Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

Genre
Action/Adventure
Written By
Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio
Logline
When the Governor of England's daughter is kidnapped, a young blacksmith teams up with the devilish but charming Captain Jack Sparrow, and the two set out on a high-seas adventure to save her.
Why break it down?
I've made no secret of it...I love summer at the movies.

So much do I love summer movies, in fact, that I've made sacrifices in their pursuit. Hot date Saturday night? Canceled. Got a "Pacific Rim" showing to catch. Federal tax return due? Maybe next year. "Fast & Furious" marathon-slash-muscle-car-themed-potluck at my place. Family in town? Screw 'em. "Die Hard" trilogy. Last two don't count.

Which is why this edition of ClassAct is very special. Today, we're tackling one of the biggest blockbusters of all time…"Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl!" And what an awesome flick to study -- Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio are two of the most bankable scribes in the game, having penned Aladdin, The Legend of Zorro, Shrek, National Treasure, and even 2013's The Lone Ranger, which was honestly pretty cool if anyone got the chance to see it. Point being, if there's anybody who knows big-budget Hollywood spectacle, it's these guys. So what can we learn about three-act structure from "Curse of the Black Pearl?"

"PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL" IS AN EXAMPLE OF A THREE-ACT ADVENTURE SCRIPT. Beat-for-beat, it plays magnificently within the structure we've come to know, and can teach us about LAYERING OUR WORLDS WITH COMPLEX BACKSTORIES AND SPECIFICS. It can also teach us how to CRAFT EFFECTIVE MACGUFFINS, which (like "Tangled" a few posts back) can go a long way toward adding stakes to our characters' journeys.

So read up, keep an eye out for the beats, and we'll look at the film's structure after the jump. (Click the [+] button for a summary of each scene.)

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Genre
Action / Thriller
Written By
Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham, Simon Kinberg
Logline
When the serial killer Lord Blackwood rises from his grave, detective Sherlock Holmes and his trusted partner Watson set out to unravel the mystery of his reappearance. What they discover, however, is a far greater threat -- one that, if realized, could bring all of England to its knees...
Why break it down?
Boy, has it been a whirlwind of a summer. I've zipped around the world, watched some of my best friends get married, moved into a new place, and (perhaps best of all) read not one...but TWO of the best scripts I've ever read! Of course, however, there's been one little thing missing from it all: A ClassAct post :)

So after two grueling months of silence...I'm back, baby! This week's breakdown is particularly exciting because it tackles a genre we've yet to see here on ClassAct: The mystery script. And since you know I love me some summer tentpoles, what better way to re-kick things off than with a breakdown of Guy Ritchie's 2009 box office banger, "Sherlock Holmes?"

"SHERLOCK HOLMES" IS AN EXAMPLE OF A THREE-ACT MYSTERY SCRIPT, which can teach us about outlining complex puzzles for our protagonists to work through piece-by-piece. It can also teach us about writing CREATIVE SET PIECES, which is important for anyone hoping to sell a big-budget action script. And finally - though perhaps most importantly - "Sherlock Holmes" is a shining example of SNAPPY, EFFICIENT DIALOGUE, which is one of the toughest skills in all of screenwriting to master.

So read up, keep an eye out for the beats, and we'll look at the film's structure after the jump. (Click the [+] button for a summary of each scene.)

The Santa Clause (1994)

Genre
Comedy / Fantasy
Written By
Leo Benvenuti, Steve Rudnick
Logline
A grumpy guy who hates Christmas becomes the new Santa Claus after he accidentally kills the previous one on Christmas Eve.
Why break it down?
My roommates recently dusted off the old Nintendo 64 for a round of "Goldeneye: 007," arguably the greatest video game ever made. I'd be hard pressed to think of a thing I spent more time trying to conquer as a kid (save briefly for my Pog collection and the occasional yo-yo trick, but that's a conversation for another day). Back then, you could have asked me to play "Goldeneye" right in the middle of the 'Boy Meets World' series finale and I'd still have peed my zipper-knee'd cargo pants with excitement. Flash forward to 2012: The roommates invite me to the couch for a friendly game, and I halfheartedly respond with, "Meh...I'll pass."

Is it that I don't love "Goldeneye" anymore? Absolutely not. Is it that I'm afraid of returning to "Goldeneye" after a decade of "Call of Duty" only to discover it's nowhere near as great as my adolescent brain would have me remember? You betcha. See, I love "Goldeneye" exactly as it exists in my memory, and hell if a Saturday afternoon round of License To Kill is going to come in and mess that up. Strangely enough, I felt much the same way approaching 'The Santa Clause.' At seven years old, this was my favorite film in the world; at 23, I was bound to feel different, right? Well, having now watched it, I'd say the answer is definitely yes. As a kid, I loved 'The Santa Clause' because it was colorful and funny. As an adult, I love it because it's TOTALLY F*CKING BRILLIANT.

'THE SANTA CLAUSE' IS THREE-ACT STRUCTURE IN ITS PUREST FORM. Beat for beat, it's filled with familiar screenwriting tropes that every good writer should be able to recognize, even after he's taught himself to break from them. First and above all, the film can teach us about USING STRUCTURE TO BUILD CHARACTER ARCS for both the protagonist and the villain, which is perhaps one of the most important and oft-overlooked staples of good storytelling. Also, it can teach us about HEIGHTENING OBSTACLES FOR THE PROTAGONIST IN ACTS II AND III, which will keep that sense of urgency running strong in the latter pages of our scripts. And finally, 'The Santa Clause' can show us how to PUNCH UP INDIVIDUAL SCENES FOR CONFLICT AND HUMOR, so that no one moment ever feels too expositional or contrived. Oh, and I almost forgot...be on the lookout for plants and payoffs, because this movie is crawling with them!

So read up, keep an eye out for the beats, and we'll look at the film's structure after the jump. (Click the [+] button for a summary of each scene.)

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

Genre
Action / Adventure
Written By
Roland Emmerich, Jeffrey Nachmanoff
Logline
A climatologist races across the country to save his teenage son as a global superstorm wreaks havoc on the planet.
Why break it down?
I've been meaning to see this little movie called 'The Artist' for quite some time. The reviews have been stellar, my friends enjoyed it, the Academy showered it with awards...yet week after week, I find myself outside the theater having the same conversation:

Of course, I'll see 'The Artist' eventually, but there's something about watching shit explode that I simply can't resist. Say what you want, but action was my first love in cinema and I'll always have a place for it in my heart. Which recently got me thinking...what are some films I loved as a kid that could be useful to break down on ClassAct? After much debate, I settled on a movie I loved in theaters and never saw again until now: 2004's end-of-the-world apocalyptic romp, 'The Day After Tomorrow.'

Roland Emmerich knows how to make a disaster flick, and if that's what you're into, he's a perfect writer to study. 'THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW' IS AN EXAMPLE OF AN UNUSUALLY LONG FIRST ACT, which will allow us to put that section under a microscope and gain a more detailed understanding of its important beats. It's also an example of SUSPENSEFUL EXPOSITION, which we can use to build upon the spectacle-like impact of Plot Point #1. And like 'Love Actually' a few weeks ago, it can teach us about WRITING FOR AN ENSEMBLE CAST, which can be useful for creating detailed B-stories and ancillary plot threads.

So read up, keep an eye out for the beats, and we'll look at the film's structure after the jump. (Click the [+] button for a summary of each scene.)

Tangled (2010)

Genre
Adventure/Comedy
Written By
Dan Fogelman
Logline
Beautiful, magic-haired Rapunzel has been trapped in a tower her entire life. But when a handsome thief stumbles through her window, the two set off on an adventure that will teach them both what they've always been missing.
Why break it down?
Dan Fogelman is one of the biggest writers in Hollywood right now, and rightfully so. Since 2006, he's written 'Cars,' 'Fred Claus,' 'Bolt,' 'Tangled,' and 'Crazy, Stupid, Love,' and his latest, the Seth Rogen/Barbara Streisand-starring 'My Mother's Curse,' just wrapped filming and should be due for release later this year (download a draft of it here and bask in the amazingness). Hands down, he's one of the most reliably entertaining writers working today, and is a must-read for anyone serious about learning the craft. So why break down his 2010 animated flick, 'Tangled?' Well, because I just saw it…and WOW. Why on Earth did I wait so long?!

'TANGLED' IS AN EXAMPLE OF A NUMBER OF SCREENWRITING STAPLES, namely THREE-ACT STRUCTURE, PLANTS AND PAYOFFS (which we've touched on before), and the oft-used MACGUFFIN, a type of plot device that drives a story forward regardless of what it actually is. MacGuffins are used all the time, but you'd be surprised at how few people actually know what they are, so for a great explanation, check out the Wikipedia page. It's simple and effective, just like the movie 'Tangled.' (See what I did there?)

So read up, keep an eye out for the beats, look for the Plants and Payoffs, and we'll break down the film's structure after the jump. (Click the [+] button for a summary of each scene.)

Love Actually (2003)

Genre
Romantic Comedy
Written By
Richard Curtis
Logline
A film that follows nine London couples as they experience love, loss, and friendship in the weeks leading up to Christmas.
Why break it down?
As a man, it can be tough to admit you like chick flicks. Progressive as the world has become, I still dare you to tell your bro's how much you liked the movie 'Wimbledon' and see if you don't get repeatedly superman-punched in the dick. So instead of begging you to give chick flicks a shot (seriously, though...what do you have to lose?), I'll just say - as I did back when I started this blog - that if nothing else, ROMANTIC COMEDIES CAN TEACH US A GREAT DEAL ABOUT HOW TO STRUCTURE A SCRIPT, which is reason enough to at least take them seriously. That's why today, after two long months without a post, we're going to break down my third-favorite chick flick of all time...Richard Curtis' 2003 date-night masterpiece, 'Love Actually.'

'LOVE ACTUALLY' IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE ENSEMBLE FILM, a type of narrative in which several different stories (each with its own protagonist[s]) are weaved around a single overarching theme. 'Crash', for example, is an ensemble film, as are 'Boogie Nights,' 'Requiem for a Dream,' and 'Magnolia'. They're notoriously difficult to write, as there are no established rules for making them work. But although it seems complex on the surface, you'll quickly find that 'Love Actually' is a pretty straightforward script, which is great...because it means we can use it to learn how to write ensemble films of our own (as always, see the Analysis section below for more)!

So read up, keep an eye out for the beats, and we'll look at the film's structure after the jump. (Click the [+] button for a summary of each scene.)

Miracle (2004)

Genre
Sports / Drama
Written By
Eric Guggenheim
Logline
The true story of coach Herb Brooks, who led the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team to a seemingly impossible victory over the world champion Russians.
Why break it down?
There's a movie coming out in a few weeks called 'Warrior.' And if word on the street is any indication, I might be the only film student on the planet who wants to see it. Call me a sucker (actually, don't. The reviews so far have been stellar), but I can't help it…I just have a thing for sports movies.

Now, when I say "sports movies," I don't just mean movies where people smack each other and toss balls around (could have worded that differently...didn't); I mean films that follow THE SPORTS MOVIE FORMULA - in essence, three-act structure with training montages, motivational speeches, and a "championship game" climax. 'The Great Debaters?' Sports movie. '8 Mile?' Sports movie. 'The King's Speech?' Really good sports movie. In its own way, each of these films is drawn from movies like 'Rocky' and 'The Karate Kid,' just without the boxing gloves and kimonos and subtle hints at homoeroticism. So what sports films can we break down to get a better understanding of three-act structure? Enter my favorite sports film of all time - directed by the same guy who did 'Warrior' - 2004's 'Miracle.'

'MIRACLE' IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE SPORTS MOVIE FORMULA, a form of three-act structure that distinctly lays out where the important beats and plot points are supposed to appear. As an added bonus, IT CAN ALSO TEACH US HOW TO HIDE THE STRUCTURE OF OUR FILMS INSIDE COMPELLING SCENES, so that audiences will stop watching for technical handiwork and become immersed in the story and characters onscreen.

So read up, keep an eye out for the beats, and we'll look at the film's structure after the jump. (Click the [+] button for a summary of each scene.)

Men In Black (1997)

Genre
Sci-Fi/Action/Comedy
Written By
Ed Solomon
Logline
When a New York cop is recruited to an agency that monitors alien activity on Earth, he and his new partner must race to save the world from an attack that would end life as we know it.
Why break it down?
Ever go several years without seeing an old friend, only to reunite and feel like no time passed at all?

Welcome to my experience watching 'Men In Black,' a flick I must have seen three hundred times in the two years between its release and my tenth birthday. But after our families moved apart…you know, we went to different high schools, I made new friends (like 'Barbershop' and the first 'X Files' movie), and somehow, 'Men In Black' and I sort of lost touch. Which is why seeing it again after all these years has been so great; it's been at least a decade, but nothing has changed! This movie still sits firmly atop my list of blockbusters that do it right, and aside from being a pristine example of three-act structure, it can teach us a number of things about the RE-WRITE PROCESS, which, as anyone will tell you, is paramount to the success of a screenplay.

'MEN IN BLACK' IS AN EXAMPLE OF A THREE-ACT ACTION SCRIPT (much like 'The Mummy'), which can help us understand how three-act structure works across a range of other genres. IT CAN ALSO TEACH US ABOUT PLANTS AND PAYOFFS - i.e., "motifs" that are established early in a story to be called back later on - which are usually incorporated during re-writes of a script. This is because often times, it can be difficult for a writer to know where to plant a motif until she knows exactly how (and where) to pay it off, which is why many writers will compose their film, find the Payoffs they want to include toward the end, then go back and Plant them in a second, or 30th, draft.

In the synopsis that follows, these Plants and Payoffs will be marked in orange. For an extra challenge, try predicting where in the script you think a Plant will be called back; you just might be surprised by how often you get it right. Other than that, pretty much every Plot Point shows up exactly where it should, so read up, keep an eye out for the beats, and we'll look at the film's structure after the jump. (Click the [+] button for a summary of each scene.)

Source Code (2011)

Genre
Sci-Fi / Action
Written By
Ben Ripley
Logline
When he wakes up in the body of another man, a U.S. soldier discovers that he's now the key player in an operation to prevent a terrorist attack.
Why break it down?
Boy, was this one a blast. A few weeks ago, I wrote about the importance of understanding three-act structure as a prerequisite to disregarding it. And the question I've been asked the most since then:

"Is there a film you enjoy that violates three-act structure?"

Why, of course there is! I encourage understanding three-act structure in much the same way Cormac McCarthy might encourage understanding syntax; If you take the time to learn it up and down, you'll naturally begin to understand how to defy it in a way that properly services your story. And what better example of this theory than Ben Ripley's 'Source Code,' an under-the-radar masterpiece that - even after a summer of surprisingly good films - still stands as my undisputed favorite of 2011 (so far).

If you haven't seen this movie yet, stop reading immediately and go watch it. I'll wait. Okay, are you done? WASN'T IT AWESOME?! 'SOURCE CODE' IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE "GROUNDHOG DAY" FORMULA, which is a type of structure in which the same event is repeated over and over again with different information (and different consequences) being presented each time. IT CAN ALSO TEACH US HOW TO MAKE THE MOST OF OUR INDIVIDUAL SCENES; 'Source Code' contains less than half the number of scenes that most movies do, meaning each one has to be carefully crafted to drive the story forward without wasting any precious time.

This movie is structured a bit differently, so read up, keep an eye out for the beats, and we'll look at the film's structure after the jump. (Click the [+] button for a summary of each scene.)

The Matrix (1999)

Genre
Sci-Fi / Action
Written By
Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski
Logline
A young computer hacker discovers that our world is a virtual reality, created by intelligent machines to enslave Mankind. Now, he must join humanity's fight against the machines, and accept his new role as leader of the resistance.
Why break it down?
Remember back when you didn't even know what three-act structure was? When you could watch 'Rocky' and 'The King's Speech' back-to-back and live blissfully unaware that you'd just watched the same movie twice in a row? Hell, in a way I'm still there; I've seen each of those films a dozen times, and despite the fact that I recognize the similar plot points, I love each one for completely different reasons. To me, they're still two unique movies with their own original stories, which is the beauty of understanding how to structure a film; you can have the mold in front of you, but it's what you fill that mold with that makes your story great. So this week, we're going back to basics, breaking down one of the cleanest examples of three-act structure to come out in the last decade: Andy and Lana Wachowski's sci-fi masterpiece, The Matrix.

Beat for beat, THE MATRIX IS A DEFINITIVE BEGINNER'S GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING THREE-ACT STRUCTURE. They teach it in film school and they do so for a reason; it's exciting, emotionally resonant, and it hits every single plot point exactly where it's supposed to (give or take a few pages, of course).

So read up, keep an eye out for the beats, and we'll look at the film's structure after the jump. (Click the [+] button for a summary of each scene.)

How To Train Your Dragon (2010)

Genre
Action/Comedy
Written By
William Davies, Dean DeBlois, Chris Sanders
Logline
Having dreamed of being a dragon hunter his entire life, a clumsy young Viking learns there's more to the creatures than meets the eye after he strikes up an unlikely friendship with a fire-breathing Night Fury.
Why break it down?
I'll be honest…How To Train Your Dragon is my favorite film of all time. The soundtrack is in my top two. I have plans to name my first dog Toothless, and my second John Powell. It's the one film I'm almost completely incapable of being objective about. And guess what? For all its brilliance, the script follows classical three-act structure right down to the very last beat.

'HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON' IS AN EXAMPLE OF TWO PLOTLINES BEING WEAVED AROUND A SINGLE PROTAGONIST AT ONCE (see the Analysis section below), which can teach us how to keep Act 2 exciting and build satisfying arcs for our characters. And as an added bonus, IT CAN SHOW US HOW TO USE THE 'ROLL DOWNHILL' TO DRIVE OUR CHARACTERS TOWARD A LOW POINT, which will make our climaxes ten times more intense (which, my friend Colton has just informed me, is what she said).

So read up, keep an eye out for the beats, and we'll look at the film's structure after the jump. (Click the [+] button for a summary of each scene.)

The Road To El Dorado (2000)

Genre
Adventure/Comedy
Written By
Terry Rossio, Ted Elliott
Logline
Two smooth-talking con artists are sent on the journey of a lifetime when they get their hands on a map to the fabled city of El Dorado.
Why break it down?
Let's get something straight: I loved the movie Avatar. That being said, I have come to terms with the fact that it's pretty much a beat-for-beat replica of Pocahontas. And as much as I like the movie, I'll admit it makes me sad that I can't defend it when people liken Jake Sully to John Smith. I still think, however, that Avatar can teach us some important lessons about writing. The first is to find an original way to tell your story; the movie may have made some cash (understatement?), but I've heard Jim Cameron get slammed too many times for being a plagiarist, which I'm sure would break any writer's heart if he had to hear it to his face. But in my opinion, the second lesson is way more important: Simply said, WE CAN LEARN A LOT ABOUT STORYTELLING FROM WATCHING CHILDREN'S MOVIES. Take any animated classic and break it down scene-by-scene...what will you find? Three-act structure, son! And since that's what ClassAct is all about, today we're going to take a look at one of my many childhood treasures, 'The Road To El Dorado.'

'THE ROAD TO EL DORADO' IS AN EXAMPLE OF A FAST-PACED THREE-ACT SCRIPT, which can teach us how to use the acts to our advantage and give our stories momentum (so that nobody ever calls them my least favorite word…boring). And as an added bonus, THE FILM CAN SHOW US HOW TO WRITE EXCITING EXPOSITION (especially in the first fifteen pages), AND IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PURPOSEFUL ACTION (which we talked about in last week's post).

So read up, keep an eye out for the beats, and we'll look at the film's structure after the jump. (Click the [+] button for a summary of each scene.)

The Mummy (1999)

Genre
Action/Adventure
Written By
Stephen Sommers
Logline
On an dig in the ancient city of Hamunaptra, a smart-mouthed American faces the fight of his life when his expedition crew accidentally awakens a 3,000-year-old mummy.
Why break it down?
I'll be honest…when it comes to movies, summer is my season. Hate all you want, but the numbers don't lie; people (not always smart ones, but certainly ones who buy tickets) love action, and I'm not ashamed to be one of them. That being said, I've been let down by as many blockbusters as I've liked, meaning they - like everything else - can be tricky to get right. A good blockbuster has to do a number of things to be deemed good, one of the most important being CREATING ACTION THAT'S PURPOSEFUL (I.E, ACTION THAT DOESN'T JUST HAPPEN TO CHARACTERS, BUT COMES AS A RESULT OF WHAT THEY DO). So what kinds of scripts can we study to better understand the anatomy of a good blockbuster? Enter one of my childhood faves, 'The Mummy.'

'THE MUMMY' IS AN EXAMPLE OF A CLASSIC THREE-ACT ACTION/ADVENTURE SCRIPT, which can help us understand where specific beats need to be in order to keep our stories driving forward. IT CAN ALSO TEACH US HOW TO WRITE PURPOSEFUL ACTION, so that we can avoid that dreaded "It was fun, but it was missing something…" feeling.

So read up, keep an eye out for the beats (a new one happens every fifteen pages!), and we'll look at the film's structure after the jump. (Click the [+] button for a summary of each scene.)

How To Lose A Guy In Ten Days (2003)

Genre
Romantic Comedy
Written By
Kristen Buckley, Brian Regan, Burr Steers
Logline
Advertising agent Ben Barry has made a bet that he can get any woman to fall in love with him in ten days. Magazine writer Andie Anderson is writing an article about how to get a man to dump her in ten days. When the two meet at a local bar, the tables are set for one hell of a rocky relationship.
Why break it down?
A guy once told me to look at my screenplay like an Oreo cookie. If the crunchy parts on the outside are Acts 1 and 3, he said, then Act 2 is arguably the most important, because it makes up the bulk of the cookie experience and therefore has to be the sweetest part. Once I got over his on-the-nose approach to analogy making (it's like a cookie? Really?), I realized that it's actually not a bad comparison. Writing a screenplay is tough, especially when it comes to the dreaded SECOND ACT; Most people know how they want their story to begin and end, but find themselves dead in the water when it comes to filling up that space in between. And no matter how good Acts 1 and 3 are, if the middle section ain't sweet, your cookie's no good. So what kind of scripts can we study to get a grasp of Act 2? Enter the romantic comedy.

'HOW TO LOSE A GUY IN TEN DAYS' IS AN EXAMPLE OF A RIGIDLY-STRUCTURED SECOND ACT, which can help us understand the basic plot points and directional shifts that typically show up in three-act stories. And as an added bonus, IT CAN ALSO TEACH US ABOUT WRITING FOR (GASP!) TWO PROTAGONISTS AT ONCE.

So read up, keep an eye out for the beats, and we'll look at the film's structure after the jump. (Click the [+] button for a summary of each scene.)