third act resolution was satisfying but kind of subtle, and I found myself feeling bad for Mark Ruffalo and wanting more of a positive resolution for him.  Though I didn’t approve of his actions in the affair, I also identified with him as much as I did each of the other four characters, and so I felt it was an “unhappy” ending for him, even if it was a moderately happy ending for the others.  I wouldn’t have minded more “story” for the third act, and bigger changes and resolutions for all.  But overall I really appreciated the film and can see why it’s gotten so much praise.

I found this week’s MODERN FAMILY (“Strangers on a Treadmill”) to be a good example of how bare bones a “story” can be, and still have a beginning, middle and end.   (Or, if you will, three dramatic acts of Setup, Complications, Resolution.)

Spoiler alert if you read on…

In one story, Claire is concerned Phil will embarrass herself with his unfunny jokes when hosting an upcoming realtors banquet.  (1) She hears the jokes, and hides her concern (ACT ONE, INCITING EVENT); (2) She asks Mitchell to tell Phil the truth, in exchange for her telling Cameron he shouldn’t wear bike shorts; (3) Mitchell can’t bring himself to do it; (4) Claire freaks out on Mitchell over it (I would call these three scenes the SECOND ACT in a three-act structure); so (5) Claire hides Phil’s notes at the banquet – which results in him improvising, surprising  everyone with being funny anyway; after which (6) She admits to hiding the cards, and they make up (THIRD ACT).  Note: Claire is the  main character, because she’s the one with the PROBLEM, and it’s seen through her POINT-OF-VIEW, not through Phil’s.  Phil doesn’t have a problem initially, at least not that he’s aware of.  Claire is the one with a situation that needs to be solved.

In the second story, (1) Mitchell is concerned about Cameron wearing bike shorts, but can’t tell him because Cameron is so sensitive (ACT ONE, INCITING EVENT).  (2) He makes a deal with Claire as described above (in the same  Scene 2 of the first story).  (3) Claire does the job and Cameron is devastated.  (4) Cameron finds out Mitchell was behind this (in the same  Scene 4 of the first story – happens during a phone call between Claire and Mitchell); (5) Cameron and Mitchell make up, after Mitchell is willing to shave his beard to please Cameron (THIRD ACT).  Again, Mitchell is the main character of this storyline, as he’s the one with the PROBLEM, which is how to tell Cameron not to wear bike shorts.  (In contrast to a few weeks ago, when Cameron was the main character of a story about how Mitchell is dangerous with power tools but thinks he’s handy, and how do you stop him from causing damage without hurting his feelings?)

The other two stories are less developed.  The first lays out like this: (1) Jay doesn’t know his employees well enough, in Gloria’s mind, so he agrees to go to one of their daughters’ quinceanera, where (2) he befriends people who Gloria realizes aren’t his employees, because they’re at the wrong event which is actually a wedding  (a couple scenes of this in the middle act), which resolves with (3) Jay freaking out when the supposed father and daughter (really a married couple) make out on the dance floor, and Gloria tells him the truth.   Main character: Jay, who has the problem of Gloria accusing him, and something to prove.

Finally, we have (1) Haley observing that Alex is too servile on the phone with a popular girl at school; (2) Haley gives her advice on how to be more cool with the girl, and forces her to follow it; (3) Haley later sees Alex has mastered this, to her shock and gratification; only to have (4) It all get messed up and Haley returns to her old, too-eager-to-please self.  Main character: Haley, concerned about her sister being uncool and wanting to fix it.  To her, it’s a problem (though not to Alex, initially).

Not every half-hour show has four storylines in an episode, but this is an example of one that manages to serve each with a limited number of scenes: as little as one scene each for the first and last act, and 2-3 brief scenes in the second act.  Note that in every case, we return to the normal status quo at the end of the episode, one which may not be deliriously happy (Jay still an aloof boss, Alex still uncool, etc.), but with the crisis that set off the story of the week now resolved…

To me, this is a great example of taking appealing source material that doesn’t specifically meet the usual story structure guidelines that books like SAVE THE CAT talk about, and adapting it aggressively to create a story that does.  (Spoiler Alert if you read beyond this point!)

I saw a quote from Tim Burton, saying about prior versions, “It was always a girl wandering around from one crazy character to another, and I never really felt any real emotional connection.”  And then an interview with the screenwriter Linda Woolverton on the WGA site here, which discusses how the story is really conceived as a kind of sequel to the original “Alice” and “Through the Looking Glass” books, where an older Alice goes back to Wonderland and has an adventure that feels much more like a movie story with the requisite structural shape.

In watching the movie, without knowing any of this, and having a vague recollection of the books as episodic and purposefully nonsensical, I was definitely impressed that somehow a clear story problem and goal had been added that gave the narrative drive.  Actually, two story problems, both of which were compelling and entertaining to me: (1) Alice’s pending marriage proposal from a man she doesn’t love, and being trapped in a world that stifles her creative spirit and seems to offer no escape, and (2) the goal in Wonderland of slaying the Jabberwock and restoring the white queen to power – something only Alice, apparently, can do.

I tried to work out what some of the “Save the Cat” beat sheet beats were, while watching.  Though further study (or your comments) might change my mind, here is what I came up with:

There’s a very engaging SETUP that gets us caring about Alice, whose father has died and who lives in a world she doesn’t connect to, and seems to be trapped in.  Although it reveals information about her, notice that it is problem, problem, problem from the very first pages.  If there’s one thing that tends to be the main advice I give writers (and myself) about their plotting, it’s “More problems!”  I think this script is a good example of constant conflicts and issues to be solved, that don’t fully get solved until the end.  Instead of wandering off into flights of fantasy spectacle (as I feared it would) without any real story, it kept the tension tight throughout, and stuck to the problems.

I think the CATALYST is the news that she’s going to be proposed to – which takes her generalized discomfort with the world she lives in to a much bigger and more pressing and specific place, as good catalysts tend to do.  It’s followed by all sorts of DEBATE, first about what to do about a variety of related issues (including whether to tell her sister about her husband’s cheating kiss), and then, once she’s entered “Underland,” the debate about whether she’s the right Alice, whether this is all a dream, and where to go and what to do.

Although this “bizarro world” is clearly the stuff of BREAK INTO ACT TWO from the very beginning of her time there, I would say the debate section hasn’t ended, and Act Two hasn’t started, until she’s come to realize this isn’t a dream, and we come to feel that she’s going to stay here and carry out a mission of some sort.  I see it as a rather soft break, not marked by one specific event or moment, but a clear change in direction from “figuring out what’s going on here” to “accept the challenge given me in this new world.”

That challenge, to restore the white queen to power, plays out as the main problem of the movie, but I kind of see it as the “B STORY.”  This is due to the fact that what I, as a viewer, most cared about (thanks to the Setup and Catalyst) was what she’s going to do when she gets back to her normal life, as I assume she will, by the end.  How is this experience going to affect and change her and allow her to face her “home life” successfully?  As always with the B Story, it has its own beats, its own beginning, middle and end, that ultimately dovetail with the A Story.  In this movie, though, it is more developed and central to the story than they normally are, because in a sense, the A Story is paused.  I know one could argue that her goal in Underland is really the A Story, but this is how I experienced it.  I don’t know that there’s one right answer.

For me, the second half of the movie was weaker than the first, because although the FUN AND GAMES led to something of a MIDPOINT and BAD GUYS CLOSING IN in the second act, the ALL IS LOST was a little weak, for me.  It felt like the hatter’s pending execution was the closest thing to that, but it didn’t take things to a DARK NIGHT OF THE SOUL moment, in my mind – it was kind of solved quickly, and without a sense that Alice is out of options and can now never win.  As a result, the extended finale, though it fit with the usual requirements, felt a little underwhelming to me, emotionally.  I didn’t feel Alice had quite been forced to grow and change in some clear and difficult way in order to rise to this occasion, and I wasn’t too convinced about what that change was that allowed her to go back to her home life, and very quickly state her rebellion against others’ plans for her.  This seemed a bit sketchy to me, too quickly, easily, and patly resolved, and not so “earned” by what had happened.

I definitely like the message of the movie, and found it funny and inventive and visually captivating, and I would recommend it.  At the same time, it wasn’t hugely emotionally satisfying in the end, to me.  I think part of what’s missing is what Dramatica would call an Impact Character – with whom the Main Character forms a passsionate relationship, where the “right approach” is debated until finally, in the end, someone changes.  The relationship with the Hatter, for me, didn’t quite rise to that level, dramatically – because there was not that clear conflict about what to do and how to be, on which Alice’s growth and change could be hung.

The book opens with a whole lot on the history of the Offensive Left Tackle in the NFL, why it’s now so important and highly paid.  (Hint: it has something to do with Lawrence Taylor, explaining Sandra Bullock’s last line in the movie — which was a big “huh?” for me, since none of this material was present in the movie.)  The book talks a lot about Michael Oher’s physical freakishness, in that he has the incredibly rare (and thus valuable) combination of size and QUICKNESS that is most valued in the left tackle (who protects a right-handed quarterback’s “blind side”).  This also wasn’t even really mentioned in the movie.

Instead, they focused, I think quite effectively, on Sandra Bullock’s character, and made it her story.  It’s one of those movies with two central characters who might seem equal in emphasis (like many romantic comedies).  But ask yourself this question: “Is it more giving us the experience of being this woman who takes in this boy, or the experience of this boy who gets taken in by this woman?”  I think the answer is clear — she’s the main character.

Michael, in Dramatica terms, is the Impact Character.  This is a great illustration of the importance of this character (and relationship with the Main Character) at the center of compelling stories – including true ones.  The book presented a great Overall Story about Michael’s arc, but you wouldn’t have necessarily seen this way of telling the story from the book – with her as the MC and him as the IC.  And there are certainly other ways you could do it.  But for my money (and that of the huge audience that has supported this movie and got her such recognition), this choice really worked.

So if the Main and Impact character both influence each other, and one makes a big change at the end, and the other stays steadfast (regarding their key approach to life that the story is about), how did it work in this movie?  My answer is this: Michael, the impact character, changes – in that he finally fully trusts and relaxes into the sincere love of a family.  Sandra’s character, pressed to evaluate her own motives and goodness at the All is Lost moment, ultimately is seen to remain steadfast in her path, and the rightness of that path is affirmed.

Michael has great impact on her throughout, and she gains much from this relationship, but her basic motives and approach are only reaffirmed in the end.  It’s a lot like the Jerry Maguire-Rod Tidwell relationship I often talk about – it’s deeply moving when this character she has impacted makes some sort of change that she has caused, and helps her see that her initial approach that she has stuck with, through thick and thin and even necessity, has worked.

I was especially intrigued by the way this movie handled the climax.  When Michael was being courted by colleges and working with Kathy Bates, my attention waned a bit, because it didn’t feel like much of a “Bad Guys Close In” section (getting his grade point average up to qualify for a scholarship did not feel like a big or believable enough threat in the scheme of things)  Knowing the true story of his success, I began to worry that they weren’t going to have an “All is Lost” moment (like SAVE THE CAT talks about).  But boy, did they find one!

The issue of the NCAA questioning the family’s motives, and causing Michael to question them, is something I didn’t even remember from the book, and I’m guessing is something the movie GREATLY expanded upon in order to find an “All is Lost” moment.  And it was a great one, in my opinion, because it truly felt like the main question of this movie was now being answered with a resounding “No.”   (To me, that question was: “Will she make Michael a true and permanent part of this family in a way that changes his and everyone’s lives for the better?”  And because it really comes down to whether these two incomplete characters will end up “together,” or not, I’d classify it as what Blake Snyder would call a “Buddy Love” movie.)

This “All is Lost” sequence rocked both the Main and Impact Character to their core (but we feel it much more through the Main Character – we see things “through” her, but look “at” Michael).  And it led to a satisfying Act Three in which a new solution is found, so that the story problem is finally put to rest.

Finding a personal and emotionally compelling “take” on a true story is so important, in my opinion, to making it work for an audience.  I think “The Blind Side” is a great example of how to do that…