Long before the Save the Cat “beat sheet” came along, screenplay structure theories going back to Syd Field talked about the importance of the midpoint of a script.

Something big tends to happen there that changes the story in some way.

But how big should it be? How much should it change things?

Raising the stakes

The one thing most agree on is this: the stakes rise at the Midpoint. Some call it a “point of no return,” where the main character is now “in it” in a bigger way than ever before.

A classic example is when Michael kills Solozzo and McCluskey in The Godfather.

Now the non-gangster son of a mafia don is a killer and key member of the mob. And in the goal of protecting his father and family from their enemies, he’s just dropped a major bomb that will only escalate things as the “bad guys close in” and declare war.

Note that the problem or goal of the movie doesn’t begin here. Michael and his brothers were dealing with their father being shot and rival families targeting them throughout the so-called “fun and games section” (first half of act two).

I say “so-called” because one of the most common notes I give on scripts is that things usually aren’t “fun” in “Act 2A” for the main character — only for the audience as they watch them struggle in an upside down world with a problem/goal that will be very hard for them to solve. As they start trying to do that, we have scenes that reveal the “promise of the premise” worthy of being in the “trailer,” as Blake Snyder liked to say.

Continuing a journey, not starting one

This is the main thing I want to emphasize: the midpoint of a script is simply an important development or event in an ongoing process of trying to solve the one big problem of the story. Of achieving the main outcome the audience roots for. (And yes, there can be one or more secondary stories and internal arcs, but they’re secondary!)

It is a big moment, after which things will only be that much more urgent, important and fraught with difficulty. But it’s not the beginning of battle and problems around the main story goal. That’s already well underway.

A consulting client recently mentioned to me the idea of a 2-goal plot, where the goal changes in the middle. (Thanks, Allen, for inspiring this post!) It’s not the first time I’ve considered the possibility of a change of objective at the midpoint of a script.

In fact, this is one of the most common notes I give to writers pitching me ideas in my Idea Course. I usually crave a better understanding of the active process or plan for the main character in Act Two than their loglines tend to provide. Once I get that, I often notice that they’re putting a massive shift in the story goal at the Midpoint.

To my mind, this usually doesn’t work so well. I’m more comfortable with a shift as we begin Act Two (which is typical), or as we begin Act Three (where now the Death Star needs to be attacked). But bifurcating the story in the middle with two separate goals that don’t connect so much? I tend to not be a fan of that, as it creates a sense of two separate stories, one that ends at the Midpoint and another that begins there.

Are there some successful movies out there that get away with this, despite my not recommending it? I can think of a couple. (Neither of which were spec scripts a writer broke in with, both of which were based on popular source material.) The first is Titanic.

I imagine James Cameron racked his brain for a personal story to focus on in his depiction of this event, and settled on a love story. The first half of the movie is about the challenges to that. The second half is about surviving the disaster. Although you could say Leo’s focus is on loving Kate and being with her throughout. But certainly their circumstances massively change at this point, as well as what has to be done to solve their new problem.

So I’ll give you that one. It’s not-traditional and I’d file it under “don’t try this at home.”

Another interesting example is Legally Blonde. Elle Woods goes from “trying to get Warner back” to “trying to win a legal case and be a real lawyer” after she finds out she’s got a new opportunity to do so, at the Midpoint.

As such, she shifts emphasis from a “wrong goal” in the audience’s mind – more like what Save the Cat would call a “Rite of Passage” story — to something that feels healthier and better for her. Not that we don’t feel for her as she stalks Warner and is an outcast at Harvard Law in Act 2A. But we don’t think it’s the best ultimate goal. We root for her “Fool Triumphant” self-actualization in Act 2B and Act 3 much more.

Essentially, chasing Warner was just the mechanism to put her inside this “establishment” that she’s going to transform with her better values, and rise above, despite being considered a “fool” by most people there. And you could say that goal sort of begins in early Act 2 when she’s kicked out of class, but she becomes way more conscious of it post-Midpoint (and way less interested in getting Warner back).

Similar to Titanic, I think the key to this “2-plot, switching at the Midpoint” approach is that the first goal is compelling, difficult, entertaining, and everything else you want a movie goal to be. And so is the second goal.

If things are going to shift at the Midpoint like this, I’d say you’d need each of the “two stories” to do everything you’d want “one main story” to do, while intertwining them as much as possible so that they feel like intertwining plots and not a Midpoint “re-start.”

But I think that most of the time it’s much more useful for the midpoint of a script to be just that — a midpoint in an ongoing pursuit, not the end of one and the start of another.

False Victory/False Defeat

Writers sometimes obsess over something else  Save the Cat talked about: the Midpoint representing a temporary high or low, and the “All is Lost” moment at the end of Act Two representing its opposite.

This can lead to confusion. If the “All is Lost” is the low point (hence its name), how could there be a “false victory” there?

The key word is “temporary.” The situation at the Midpoint might briefly feel like a clear victory or defeat, but it’s not lasting. Any victory will soon be replaced by more trouble, as “Bad Guys Close In.” And if there’s a victory at the “All is Lost,” it’s going to soon be replaced by a bigger defeat. (Which is also temporary, with Act 3 to come.)

What’s far more important than those two “falses” is this: constant problems and difficulty throughout all of act two. Conflict is the life blood of every story and every scene. And the story goal defies resolution throughout this long middle act. So yes, you can have brief moments of “fun” or “false victory” but what you mostly want is a story problem that is complicating and evolving in challenging ways for a main character who is continually, actively trying to solve it.