Midpoint. Valid? Interesting?

[The Road Warrior]

Originally Posted by socalwriter1

Muser, re: "eg raised stakes, growing and complicating obstacles, a twist, revelation, shift in character's development or a newly ignited hunger for his goal... "

Yes, this was my PART of my perception of the what the midpoint should be at the beginning of this thread.

BUT Road Warrior actually better reflected my feelings for a DESIRABLE (my opinion) midpoint when he said "...it seems like the pressure to keep the audience on their toes is more difficult than ever." That's what I meant I said about waking up the audience. So we need something to do that.

And it seems like a "twist" (Muser) or a drastic change in the story at midpoint (Road Warrior) is the way to accomplish this.

That's why I was hoping Road Warrior had an example of a movie in mind when he wrote that.

I'm sure he does, but is being too lazy to fish it out. Actually, this has come from somewhere, I read a lot of literature so occasionally the influences overlap.

But I'll get back on this and see if I can throw up some examples and we can dissect them guys.

[The Road Warrior]

Okay, whilst I try and find some examples, what does everybody see as the midpoint in the following two movies:-

APOCALYPSE NOW

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK.

[finalact4]

Originally Posted by SundownInRetreat

Midpoint of Titanic is the iceberg hitting. Not quite a revelation the protags are on the right track.

I agree with what was said before - a midpoint can be any type of plot point though in my experience it's usually a point of no return. Like Titanic.

In my latest script it was a major twist that spun everything 180.

Actually it is, because at the midpoint -- just before the iceberg strikes -- Rose fully commits to Jack when they make love in the old car. It's her point of no return, she can never go back to the 'Rose' she was. She sheds off her old life and takes the plunge into her new life. Her goal is to win Jack's love and get to America. Hitting the iceberg is an obstacle.

My opinions are just that... opinions.
FA4

[Mr. Earth]

Originally Posted by The Road Warrior

Okay, whilst I try and find some examples, what does everybody see as the midpoint in the following two movies:-

APOCALYPSE NOW

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK.

I think for Apocalypse Now it's when they pass through the hotly contested bridge. This is even more clear in the director's cut, extended version. It's a gateway to hell and their last chance at hearing from civilization. It's also so hotly contested that they would be in danger if they stayed or if they went down river, changed their mind, and tried to go back. Oddly though, the director's version kind of plays against the feeling of isolation and point of no return by including the French army and the Playboy bunnies and makes it more obvious why those scenes were cut.

When this thread was started Raiders was one of the first I thought of because it's a little more difficult to figure out. In fact, I think all the Indiana Jones are kind of hard to figure in this discussion. For Raiders, I think it must be when Indy decides his priority is to rescue/admit his love for the girl and not recover the ark, but I don't remember that being very obvious. The other Indiana Jones movies are even more difficult. I think this might have to do with the main character being a type of superhero which makes raising the stakes or a character twist more difficult to do. Superman and James Bond have the same kind of problem.

[The Road Warrior]

Originally Posted by Mr. Earth

I think for Apocalypse Now it's when they pass through the hotly contested bridge. This is even more clear in the director's cut, extended version. It's a gateway to hell and their last chance at hearing from civilization. It's also so hotly contested that they would be in danger if they stayed or if they went down river, changed their mind, and tried to go back. Oddly though, the director's version kind of plays against the feeling of isolation and point of no return by including the French army and the Playboy bunnies and makes it more obvious why those scenes were cut.

When this thread was started Raiders was one of the first I thought of because it's a little more difficult to figure out. In fact, I think all the Indiana Jones are kind of hard to figure in this discussion. For Raiders, I think it must be when Indy decides his priority is to rescue/admit his love for the girl and not recover the ark, but I don't remember that being very obvious. The other Indiana Jones movies are even more difficult. I think this might have to do with the main character being a type of superhero which makes raising the stakes or a character twist more difficult to do. Superman and James Bond have the same kind of problem.

I picked those two out for the reason you've identified Mr Earth. I know them pretty well, with Apoc/Now I've seen both versions many times, but couldn't easily see a midpoint.

Raiders, I was lost. Wiithout actually watching them, or if using a laptop, running forward to approx halfway, and looking at the scenes it's hard to pin it down. Jones is both non-believer, and a thrill seeker/collector -- but he knows the myths and legends inside out. And so he seems to react to a plot they are being pulled or thrust into by circs outside of their knowledge, and when the Nazi's acquire the Ark, it's almost a blessing, as they will directly incure the wrath of god and it gets Jones & Co off the hook. My analysis, all IMHO.

But througout, it's aplot full of double-dealing, a race to find the Ark, with reversals as the bad guys captilize on Jones's efforts and superior knowledge, and instinct/luck even, each part seems to set the next sequence off. Maybe.... the midpoint, is a pause or reconciliation/rest scene which I've discussed in the First Blood example below.

With Apoc/Now it seems to be a very incremental and slow burning plot with a continuing battle between Sheen's character and the crew, he's clearly being sucked in, spiritually/obsessively/however-ly, has to get up to Kurtz but as they proceed the resistance to continuing the mission builds and builds and Willard/Sheen has to confront his own demons and continue the insanity, each incident is a chance to turn back. For me, a lot is going in under the surface, it's a spiritual arc! IMHO.

... as you say, by the time they reach that darn bridge, it feels like a point of no return. But we also know that there's a confrontation going on inside Sheen throughout, his character wants to find out what's at the end of the river, what Kurtz is really about and how he deals with Kurtz will reveal or open up some extra dimension of self-knowldege. Willard says at one point "...but when I met him, I didn't know what I'd do" -- in V.O.

I was also thinking about FIRST BLOOD and THE TERMINATOR.

Quite a few films seem to use the midpoint as a natural break in the action, a rest, recoup, a natural pause so the we don't weary of the relentlessness of the plot/acton. a regrouping, testing out of ideas/povs/morality/a summary of where we're up to.

In FIRST BLOOD for example Rambo has spent the first half of the film being pursued up into the mountains, he's then hauled up and cooking outside the mine before the big break-out, (is this point -- where he's cooking the boar the midpoint? Or the radio discussion with Trautman, or.... ) and then during the break-out has been spotted by the boy, he spares him, and a reversal comes.

Rambo goes back to the cave, gets sealed in after the rocket attack.

And to the Nat. Guard he's dead. Job done.

It was a pursuit or manhunt film up til then, but with hints of the true relationship - "we're not hunting him, he's hunting us", as David Caruso's character says earlier in the pursuit.

Midpoint however -I'm still not sure, is it the scene that now occurs where Col Trautman and Teasle meet in the warm friendly bar and discuss guilt, war, hate and emotion, the law, a summary of where they've got to, it's a friendly bar, tonely different from the rest of the film, A pause in the heart-thumping action...

But juxtaposed, Rambo, in a quieter scene that contrasts well -- during a sort of long night of the soul to some, perhaps--- is down in the cave/mine with the rats, making his way to the surface, out of the underworld, Hades, or whatever.

And then it becomes a different type of film IMHO-- as the pursued seeks revenge and becomes the pursuer, and nobody can stop him...

I've read the book, and also Morrell's book on writing, and he used the Vogler, or hero's journey and other structural techniques for the book, and then a screenwriter gets involved, and adapts, and may have used these or other systems. I don't know if that's the case.
So when we look at a film, we have to be careful IMHO to not impose a method too readily, because some writers use a system, and others may write organically, but if we don't know this, we may use that to shore up arguments on structure.

THE TERMINATOR --- was the midpoint the time spent under the bridge? Another rest and reconciliation type of scene, with a nightmare flashback incorp'd, when Sarah wakes in the welcoming morning light under the bridge (we've been in noirish nightmare night until now) and she says "I heard dogs barking..." and Reese replies with something like "we use them as guard dogs in our world". And she first starts to get the pain of his world/life and what he's sacrificed to be with her.

Up until this point Sara Connor has had to choose between every so slightly crazy Kyle Reese and the police, whilst always evading the terminator, and it seems like a fight over her soul, over two views of reality, but by the time they get to the bridge, she's come over entirely to Reese's view. This includes "time travel - a hard pill to swallow!

But without watching it, and knowing the exact timing I couldn't say, there's also the love-making scene later, which consecrates their relationship - is that the midpoint?


With these films there may be a midpoint, in actual time it's a natural pause to "point", halfway through a 120 minute film, but there's also scenes that are just due, or fit etc, because of what came in the scene immediatley prior to that scene. If we write by imposing a midpoint from the outside, force it onto the structure, using whichever method, is this a reflection of how drama works, or is it artificial?

Are we seeng things that aren't there, except where we know that the writer consciously chose to follow a structure or theory as in First Blood?

[The Road Warrior]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_Now

-- a few paragraphs down in this wiki article, it says "Willard confides in Chef and Lance and they reluctantly continue the mission..."

Point of no return, or last point of no return, it's been no return most of the way through. But Willard confesses here, it follows the deaths at the bridge, and the information about the missing officer who went looking for Kurtz and was never heard from again. A lot happens at this stage in the script.

[socalwriter1]

Re: THE TERMINATOR --- was the midpoint the time spent under the bridge? Another rest and reconciliation type of scene, with a nightmare flashback incorp'd, when Sarah wakes in the welcoming morning light under the bridge (we've been in noirish nightmare night until now) and she says "I heard dogs barking..." and Reese replies with something like "we use them as guard dogs in our world". And she first starts to get the pain of his world/life and what he's sacrificed to be with her.

Up until this point Sara Connor has had to choose between every so slightly crazy Kyle Reese and the police, whilst always evading the terminator, and it seems like a fight over her soul, over two views of reality, but by the time they get to the bridge, she's come over entirely to Reese's view. This includes "time travel - a hard pill to swallow!

But without watching it, and knowing the exact timing I couldn't say, there's also the love-making scene later, which consecrates their relationship - is that the midpoint?

Yes, I've always thought that was the midpoint. Using this example would put it into J. Mercurio's earlier post about having the midpoint as "making it personal" vs. your midpoint as a drastic change in direction concept.

Just reinforces the no one size fits all idea.

[Mr. Earth]

Originally Posted by socalwriter1

Re: THE TERMINATOR

But without watching it, and knowing the exact timing I couldn't say, there's also the love-making scene later, which consecrates their relationship - is that the midpoint?

I would say that's it. The sex is symbolic of her giving in mind, body, soul to the whole idea and what her role is in the whole thing.

[Craig Mazin]

Something does happen in the midpoint usually, but it's not plot-oriented or strictly character-oriented, which is the mistake I think almost everyone makes.

It's theme-oriented.

Generally, in the middle of the movie, events occur that force the hero to realize that his code isn't working for him anymore, and that there is another, better way to live.

You know what I think "the midpoint" of Star Wars is?

The part where Luke is training with the floating ball thingy and actually, for one little moment, succeeds in using the Force. He doesn't yet believe it, but he's had a taste of what's to come... the very thing that will pay off in the end when he destroys the Death Star.

It's not plot or character on its own.

What is the movie about?

In the middle, the hero receives some evidence of it. He doesn't yet embrace it or have faith in it... but there's the hint of a new way of living.

[ChadStrohl]

Originally Posted by Craig Mazin

You know what I think "the midpoint" of Star Wars is?

The part where Luke is training with the floating ball thingy and actually, for one little moment, succeeds in using the Force. He doesn't yet believe it, but he's had a taste of what's to come... the very thing that will pay off in the end when he destroys the Death Star.

It's not plot or character on its own.

What is the movie about?

In the middle, the hero receives some evidence of it. He doesn't yet embrace it or have faith in it... but there's the hint of a new way of living.

Cool. That statement just peeled back another layer for me in regards to storytelling. Thanks Craig.

Of course the theme of Star Wars might actually be "Let the Wookie win" because in the end, the Wookie always wins.