Speaker 1: December eighteenth, twenty twenty four, allegedly according to that thing
Speaker 1: we call a calendar. This is indeed the Ocelli effect.
Speaker 1: You are the listener there. Of course, most of you
Speaker 1: catch this via the podcast, but we are live here
Speaker 1: on a let's see, what is it? Wednesday, Wednesday, Weldnesday,
Speaker 1: middle of a week, humpdays. Some people say, okay, anyway,
Speaker 1: it is what it is. It's Wednesday, and that's what
Speaker 1: it was, and the week that was and all that
Speaker 1: good stuff. Look, I've got veteran journalists with me, Albert Lanier.
Speaker 1: Now I say veteran journalist semi retired at one point,
Speaker 1: maybe retired completely at another point, but blogging, going out,
Speaker 1: writing new stuff, going out on substack. I think no, wait,
Speaker 1: he was on medium. Maybe he was on substack. Also
Speaker 1: he had a YouTube channel. He did a lot of
Speaker 1: stuff anyway, a lot of different writing Albert Lanier did,
Speaker 1: and examinations of writing, and a couple of times we
Speaker 1: even touched on the film industry and stuff like that
Speaker 1: on the show. And gotta say, though, he's got something
Speaker 1: a little different this time. Maybe it's not journalism, or
Speaker 1: maybe it's the art of journalism via that which you
Speaker 1: can create through another medium, which is indeed film, the visual,
Speaker 1: audio and other immersive experience that comes along with creating
Speaker 1: a film. Oh and they write stuff for that too, folks.
Speaker 1: Just saying. And I don't just watch documentaries all the time.
Speaker 1: I do watch other types of movies as well. But anyway,
Speaker 1: Albert Lanier, how you doing? First of all? And secondly,
Speaker 1: what is going on? Are we looking for new territory
Speaker 1: to conquer? Is that what's going on?
Speaker 2: Oh? Hi, Chuck, how are you in terms of new
Speaker 2: territory to conquer? I wasn't looking for the new territory.
Speaker 2: It seems like the new territory is found me. So
Speaker 2: what happened? Was this a little bit of a long
Speaker 2: story here. So I was supposed to go to a
Speaker 2: film festival in Vegas a couple of months ago. I
Speaker 2: have a you know, I guess I should even backtrack
Speaker 2: from that to set that up. I have gone into
Speaker 2: podcasting to an extent. I have a podcast called Final Cut,
Speaker 2: just part of what I'm here to promote as well
Speaker 2: as well as my as well as what I'm going
Speaker 2: to state next but or later on. So I have
Speaker 2: a podcast called Final Cut, which has been around since
Speaker 2: June of twenty twenty four, June of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: And that, of course is an accompaniment. It's a companion
Speaker 2: piece to Final Cut newsletter. That's a newsletter on Substack,
Speaker 2: which is a film newsletter.
Speaker 1: Okay, and.
Speaker 2: It is a is my return to writing about films
Speaker 2: because I used to be a film critic for about
Speaker 2: two thousand and two to twenty ten, I was covering
Speaker 2: film festivals as a journalist and as a film critic
Speaker 2: also for about about fifteen years in general, complete and
Speaker 2: it so so covering.
Speaker 1: You were covering films and festivals for films in Hawaii
Speaker 1: in the early ten hours, Okay, I was, yeah, you
Speaker 1: know what, I vaguely remember that you wrote a couple
Speaker 1: of pieces that were critic Oh I'm sorry, But the
Speaker 1: thing is, I vaguely remember that you had written some
Speaker 1: critiques of films. But I thought that was just, you know,
Speaker 1: a general part of what you might have done. I mean,
Speaker 1: a journalist is a journalist, so whatever you're reporting on
Speaker 1: your reportcon But that's interesting. I didn't realize you were
Speaker 1: also following around film festivals or that you know that
Speaker 1: you can dedicate yourself to something like that, because I
Speaker 1: don't usually think of Hawaii for film.
Speaker 2: Actually, you know, well, you know, there are a number
Speaker 2: of TV shows that were shot here that we're shot
Speaker 2: and done here. Everybody knows Hawaii Vo and mang up
Speaker 2: Yi and all that. Sure, it's a small film community
Speaker 2: year because you get a modest amount of films that
Speaker 2: come every year. They always want to make They always
Speaker 2: want more productions to come to Hawaii, right, or work
Speaker 2: for the crews that are here, more work for the filmmakers.
Speaker 2: And of course you have local filmmakers here in Hawaii.
Speaker 2: It's not a hub like I think you're in Georgia, right,
Speaker 2: if I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 1: Yeah, see, I I was just gonna say, it's certainly
Speaker 1: not like the entertainment industry that's been built here in Georgia,
Speaker 1: not just in Atlanta, but throughout the state. They've actually,
Speaker 1: you know, gone through a time period here where they
Speaker 1: attracted a lot of productions, you know, everything from The
Speaker 1: Walking Dead to the Turner Universe to you know, the
Speaker 1: cartoons that made in Georgia. Cartoons and everything that has
Speaker 1: been produced here in Georgia. I mean, Georgia by itself
Speaker 1: competes with the entire country of Canada. When it comes
Speaker 1: to you know, the film industry. Right, So again I
Speaker 1: just don't think of why. It doesn't mean it doesn't
Speaker 1: exist there. I just don't think of it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well again you have to understand. I was covering
Speaker 2: film festivals there, so Hawaii Film Festival, Hawaii International Film Festivals,
Speaker 2: and a couple of other film festivals there, and I
Speaker 2: ended up becoming a film critic. Like I said, when
Speaker 2: it was about thirty two, and I was online film
Speaker 2: critic upuntil I was forty, and I was covering film
Speaker 2: festivals before that as a journalist. I had been on
Speaker 2: your show previously that I talked about how I learned
Speaker 2: about filmmaking. When I was a kid. I did a
Speaker 2: course the library, and I had learned basic filmmaking techniques. Essentially,
Speaker 2: I learned filmmaking. I was twelve at thirteen years old, right,
Speaker 2: But I came out of that course in that class
Speaker 2: without you know, I didn't have a video camera. I
Speaker 2: didn't have a film camera. So without a video in
Speaker 2: a film camera, I couldn't really become a filmmaker. And
Speaker 2: what I wound up doing was going to film festivals,
Speaker 2: first when I was fifteen and then when I was seventeen.
Speaker 2: I was with the film festivals prior to becoming a
Speaker 2: journalist in nineteen ninety four. I did from about the
Speaker 2: time I was seventeen at the time I was twenty three.
Speaker 2: So that was sort of like my grad school if
Speaker 2: my class in the library was my undergrad the class,
Speaker 2: you know, going to the festival, meeting filmmakers and watching
Speaker 2: movies and learning there was kind of like grad school.
Speaker 2: And I used to say film school if I call
Speaker 2: it grad school. So when I became a journalist in
Speaker 2: ninety four, I started covering film festivals and I did
Speaker 2: that up until I was about forty. And so I
Speaker 2: say all this because I want to I want people
Speaker 2: to understand that I have a background. I have a
Speaker 2: certain kind of background in regards to film, so I'm
Speaker 2: not just someone who's a film fan. Really, I was
Speaker 2: never really a pure film buff. Like even when I
Speaker 2: was a young kid, I wasn't really into films other
Speaker 2: than oh that looks good, let's go watch that, or
Speaker 2: wanting to see movies. Okay, see, I wasn't into movies
Speaker 2: per se. It wasn't until I was twelve or thirteen
Speaker 2: and I took the course of the library.
Speaker 1: So you weren't engaged in.
Speaker 2: A bad into filmmaking.
Speaker 1: Okay, you weren't into filmmaking. And you also weren't engaged
Speaker 1: in any particular type of fandom where you know, you
Speaker 1: were just a fan of say, air genre or something
Speaker 1: like that. You didn't do that. You just kind of
Speaker 1: you want to be entertained once in a while, and
Speaker 1: a film was a good idea and it was a
Speaker 1: good thing to cover and you could enjoy a film
Speaker 1: or two. I get it right and fine. And the
Speaker 1: Final Cut, by the way, is that available just pretty
Speaker 1: much where any podcast is available. The Final Cut?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Final Cut is available on Spotify. You can check
Speaker 2: out the first season. Hopefully there'll be a second. First
Speaker 2: season is ten episodes. So it's very easy because, strangely enough,
Speaker 2: it's a combination of interviews. I interview a screenwriter, indie
Speaker 2: screenwriter who's a friend of mine, and also an actress
Speaker 2: slash filmmaker who's also his new friend of mine, so
Speaker 2: I interview both of them. I also read their audio
Speaker 2: versions of some of my reviews and some of my esseys.
Speaker 2: So it's pretty easy. I mean, I have to admit
Speaker 2: some of the episodes are easy because it's like eight
Speaker 2: nine minutes, so because I'm reading you know, uh, you know,
Speaker 2: reading my articles. So that's the reason I did it.
Speaker 2: I never wanted to be a podcast, totally shouldn't have
Speaker 2: mind that, but I am a podcast.
Speaker 1: It seems like everybody, it seems like everybody ends up
Speaker 1: making a podcast at this point to this video. And
Speaker 1: the funny thing is that when I started podcasting, because
Speaker 1: I'm kind of a podcast veteran at this point, it uh,
Speaker 1: there there were no seasons, there were there weren't none
Speaker 1: of these plans. People just did what they did and
Speaker 1: you know, they had theme music or whatever, and that
Speaker 1: was about it, right, and you know, so okay, anyway
Speaker 1: back to it though, because those things are available, and
Speaker 1: that's on Spotify, and again there's there's a substance and
Speaker 1: on substat.
Speaker 2: You can go to for final Cut, you can go
Speaker 2: to I don't say it at the end of the program,
Speaker 2: of course, but right now I want to mention that
Speaker 2: Final Cut can be found at Alanier dot substat dot com.
Speaker 2: That's Alanier dot subsect dot com and also on Spotify.
Speaker 1: Great, and I'll put the links to both of those
Speaker 1: in the show notes for you guys, so you can
Speaker 1: scroll down to the show notes on this podcast and
Speaker 1: go ahead and click on them and go check out
Speaker 1: Albert's work there, mister Lanier's work there. Anyways, back to it, though,
Speaker 1: So we got this going, and uh, this is of interest,
Speaker 1: But what what is happening here? I mean, now you're
Speaker 1: getting into the inner workings though it's not just film review,
Speaker 1: although you're you're doing some film review.
Speaker 2: I mean, what, what's a little bit Yeah, okay, there's
Speaker 2: a retro review section and I did that reluctantly. I
Speaker 2: didn't want to review movies again, but I'm open to
Speaker 2: being a film critic again. People want, you know, a
Speaker 2: reviewer if the if the price is right, you know.
Speaker 1: Look, totally totally understand, but we need some honest film
Speaker 1: reviewers here because I mean, I'm seeing some awful crap already.
Speaker 1: I mean I'm looking at previews of Gladiator two and one.
Speaker 1: What the hell happened?
Speaker 2: You know? Well, let me just basically speak to that
Speaker 2: where I get to it, because I'm not here to
Speaker 2: talk about film reviewing and film sure critics, but I
Speaker 2: stopped being a reviewer and a critic in twenty ten
Speaker 2: while I was about forty and recently what I found
Speaker 2: out when I came back to writing about film this
Speaker 2: year with Final Cut. It's what's occurred with all of
Speaker 2: these YouTube reviewers and movie talkers and all of these people.
Speaker 2: You have a bunch of young and dumb people. And
Speaker 2: that makes out harsh. I don't care I'm being harsh.
Speaker 2: You have a bunch of young and dumb people who
Speaker 2: know nothing about movies, who know absolutely nothing about filmmaking,
Speaker 2: and who are basically a number of them are paid
Speaker 2: minions from the major studios. They're basically bought and sold
Speaker 2: by the majors to essentially be kind of human billboards
Speaker 2: or human ads, or human basically human radio ads. That
Speaker 2: seems like a contradiction, but basically they're just walking advertisements
Speaker 2: or sitting advertisements for movies. They're not real reviewers, right,
Speaker 2: And some of them don't even want to be called
Speaker 2: critics that goodness, because.
Speaker 1: They're not well, but they're not.
Speaker 2: They're basically completely workless and useless people in regards to
Speaker 2: the film industry. And it's a it's a demonstration of
Speaker 2: what's occurred. It's a deterioration in the standards of looking
Speaker 2: at movies. Well, unfortunately, that's occurred.
Speaker 1: Okay, but they're not useless to the industry, mister Linear,
Speaker 1: There's no.
Speaker 2: No, They're useful. They're useful idiots to the industry.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Okay, that's all you were saying. They're useless to
Speaker 1: the industry because.
Speaker 2: They're useful liss to everyone else, right, they're useful to
Speaker 2: the industry. They're useful idiots to the industry.
Speaker 1: Well, let me let me see if I can describe
Speaker 1: what it is that I've seen and and see if
Speaker 1: if you and I are seeing the same thing, because
Speaker 1: I recognize that what has happened here with some of
Speaker 1: these YouTube people is they get a little bit of
Speaker 1: traction as sort of like a superfan. You know, the
Speaker 1: guy who's got the all the merch behind him, who's
Speaker 1: got shelves and shelves of the action figures or whatever
Speaker 1: it is that's attached to a particular grouping of movies
Speaker 1: or a universe of movies or whatever, and they're a
Speaker 1: superman on YouTube and they get an audience going. And
Speaker 1: the next thing, you know, is they get cooperation from
Speaker 1: the product that they're buying that they are a super
Speaker 1: fan from, and that's what they really are. They become
Speaker 1: that walking billboard, Like you said, almost you have to
Speaker 1: picture the guy walking around with the sandwich board advertising
Speaker 1: that product, because that's all he's doing is advertising the product,
Speaker 1: because he's a superman of the product. And that's all
Speaker 1: there is. It's not a critique, it's not informative. He's
Speaker 1: just a twenty minute or fifteen minute as for the film.
Speaker 1: Really and oh, by the way, they stack more ads
Speaker 1: into it. And when they have a new part of
Speaker 1: the universe that comes out, or they have a new
Speaker 1: television show that's an offshoot. Star Wars is probably the
Speaker 1: best example of this. I mean, the only way you
Speaker 1: can keep track of whatever Apple is releasing next in
Speaker 1: the Star Wars universe, right, or Disney is in Disney
Speaker 1: I mean to say, the only way to keep track
Speaker 1: of what Disney's gonna pump out next out of that
Speaker 1: you know, ridiculous Star Wars factory is to keep track
Speaker 1: of the super fans. Because if you start watching a
Speaker 1: guy now, or if you start watching him six months
Speaker 1: from now, they're going to insert the new commercials in there.
Speaker 1: And that's all it is is a vehicle for the
Speaker 1: commercials and for the product itself. It's like product placement
Speaker 1: within the product.
Speaker 2: Okay, right, Yeah, Well, like what they've done, I think
Speaker 2: you explain that very effectively. What they've done is somebody
Speaker 2: who used to be a contributor to the film website
Speaker 2: in a cool news and like I said, I was
Speaker 2: a reviewer on that site for that site for about
Speaker 2: eight years. What they've done is the studios have colonized
Speaker 2: the online film world. So what they've done is they
Speaker 2: are able to take the people on YouTube, the individual units,
Speaker 2: so to speak, and they can co opt them. And
Speaker 2: so they're co opting all these online entities, all these
Speaker 2: online channels, all these online shows, and they're co opting them.
Speaker 2: And they're basically either giving them flights to premieres where
Speaker 2: they can sit down with stars of the film or
Speaker 2: do stand up meaning stand up interviews with stars of
Speaker 2: the film, or giving them merch or giving them or
Speaker 2: outright paying them. And so what they've done is colonize
Speaker 2: and co opt and completely emotivate the online world into
Speaker 2: the studio. I call it a new studio system, not
Speaker 2: the old studio system. But that's what they done exactly.
Speaker 2: So that's why you have these fools like Chris Stuckman,
Speaker 2: and you have the critical drinker. You have these personalities
Speaker 2: who are waste of spaces. Well, and here's something like
Speaker 2: Chris Duckman has said he didn't want to do negative reviews. Well,
Speaker 2: no reviewer, no filk critic in their right mind whatever
Speaker 2: announce that to you would never say that. But this
Speaker 2: is because these people don't really want to be reviewers.
Speaker 2: Those two don't want to be reviewers. They want to
Speaker 2: be filmmakers. They're working on films as we speak. So
Speaker 2: they don't want to cut off the pipeline to where
Speaker 2: they can get their products distributed or possibly get their
Speaker 2: products distributed, whether it's the majors or whether it's any
Speaker 2: of the other mini mini majors or minor companies in
Speaker 2: the Hollywoo constellation and in the film industry here. Well,
Speaker 2: so yes, that's what you got to understand about these people.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, you're correct about all that, except I got
Speaker 1: another question here which is a big point of interest
Speaker 1: in my mind. And look, you and I both kind
Speaker 1: of appreciate Star Trek, right, and I gotta say, if
Speaker 1: you look at that universe, okay of stuff online, they
Speaker 1: have that completely locked down where you know, look, they
Speaker 1: have their merch that's coming out, they have new TV shows.
Speaker 1: Paramount as a streaming service, feeds them some guests for
Speaker 1: their podcast, right the stars of the shows, feeds them
Speaker 1: a couple other things, does pay them a little bit,
Speaker 1: does send them some free merch. They'll send them Star
Speaker 1: Trek uniform shirts so they can wear them in their videos.
Speaker 1: And they got a very low paying guy working constantly
Speaker 1: to create content which does nothing but sell their products,
Speaker 1: not just the online streaming service, but also the toys
Speaker 1: and the collectibles and the conventions and everything. So and
Speaker 1: all it takes is give them a little bit of
Speaker 1: access that maybe Entertainment Tonight used to have. Okay, now,
Speaker 1: does anybody watch that show any.
Speaker 2: In regards to the fandom, like the fantastic Star Trek fan,
Speaker 2: it's very different. Like those aren't reviewers, they're not critics,
Speaker 2: they're not trying to be most of them are not
Speaker 2: trying to be film professionals. I could say this is
Speaker 2: somebody who is the Star Trek certified Star Trek fans
Speaker 2: and has been to a Star Trek invention and has
Speaker 2: also been book to my local comic con and also
Speaker 2: an anime con. I can tell you that it's different
Speaker 2: with fans it's different with people who are just playing fans,
Speaker 2: not people who are trying to be filmmakers, not people
Speaker 2: who call themselves film reviewers, try to be filmmakers or
Speaker 2: directors or producers or anything like that. When you're talking
Speaker 2: about absolute, straightforward fans of Star Wars Star Trek, doesn't
Speaker 2: really matter what. It's very different if the studios want
Speaker 2: to give them access, the studios want to help them
Speaker 2: out with merch or all that kind of stuff, I'm
Speaker 2: all for that. Well, but because those people aren't trying
Speaker 2: to impact movies, they're not They're not the problem. Fans
Speaker 2: are never the problem, Okay, Okay, The fans who think
Speaker 2: and try to become film critics and reviewers and filmmakers
Speaker 2: that are the problem.
Speaker 1: I think you might have missed out probably either, Okay,
Speaker 1: I think you might have missed out on something here, Okay,
Speaker 1: because there is a whole universe of Star Trek people
Speaker 1: that make Star Trek movies independent Star Treks.
Speaker 2: True.
Speaker 1: Right, again, I.
Speaker 2: Don't look, I don't have a problem with that.
Speaker 1: Oh no, I'm I'm bringing it up just to say
Speaker 1: that at the end of the day, all that stuff
Speaker 1: is is some online content that the majority is not
Speaker 1: even paid for by the studio that is doing what
Speaker 1: serving to sell their products. I'm not saying that. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that the fans don't have an honest love
Speaker 1: for the you know, for the genre, for the you know,
Speaker 1: for the films, for the characters, for the universe. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that. All I'm saying is that at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, that has now been turned into
Speaker 1: an industry in and of itself that is there to
Speaker 1: do what make more money for the big boys, you know,
Speaker 1: is still Paramount is going to make its money off
Speaker 1: of these guys and these fan films that they used
Speaker 1: to be so afraid if they made them that they
Speaker 1: would take away from the big films or whatever. They're
Speaker 1: not afraid of that anymore. They're now using it as
Speaker 1: a stepping stone. I mean, I even saw the other day.
Speaker 1: I remembered that one of these independent fan films even
Speaker 1: gotten Michelle Nichols before she died to appear in one
Speaker 1: of their films, and you know, they were totally thrilled
Speaker 1: just because they got to meet Michelle Nichols. But the
Speaker 1: idea is though, that that that bolstered the star Trek cannon,
Speaker 1: that added to it, right, that became something else. I mean,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't even have to appear on IMDb and
Speaker 1: anything else. And these guys put their own money into
Speaker 1: these projects and everything else because they're into the fandom
Speaker 1: so much. But they've figured out a way now to
Speaker 1: not just sell these people junk or you know, or
Speaker 1: sell them merch. They figured out a way to get
Speaker 1: them to sell their own merch for stuff, pay them
Speaker 1: for it, and pay for their own stuff while they're
Speaker 1: making it independently, and just create giant ads, you know.
Speaker 2: Because now that I'm not really surprised with like that
Speaker 2: aspect doesn't really surprise. Like I said, I've been to conventions, yeah,
Speaker 2: of course, so I see it. It doesn't bother me.
Speaker 2: I'm not an unrealistic person, I said. I was a
Speaker 2: film critic for a reviewer for eight years. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: I've been around filmmakers. I've been around I've met a
Speaker 2: couple of people in the studios. So I'm not someone
Speaker 2: who has a sort of that maybe like these fans
Speaker 2: and has the purest kind of view or an unrealistic view.
Speaker 2: My room is realistic. The problem that I have is
Speaker 2: you don't have the kind of quality reviewers and critics,
Speaker 2: or very few of them that you had before.
Speaker 1: Oh, figure, that's the problem. I'm I'm just trying to
Speaker 1: recognize the ever shifting sands of what's going on in
Speaker 1: the media universe, right, And that's always important is to
Speaker 1: recognize that. Look, you know, if this happened twenty years ago,
Speaker 1: this is the way it would have went down. If
Speaker 1: it happened forty years ago, it would have not happened,
Speaker 1: you know, et cetera. You know, in the days when
Speaker 1: nobody had access to video cameras at all, it was
Speaker 1: difficult to make a ten minute film, right, But today
Speaker 1: that's nothing, and you can throw it up and you
Speaker 1: could put it on YouTube and a million people could
Speaker 1: see it within twenty four hours, depending on if you
Speaker 1: get a little traction, right. So, I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: it's a different world, is all I'm saying, right, And
Speaker 1: I'm just pointing.
Speaker 2: Out I think we all agree on that. So that's
Speaker 2: not the problem. Yeah, no, not the different world, But
Speaker 2: the differences that have occurred are negative and have horrible repercussions. Right,
Speaker 2: And the lack of quality reviewing in terms of film
Speaker 2: reviews and movie reviews and criticism, that's an issue, but
Speaker 2: that's a longer issue, and I've got to get to
Speaker 2: the reason that I'm here. As interesting as this conversation is,
Speaker 2: no vacinating as it is, they got to get to
Speaker 2: the reason that it is. I've allowed myself to get
Speaker 2: off tracked.
Speaker 1: Sorry, let's get okay, So let's get into it. Let's
Speaker 1: get into the real reason why you're here. What is
Speaker 1: it that's important about the quality reviews and all that?
Speaker 1: Go ahead, tell us about it. I'm listening.
Speaker 2: Well, well, I'm here to talk about my screenwriting, my
Speaker 2: new strangely enough, my new screenwriting structure, which is called
Speaker 2: dual story structure. Okay, and dual story structure is basically
Speaker 2: two basic story structures that are intended in the writing
Speaker 2: of screenplays. So I've unexpectedly, completely unexpectedly fow myself dealing
Speaker 2: with screenplays, and I have to be brutally honest. I
Speaker 2: will admit this, which audius, that I'm not a screenwriter,
Speaker 2: nor am I a TV writer'. I'm a journalist and
Speaker 2: a former film critic and reviewer. I make no pretensions
Speaker 2: to being a part of the industry or anything like that.
Speaker 1: Okay, So tell me why you're involved with screenwriting.
Speaker 2: Then, well, it really was an idea that came to
Speaker 2: me when I was watching a I was watching one
Speaker 2: of my favorite channels on YouTube and it was it's
Speaker 2: one I like, I think, guess I could say it
Speaker 2: James Whale Bake Sale and you have celebrities and filmmakers
Speaker 2: talk about movie and I was thinking about something that
Speaker 2: I had responded to on x or Twitter where I
Speaker 2: go on filming bed, and I had basically I had
Speaker 2: responded to something someone had said about Psycho, the movie
Speaker 2: Psycho and the Marion Crane character, and it got me
Speaker 2: thinking about story because I was saying, oh, yeah, when
Speaker 2: she took the money in Psycho, she was able. It
Speaker 2: made her go on the run and she was able
Speaker 2: to go off to the hotel, and that was a
Speaker 2: good way to get her to the Bates Motel. And
Speaker 2: that got me thinking, and then I thought about a
Speaker 2: screenplay that I had. Actually, I thought about this student
Speaker 2: film festival that I had covered years ago when I
Speaker 2: was a journalist, and one of the events that I
Speaker 2: was at was Coton Park. You know that I sat
Speaker 2: in on was a screenwriting course taught by a guy
Speaker 2: called Ty Holler of the Vancouver Fhild group, and I
Speaker 2: learned about screenwriting through that course, even though I wasn't
Speaker 2: there to learn about screenwriting. And when I thought about
Speaker 2: those two, then I started thinking about what became dual
Speaker 2: story structure. So it really stemmed from thinking about those
Speaker 2: two aspects.
Speaker 1: Okay, you know, and I always thought about the Marion
Speaker 1: Crane character and the money as being, you know, a
Speaker 1: convenient plot device in order to make you know, massage
Speaker 1: her into a place where she's going to go to
Speaker 1: an out of the way hotel, you know, not not
Speaker 1: the typical holiday in if you will, or you know,
Speaker 1: a circle Eate motel or whatever whatever they would have
Speaker 1: had at that time. I don't know, but either way,
Speaker 1: you know, it gave her a reason to maybe search
Speaker 1: out that out of the way sort of you know,
Speaker 1: independent hotel which used to exist, right, And I was thinking,
Speaker 1: you know that that makes perfect sense. But it's just
Speaker 1: I think of it as a device, right, It's the
Speaker 1: excuse to put a character, to put a situation in motion.
Speaker 1: And that's you know, that's just the way things are.
Speaker 1: You have your setup when it comes to a film.
Speaker 1: Right here, we're going to introduce you to the characters
Speaker 1: in a way. They might do it through exposition. They
Speaker 1: might do it through a situation where you get to
Speaker 1: know the character. You know, where she says at some
Speaker 1: point she's married, she's not married. You learn that, does
Speaker 1: she have kids, where is she going, what is she doing?
Speaker 1: So on and so forth, and oh, now there's a
Speaker 1: bit of a problem. So therefore, now we have an
Speaker 1: excuse for where we're going to set up next. And that's,
Speaker 1: you know, part of everything. There's always that set up, right.
Speaker 1: You go into the movie, and now you're going to
Speaker 1: go into another world, whether it's you know, part of
Speaker 1: the universe that you personally exist in, or it's another one.
Speaker 1: They have to establish things. So they do that, okay,
Speaker 1: and this is always part of you know, any film
Speaker 1: pretty much that's decent usually, right, I mean, there are
Speaker 1: some unusual story structures, but okay, so you're thinking about
Speaker 1: this and go ahead continue, all right.
Speaker 2: So that was the sort of inciting incident to use
Speaker 2: screenwriting language for how this came about, because I thought
Speaker 2: about so basically, dual story structure deals with two story
Speaker 2: structures in regards to writing the script. Now, the thing
Speaker 2: that I note about a dual story structure, and there's
Speaker 2: an introductory essay which can be found at my substack.
Speaker 2: It is. It's called dual story structure, a method for screenwriting,
Speaker 2: and it can be found at al it could be
Speaker 2: found at Alineer dot substack dot com. Okay, in any event, basically,
Speaker 2: what dual story structure is again, it's a two pronged
Speaker 2: structure which really be used for any kind of a script,
Speaker 2: any kind of a story in regards to film. Right now,
Speaker 2: the controversy for this besides the fact that I a
Speaker 2: person who is not a screenwriter and TV writers come
Speaker 2: up with the story structure, the other aspect that might
Speaker 2: be controversial is I believe that you can use this
Speaker 2: story structure also to write TV scripts. So it's not
Speaker 2: just film, it's also TV. But the two aspects are
Speaker 2: basically this. There's what I call PRS problem reaction solution.
Speaker 2: The second structure that structure PRS problem reaction solution is
Speaker 2: structure A structure B is what I call SAAR, which
Speaker 2: is situation action resolution. So those are the two star
Speaker 2: story structures. Because not all films would fall within the
Speaker 2: range of problem reaction solution or situation action resolution, right,
Speaker 2: So one might be one, another might be the other.
Speaker 2: So dual story structure. That's that title or the name
Speaker 2: of this. So let me just define these two structures
Speaker 2: so that people have an understanding of it. The first
Speaker 2: structure structure A we start with problem. And what a
Speaker 2: problem is is it is a predicament that I'll use
Speaker 2: the term individuals instead of characters most people in screenwriting.
Speaker 2: I'm not a screenwriting instructor teacher, so I try to
Speaker 2: use stuff that's not necessarily pure jargon. A problem is
Speaker 2: a predicament that the individuals in the story or in
Speaker 2: the film face. Okay, so that's the definition of the problem,
Speaker 2: A situation that the characters that that's what it's popularly
Speaker 2: known as, that the individuals in the story must face.
Speaker 1: No, I've heard something. Yeah, I've heard somebody else describe
Speaker 1: this as conflict and confrontation and then resolution. You know
Speaker 1: in that it sounds very similar, right right?
Speaker 2: It could be. But like I said, this is just
Speaker 2: my structure. This is my way of doing it. But
Speaker 2: there are many different kinds of screenplay ideas out there.
Speaker 2: There are many different kinds of approaches. What I'm dealing
Speaker 2: here with with dual story structure is at the screenplay
Speaker 2: level and at the story level. So what this is
Speaker 2: used is to help write the screenplay, like a basic
Speaker 2: schematic in helping you to write the screenplay. Like, it
Speaker 2: doesn't write it. You know, it's not a program. You
Speaker 2: don't insert dual story structure into your computer and it
Speaker 2: writes the script for you. Nothing will write the script
Speaker 2: for you, right, So what it is is a structure
Speaker 2: that you can that helps you with the screenplay, that
Speaker 2: helps you write the screenplay. Right. So you mentioned conflict.
Speaker 2: Conflict would be a part of the problem, but it's
Speaker 2: also a part of the overall story. Because there are
Speaker 2: many different there may be more than one conflict. Right.
Speaker 2: You could have an essential conflict, which is what it's about.
Speaker 2: But when it comes to movies, what you have is
Speaker 2: a p in this structure. What you have is the problem,
Speaker 2: and the problem is the predicament.
Speaker 3: There may be conflicts that ensue.
Speaker 2: As a result of the predicament or problem, but it's
Speaker 2: not simply conflict. Right. Conflict is a part of films,
Speaker 2: but it isn't Like I said, I'm sure different screenplay
Speaker 2: instructors and different screenwriters have their own way of explaining
Speaker 2: and doing things. Right, Like I said, this is my structure.
Speaker 3: So the problem we start.
Speaker 2: Out with in this structure is a predicament. Okay, that's
Speaker 2: the predicalment.
Speaker 1: Gotcha. Now, one could say sometimes that when you know
Speaker 1: you're talking about the parallel or the duel, occasionally what
Speaker 1: happens is they cross over into one another. Right, let's
Speaker 1: go back to Psycho. You got the Marion Crane story
Speaker 1: where she's left, she's absconded with the money. Now she's
Speaker 1: in the side of the way hotel, she's creeped out.
Speaker 1: She meets Norman Bates. Well, he's got a whole thing
Speaker 1: going on, and his whole thing, right is about you know, mo,
Speaker 1: my mother's up there, and we don't know it yet.
Speaker 1: We learn later obviously what really that means and everything.
Speaker 1: But my mother's up there. Oh she's a problem. I'm
Speaker 1: trying to run the hotel, you know. Oh, this place
Speaker 1: is run down, it's not very busy. You know. His
Speaker 1: whole thing is going on a little more boring than
Speaker 1: somebody absconding with a payroll, but still, right, it's two
Speaker 1: different stories going on in the same world, and they're
Speaker 1: about to connect.
Speaker 2: Here's what I would argue about Psycho. Psycho. I would argue, basically,
Speaker 2: switches protagonist because if you look at the Marian Crane individual,
Speaker 2: she is the protagonist of the film. She's the main character.
Speaker 2: But what happens in Psycho she gets killed off in
Speaker 2: the first What happened in the film is Norman Bates
Speaker 2: thus becomes the protagonist. Right, So when she came to
Speaker 2: that hotel, he was essentially like a supporting player, but
Speaker 2: now he becomes after she dies, he becomes the protagonist
Speaker 2: because we're seeing the film if not necessary, we'll not
Speaker 2: necessary through his eyes. But he is the focal point
Speaker 2: of the movie, even though the Crane character is important
Speaker 2: because her sister Lila's looking for her, right, I would
Speaker 2: argue that they switch protagonists. That's one of the tricks
Speaker 2: of that movie, and that's why I think it's one
Speaker 2: of the more effective screen you know, screen story screenplays
Speaker 2: in regards to horror movies or that sort of when
Speaker 2: that was the proto slasher movie, right.
Speaker 1: And at the time, extremely unique, extremely unique because Janet Lee,
Speaker 1: who was you know, put out there as a star
Speaker 1: of the movie, right, is dead within a few minutes,
Speaker 1: So you know your your main protagonist. Hey, this person's
Speaker 1: here now. Usually that means you're going to follow them
Speaker 1: through the story. Nope, she's gone, So now hey, here's
Speaker 1: the other protagonist. The dual story doesn't last long in Psycho.
Speaker 2: I guess right, Well, well, it depends on how you
Speaker 2: wish to see that. You could you could see Psycho
Speaker 2: as a problem reaction solution film, or you could see
Speaker 2: it as a situation action and resolution film. Really depends
Speaker 2: on which one you want to use it for. But
Speaker 2: I'm looking at it more in terms of the overall
Speaker 2: the overall. Looking at it from the protagonist point of view,
Speaker 2: it really becomes a movie where the protagonist or switch,
Speaker 2: you go from one protagonist to another, and that's why
Speaker 2: it's tricky. Psycho is a tricky movie because its switches protagonists.
Speaker 2: In my view, it's wwitch's main characters.
Speaker 1: And then the next thing that happens is now you're
Speaker 1: following a police investigation which is now in conflict with
Speaker 1: the Norman Bates story, which is its own arc. So
Speaker 1: now they've eliminated one and replaced it with another.
Speaker 4: You'd say, yeah, so, okay, we have the problem, and
Speaker 4: I'm going to cite I'll use my essay in examples
Speaker 4: in the essay to illustrate both both prs and seer.
Speaker 2: So we have the problem, which is a predicament that
Speaker 2: the characters a individual have to face, or have to
Speaker 2: deal with, or have to get out of. Right, then
Speaker 2: you have the reaction, and the reaction would be defined
Speaker 2: as the emotions, feelings, and efforts, meaning it's an emotions,
Speaker 2: feelings about their predicament, and efforts to get out of
Speaker 2: this predicament. So the resolution would technically be let mean sorry,
Speaker 2: the reaction would be most of the movie. So we
Speaker 2: go back. We have the problem, which is a predicament
Speaker 2: that the individuals must face or they are stuck in.
Speaker 2: Then we have the reaction, which is not only the emotions, feelings,
Speaker 2: and aspects that these individuals go through as a result
Speaker 2: of this predicament, but their efforts to get out of
Speaker 2: the predicament. And then we get to the last part,
Speaker 2: which is solution, and solution is a way out of
Speaker 2: the predicament. This solution can come from the individuals meaning
Speaker 2: the characters or meaning basically internal, or it can be external,
Speaker 2: it can come from some force outside of those characters.
Speaker 2: So that's what's So that's the basic rundown of what problem,
Speaker 2: reaction solution is. Right, structure a of dual story structure.
Speaker 2: So let's go on to structure B, which is situation
Speaker 2: action resolution. Let us define situations. Situation is any kind
Speaker 2: of event or activity that the individuals are involved with.
Speaker 2: So right away we're seeing this is very different from
Speaker 2: problem reaction solution. Right. Problem is a predicament, it's an issue.
Speaker 2: It's something that serves as not just the stumbling block,
Speaker 2: but a series of stumbling blocks, a series of obstacles,
Speaker 2: a series of aspects that they have to wrestle with
Speaker 2: or forced to wrestle with. Right, A situation is any
Speaker 2: event or activity that the characters are involved with or
Speaker 2: deal with. Right, So a situation could be anything. Right.
Speaker 2: In television, what do they call comedies situation comedy because
Speaker 2: the situation may vary. A show like Mash is one
Speaker 2: situation and a show like Seinfeld is another. So situation.
Speaker 2: Now that's different because I'm not talking about television. That's
Speaker 2: a whole different dual story structure. I mean, it's the
Speaker 2: same dual story structure of problem reaction solution and situation
Speaker 2: action resolution, but it's a different kind of approach that
Speaker 2: I have to take to explaining that. So maybe I'll
Speaker 2: come back one of these days and do that. But anyway,
Speaker 2: we have the situation right. It's any event or activity
Speaker 2: that the individuals are involved with or find themselves dealing
Speaker 2: with in some way. Could be anything, right, it's not
Speaker 2: as specific. It could be specific, but it's not as specific.
Speaker 2: So actions is we're moving to action. Action is literally
Speaker 2: physical demonstrable activity. Somebody does something physically. It could also
Speaker 2: be possibly emotional or intellectual or mental, but it's something
Speaker 2: the character does. So depth finds is something an individual
Speaker 2: or character does. Normally it would be physical activity like action,
Speaker 2: right and action that is taken right, but it could
Speaker 2: be other things. It could be intellectual, could be emotional,
Speaker 2: could be right sure, something the individual does. Definition of actions.
Speaker 2: Resolution is the conclusion to an end to whatever activity,
Speaker 2: whatever event, whatever, the individuals have been involved with. Okay,
Speaker 2: And what's tricky about a resolution is a resolution could
Speaker 2: not necessarily resolve something, So you could have a cliffhanger,
Speaker 2: or you could have an end of the movie that
Speaker 2: doesn't quote unquote solve anything. But it is a resolution
Speaker 2: because it is the end of the movie and it's
Speaker 2: an end at that point to what the individuals aka
Speaker 2: characters are involved with.
Speaker 1: Okay, Now does this differ a little bit when you're
Speaker 1: dealing with a singular, contained presentation like a movie. Does
Speaker 1: it differ when you say, do it with a TV
Speaker 1: series where a story arc might develop over the course
Speaker 1: of ten, fifteen, twenty episodes even like you know, for instance,
Speaker 1: one of my favorite shows was The Sopranos, and you know,
Speaker 1: you had a sort of overall story arc over the
Speaker 1: course of the season, but each individual show also had
Speaker 1: individual things that may or may not have come to
Speaker 1: a resolution by the end of that one hour race,
Speaker 1: So you had little stops along the way, ultimately building
Speaker 1: up to what you hoped was a resolution at the
Speaker 1: end of the season, you know, something like that. Is
Speaker 1: that different in any way or is it just stretched
Speaker 1: out longer?
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, so let me just briefly because I think
Speaker 2: that's a very good question, because I did say that
Speaker 2: both situation action resolution and problem reactions and problem as
Speaker 2: our situation action resolution and problem reaction solution apply to
Speaker 2: television too, to be used in television. In television, it's
Speaker 2: basically in two ways. Number one would be the pilot
Speaker 2: of the show, the opening the pilot of the show
Speaker 2: that would have that would be its own SAAR or
Speaker 2: it's PRS right to use the synemas to use the
Speaker 2: technoms that so both synonyms really so the initials. So
Speaker 2: you would do either one of those structures, structure A
Speaker 2: or structure B. Structure A being PRS problem reaction solution,
Speaker 2: structure B being solution I'm sorry, situation action resolution. You
Speaker 2: would use the structure for the pilot and then individual episodes.
Speaker 2: So it would be kind of so every episode you
Speaker 2: can use depending on the kind of show you're doing,
Speaker 2: whether it's SAAR or whether it's PRS, you would do
Speaker 2: that for every episode that you write. So every episode.
Speaker 2: So if you've got I don't know how many episode
Speaker 2: shows are these days, it varies from show to show.
Speaker 2: Say you got fifteen.
Speaker 1: Episodes, right your network. Look at it this way. Your
Speaker 1: network shows run like twenty something episodes still in a.
Speaker 2: Lot of day normally normally be twenty two. It used
Speaker 2: to be twenty six years ago, it used to be
Speaker 2: over thirty years ago.
Speaker 1: Well, absolutely, sometimes you have thirty five. But now there
Speaker 1: are streaming shows that only say run ten or twelve
Speaker 1: episodes for twelve.
Speaker 2: Fifteen, So let's use let's get in between there and
Speaker 2: say fifteen, right, So for all fifteen seasons of season
Speaker 2: one of let's just call it.
Speaker 1: Shuck.
Speaker 2: I know there's a show called Chuck, but let's call
Speaker 2: this new show Chuck.
Speaker 1: Sure, why not?
Speaker 2: Why not? Right? Another Chuck, different one? So fifteen seasons
Speaker 2: of Chuck.
Speaker 3: Right, we would use.
Speaker 2: Either one of those structures structure A or B problem
Speaker 2: reaction solution or situation action resolution for every episode of
Speaker 2: that show to write the scripts that could be used
Speaker 2: for everyone. So you do use it for the pilot,
Speaker 2: and you use it for every episode, and that would
Speaker 2: be how whereas with a film, you're just using it
Speaker 2: on a draft by draft basis. Right, So you're writing
Speaker 2: a film, you know, depending on how many drafts you use,
Speaker 2: or how many drafts you write, or how much a
Speaker 2: production would use, you would do it for every draft. Right,
Speaker 2: you use it for every draft. I mean, once you
Speaker 2: get from draft to draft to draft, you probably wouldn't
Speaker 2: need to use use it as much in terms of
Speaker 2: the structure of it would be more like shorthand. So
Speaker 2: what you would do you could also probably uses for
Speaker 2: outline and for treatments too, especially in television. Again, what
Speaker 2: this is is a basic story structure. So I don't
Speaker 2: want to stress this before you use something like a
Speaker 2: dual story structure, and I hope this is the case.
Speaker 2: You should already know screenwriting. In other words, you should
Speaker 2: know what a protagonist antagonist is, what a climax is,
Speaker 2: what a denial mom or is climax or danium mog,
Speaker 2: what an inciting incident is. You should know all of these.
Speaker 2: You should know basic screenwriting before you attempt to actually
Speaker 2: write a script and use dual action structure, because you
Speaker 2: can't learn if you don't know what three acts structure is. Yes,
Speaker 2: dual dual story structure does fit within the confines of
Speaker 2: three acts structure, but this is not three acts structure.
Speaker 2: Three act structure is three act structure. You don't know
Speaker 2: what an act one, at two or act three is.
Speaker 2: If you don't understand that, if you're going to be
Speaker 2: lost using.
Speaker 1: This, yeah, well this will get confusing because if you
Speaker 1: try and run an ABC three plots, okay, you try
Speaker 1: and run your ABC plots your your main story, then
Speaker 1: there's a subplot to that story and then a sort
Speaker 1: of extra background story to it. I mean that gets
Speaker 1: very complicated, especially if you're going to apply a dual
Speaker 1: story structure to each one of those three plot lines.
Speaker 1: I mean that's very complex and quite fussy.
Speaker 2: Well, again, this is very basic. So this is like
Speaker 2: a basic exoskeleton and basic narrative exoskeleton that you use
Speaker 2: to help write the screenplay. That's it.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: It doesn't write it for you. It doesn't provide anything
Speaker 2: beyond a basic framework. That's what's intended for. That's why
Speaker 2: I say it's basic story structure.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Did you got to come up with a character, You
Speaker 2: have to come up with the plot points, you have
Speaker 2: to come up with you know where the arc is
Speaker 2: going to be, whether it's a film or in the
Speaker 2: TV scripts, You're going to have to come up with
Speaker 2: all that stuff. And all it does is provide you
Speaker 2: with that structure, that three column what I call it
Speaker 2: three columns. It matches up with three act structure. Right, Okay,
Speaker 2: so let's take a look at structure. A problem at one,
Speaker 2: reaction at two solution Act three.
Speaker 1: Now, where in this do you fit establishment? Where? Look?
Speaker 1: In order to understand what's going on here, you're going
Speaker 1: to have to know who the players are. Right. In
Speaker 1: order to establish a protagonist, you got to get to
Speaker 1: know that protagonist. This is this person, this is who
Speaker 1: they are, this is what they're about, this is the
Speaker 1: world they live in. Right, Where do you do that
Speaker 1: in this structure?
Speaker 2: So that's where you helped flesh it out. So let's
Speaker 2: sort of begin to put this into action. Okay, let's
Speaker 2: put this national, right, sure, so let me use the
Speaker 2: examples that are used in my essay again to be
Speaker 2: found at Alaneer dot substack dot com called dual story structure.
Speaker 1: Right, and it's also advertised it's also advertised on your Instagram,
Speaker 1: by the way, but go ahead, yeah.
Speaker 2: That's correct. It's also on my instagram. Right, It's found
Speaker 2: on my instagram, which is writer al lanear and also
Speaker 2: found at on my substack. Right, So let's use the example.
Speaker 2: Like I said, I'll use both examples from my answers.
Speaker 2: Let's look at Jaws, the movie Jaws. So we start
Speaker 2: out with Jaws, right. The problem. Now, when you're using
Speaker 2: this structure, I would assume that you already as a writer,
Speaker 2: have some characters. Right.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, so what you're saying is, before we get
Speaker 1: to the problem, you've got to establish here's the town,
Speaker 1: here's the beach, here's here's the cops, and the power
Speaker 1: structure which they you.
Speaker 2: Have to have an idea, some basic ideas, right, So
Speaker 2: you have this concept of Okay, you know, you have
Speaker 2: this idea, you have the idea, Well, Jaws is based
Speaker 2: on a novel by Peter Benchlein, but let's imagine that
Speaker 2: Jaws was an original idea. So you had this idea
Speaker 2: about this this town that has been the subject of
Speaker 2: shark attacks. Right, So we start out, you know, and
Speaker 2: you have some ideas for the characters. That's when you
Speaker 2: start to begin to use the dual story structure. You
Speaker 2: can't use it in the absence of characters or an idea,
Speaker 2: some ideas about the plot. You have to have some
Speaker 2: basic concepts about what your story might be at what
Speaker 2: you're looking to do. This is not going to create
Speaker 2: a story for.
Speaker 1: You if you're doing some basic if.
Speaker 2: You're doing, going to create it for you in structure.
Speaker 1: Unless you're doing a very unconventional sort of storytelling where
Speaker 1: you don't bother to establish the characters. You just you know,
Speaker 1: let them pass by, you do sort of drive bys
Speaker 1: on them, and they establish a universe as a collective
Speaker 1: something like that. That's why you have situation actually, right,
Speaker 1: because you can establish a situation without all that other stuff. Okay,
Speaker 1: go ahead, Yeah, So yep, Jaws.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's let's look at the problem in Jaws. What's
Speaker 2: the problem that there that there is a small.
Speaker 1: Town, beach town. They need the revenue, there's people there,
Speaker 1: they're trying to enjoy. The problem is dangerous and why
Speaker 1: is it dangerous?
Speaker 2: Right? Sure, you're getting to see. What you're beginning to
Speaker 2: do is flash things out. I'm starting out from the
Speaker 2: very beginning.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: So there's a small beach town that's the subject of attacks. Right,
Speaker 2: let's get a little bit a little bit more specific,
Speaker 2: not too specific, but a little bit more specific. There's
Speaker 2: a East coast town that has been impacted by a
Speaker 2: wave of shark attacks on squars. Okay, that's the problem,
Speaker 2: that's the problem. Okay. So what you do from that
Speaker 2: point is this, because you've already thought about the characters,
Speaker 2: you've already begun to think about the perfect the basic
Speaker 2: aspects of plot. Okay, so you extrapolate from that point
Speaker 2: the problem. Now, often screenwriting books here to cliche what
Speaker 2: happens next? What I stress is what happened? Not simply
Speaker 2: what happens next, but what happened? That's the question that
Speaker 2: screenwriters need to answer the script. You have to answer
Speaker 2: what happened, because when you're dealing with people at studios,
Speaker 2: they're gonna say, Okay, what happened here? You know, why
Speaker 2: does this character do this? If you get that far,
Speaker 2: why does that happen? Certainly, if you're gonna pitch sometimes
Speaker 2: they're gonna ask questions. But even if they if you
Speaker 2: have a draft, if you have something written, they look
Speaker 2: at the script they go, Okay, why does what happened here?
Speaker 2: Or what happens here? So you have to solve the
Speaker 2: problem of and you have to answer the question of
Speaker 2: what happened. So we look at this problem. Okay, let's
Speaker 2: flesh it out more, right, we get from that point. Okay,
Speaker 2: it's an East coast town. Oh right, it's a town
Speaker 2: called Amite, and it's like a Cape Cod Martha's Vineyard
Speaker 2: type town. Okay, you're talking about specific East coast like
Speaker 2: Massachusetts area that that area. Okay, And they've got a
Speaker 2: shark to deck, so that's impacting them. Yeah, a couple
Speaker 2: of swimmers have been having killed.
Speaker 1: For me, the problem, the problem actually is not the
Speaker 1: shark attack. Primarily, the problem is that they have to
Speaker 1: have this beach open Okay, that's what the deal is.
Speaker 2: First, Well, that gets to the resolution.
Speaker 3: See, now, guess what you're doing. You're thinking about the story.
Speaker 3: You're doing what you're you're you're looking at the.
Speaker 2: Aspects of the plot, and you're beginning to put things together.
Speaker 2: You begin to analyze. Okay, now this issue is this.
Speaker 2: So we get to the reaction, and the reaction is
Speaker 2: that the town's amity we now call this ambity. The
Speaker 2: town's police chief wants to go after the shark, but
Speaker 2: gets but but gets static or gets runs into opposition
Speaker 2: from town, from the town mayor and town officials. Okay,
Speaker 2: so that gets it to the point that you mentioned. Okay,
Speaker 2: we've got a police chief Brody I believe his name
Speaker 2: was in the movie. So he's he's looking at this
Speaker 2: and going this isn't good. People are dying. You've got
Speaker 2: a couple of people dying. This is terrible. The shark
Speaker 2: has got to be killed at the very least dealt with, right, right.
Speaker 2: They also brings in a marine I think it was
Speaker 2: a marine biologist or a scientist. Richard Dreyfus play by
Speaker 2: Richard Dreyfus. He's brought in to take a look at
Speaker 2: this situation. But the mayor was played by Murray Hamilton,
Speaker 2: is concerned because it's summertime and that's tourist season and
Speaker 2: he wants the beach kept up. See what we're doing
Speaker 2: is we're extrapolating, right, We're looking at this aspect and
Speaker 2: we're filling in things we're working on.
Speaker 1: Okay, he's rushing to resolve it ahead of it actually
Speaker 1: being resolved because of that conflict with we need to
Speaker 1: keep the beach open for the business, otherwise we're gonna
Speaker 1: have problems here. That's what's going on right right.
Speaker 2: So he's concerned about tourism because the tourism part of
Speaker 2: the life blood of Amity. That's what they need, how
Speaker 2: they make the money. It's the important part of the
Speaker 2: vital part of the town's economy, and he doesn't want
Speaker 2: that economy ruin. That's why he said at one point
Speaker 2: in the movie, he says, this will be open I
Speaker 2: think in July or whatever. You can't do it. But
Speaker 2: eventually Brody gets to say, so to go out there
Speaker 2: and deal with the shark, but only what happens with
Speaker 2: the solution. What happens with the solution. We get to
Speaker 2: the solution, the shark is destroyed. Right, Yeah, shark is destroyed.
Speaker 2: But in the solution, you have to think about what happens.
Speaker 2: So how does the shark get destroyed? How does the
Speaker 2: shark get killed? Well, you know that Brody plus the
Speaker 2: scientist plus a local boat hunter and played by Robert Shaw,
Speaker 2: goes out there to deal with the shark.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the krusty boat captain and the marine biologist who
Speaker 1: knows everything, but is it really a hard guy that
Speaker 1: can you know, do things really well with his hand.
Speaker 1: And eventually what happens is they wind up kicking that
Speaker 1: tank into the shark's mouth, right and trying to blow
Speaker 1: them up. Right, So see what you're doing.
Speaker 2: See what you're doing. Okay, you're beginning to fill in
Speaker 2: the details. Okay, So we've moved from problem with the
Speaker 2: shark in the town the problem which is the shark
Speaker 2: a shark in an East Coast town, right, shark attacks
Speaker 2: in an East Coast town, to the reaction, which is
Speaker 2: the police chief wants to deal with a shark attack
Speaker 2: but is met with opposition by the mayor and local.
Speaker 1: Officials, which is the conflict between the sheriff and the
Speaker 1: local officials, but also a conflict because they're sticking people
Speaker 1: in the water at a time when if they just
Speaker 1: pull them out of the water, problem is solved that
Speaker 1: way too.
Speaker 2: So you know, that's where conflicts. As you mentioned conflict earlier,
Speaker 2: that's where conflict comes in. Okay, because see where conflict
Speaker 2: is a part of You know, again, I don't use
Speaker 2: conflict as part of the structure. Conflict is a part
Speaker 2: of the movie. So conflict can be anywhere in the movie,
Speaker 2: but it's not a part of the structure, right, I
Speaker 2: don't explicitly say conflict because conflict will be in the movie. Well,
Speaker 2: you create the conflict. The problem leads to the concept
Speaker 2: multiple What we're doing is precisely how I you know,
Speaker 2: recisely what the structure is intended to do. In regard
Speaker 2: to screenwriting. You're coming up with the details, you're coming
Speaker 2: up with the plot points, you're coming up with the
Speaker 2: aspects of this. Now, granted we're talking about a movie
Speaker 2: that's already been out and it was a huge hit,
Speaker 2: But see how this is working. See the point of
Speaker 2: the structure again. The point of the structure is not
Speaker 2: to give you all the answers. It's to allow you
Speaker 2: to fill in the details. You look at this this way,
Speaker 2: you examine that, Okay, Okay, my character will that it
Speaker 2: gets you to think critically in the formation and shaping
Speaker 2: of the script, right, that's part of what duel story
Speaker 2: structures exactly. Okay, So all right, so you reacted to it.
Speaker 2: It was right on the dot, is right on the money.
Speaker 2: That's precisely what I want. That's what I want writers
Speaker 2: to do. They want I want to be able to
Speaker 2: I want them to be able.
Speaker 1: To do that excellently.
Speaker 2: Well, right, we're talking about a movie that's been out
Speaker 2: for years.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely, Look, and I'm glad that we got
Speaker 1: to do this because you know, look, at least we
Speaker 1: show them exactly what it is you're trying to go
Speaker 1: after here in regards to what it is you're demonstrating
Speaker 1: there on sub sack. And just for the record, I
Speaker 1: mean that came out in nineteen seventy five, Jaws, and
Speaker 1: I think I saw it as a little kid. Maybe
Speaker 1: I was four or five when I first saw it.
Speaker 1: Years old anyway, old movie for sure, and it's very interesting.
Speaker 1: There's lots of different conflicts in it and all that.
Speaker 1: But you know, we've gone through this a while and
Speaker 1: thinking to myself. I think people should go over and
Speaker 1: check out the work over at at your substack and
Speaker 1: also the podcast right, which both are under the same name,
Speaker 1: The Final Cut, Am I correct?
Speaker 2: Right? That's right? So Final Cut is my newslater. It's
Speaker 2: on al Nier dot substack dot com. Also the podcast
Speaker 2: can be found at substack Alanier dot substack dot com.
Speaker 1: And on Spotify and oh Spotify.
Speaker 2: Don't want to listen to my podcast on substack, you
Speaker 2: can go to Spotify listener no problems.
Speaker 1: So you can get the Final Cut through Spotify as
Speaker 1: a podcast, and you can also go over to substack
Speaker 1: and read it. Like I said, he's also on Twitter
Speaker 1: x whatever and uh Instagram and all that and yeah,
Speaker 1: follow it. This is an interesting thing ultimately, Where are
Speaker 1: you going with this though? Are you gonna wind up
Speaker 1: doing various aspects of film and stuff like that? Is
Speaker 1: that going to become the thing now for a while,
Speaker 1: because it seems like over the past few years you've
Speaker 1: been leaning into maybe I should get back into critiquing
Speaker 1: films retro reviews. Is this where we're going, Albert Lanier,
Speaker 1: the film writer, Is that where we're going?
Speaker 2: Well, it seems like it is, you know, I'm Strangely enough,
Speaker 2: I'm working on another podcast right now, which is about sports.
Speaker 1: Okay, just get me busy.
Speaker 2: But yeah, that's what's been the movement before Momentum. So
Speaker 2: I went back with Final Cut the newsletter to writing
Speaker 2: about movies and I've enjoyed that. But I'm also did
Speaker 2: the podcast as a promotional vehicle and also as a
Speaker 2: companion piece to the newsletter. And at this point this
Speaker 2: is unexpected. I didn't really expect to do create a
Speaker 2: story structure. I'm the last person I would ever think
Speaker 2: of to create a screenwriting story structure or a couple
Speaker 2: of structures. So this game as a surprise to me.
Speaker 2: And really the reality with this was the reason that
Speaker 2: I came out with this was I was supposed to
Speaker 2: actually go to a film festival in Las Vegas this
Speaker 2: past October. A friend of mine who's interviewed for Final Cut,
Speaker 2: that I interviewed on my Final Cut podcast and also
Speaker 2: on my newsletter. So what happened was that I wasn't
Speaker 2: able to do it because I've been working on this
Speaker 2: other podcast that I'm doing. But I told her, well,
Speaker 2: you know, because she does workshops as well. I said,
Speaker 2: I'll do a workshop I'll come out and try to
Speaker 2: do a workshop. And so when I came up with
Speaker 2: ascons of the dual story structure, I thought, all, this
Speaker 2: will work for a workshop. I can do this as
Speaker 2: a workshop. So what this is intended to be. This
Speaker 2: is intended to be actually taught as a workshop or
Speaker 2: a seminar, and that's really what's intended to I reluctantly
Speaker 2: kind of wrote the intro essay to this because I
Speaker 2: felt you got to write something. Because you're dealing with
Speaker 2: writing here, you might as well get it down on
Speaker 2: text form, and that's what I did. So I'm looking
Speaker 2: to do this either at film festivals or possibly and
Speaker 2: or possibly at comic cons. I think comic cons would
Speaker 2: be interesting convened to be interesting because I think you
Speaker 2: have a potential audience of people who might be interested
Speaker 2: in making movies, right, you know, So I'm interested. I'm
Speaker 2: open to doing it at comic cons. I'm open to
Speaker 2: doing it at film festivals. I'm also open to doing
Speaker 2: it as a standalone seminar and stand alone workshop no
Speaker 2: matter where, so in a hotel or wherever it would
Speaker 2: be set up so people are interested entities film festivals,
Speaker 2: comic cons, or I don't know what it would be.
Speaker 2: Groups or other people are interested, they can contact me
Speaker 2: at my email which is at Impurious Reader. Sorry, it's
Speaker 2: imperious reader at gmail dot com. That's I M. P
Speaker 2: E r IOE you as R E A D E
Speaker 2: R at Gmail. Serious Leader at Gmail.
Speaker 1: There you go, and sometime in the next couple weeks,
Speaker 1: a couple months, I don't know, probably in twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: we'll bring you back and talk about what else is
Speaker 1: going on and who knows, maybe discuss that sports podcast
Speaker 1: coming up next. You know, I produce a couple of
Speaker 1: podcasts and such outside of my own and yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: let's let's keep track of this as it goes, let
Speaker 1: me know where it's going. I mean, so this filmmaking,
Speaker 1: the creation of this stuff is always of interest to me.
Speaker 1: So I'll give you, guys all the links in with
Speaker 1: the show notes for Albert Lnier's work on substack on Spotify.
Speaker 1: The podcast is there, and you know, we'll catch up
Speaker 1: again real soon. So until next time, guys, I'm merely ocelli.
Speaker 5: All of you, Oh Shelley dot com. Do you like history?
Speaker 5: Real history that you were never taught in schools? Why
Speaker 5: the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in Southeast
Speaker 5: Asia by author Mike Swanson, with new documentation never seen
Speaker 5: before that'll open your eyes to events that led up
Speaker 5: to this Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in Nation
Speaker 5: Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one.
Speaker 5: Get your copy today at Amazon dot Com. Why the
Speaker 5: Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson.
Speaker 1: The dot Com Radio Network.
Speaker 6: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 6: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 6: the context of the times and reveals never before published
Speaker 6: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 6: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 6: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 6: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 6: Before World War Two, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 6: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 6: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 6: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 6: island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 6: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 6: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 6: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 6: reveals why, and we'll show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 6: up against. For more information the War State dot Com.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, cal it, I'm litersted.
Speaker 2: In the truth about the Day assassination.
Speaker 1: Right, Well, what do you want to know?
Speaker 2: Judy Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew? Ruby and
Speaker 2: Barry answer weapons?
Speaker 1: Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It
Speaker 1: doesn't make me a wagon, but okay, on the building.
Speaker 2: And trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy.
Speaker 1: Come on now has a real effort on the Davey
Speaker 1: assassination booth into reclaimed. Go to Amazon dot com enter
Speaker 1: Judith Baker in her own words. You'll get the results
Speaker 1: for a day digital copy of a book where Walt
Speaker 1: Brown utilizes her own words and the known evidence in
Speaker 1: the case to get at well a different perspective. Let's
Speaker 1: say you can get Judith Barry Baker in her own
Speaker 1: words from the author himself, signed if you request it
Speaker 1: by contacting doctor Brown at k I A S JFK
Speaker 1: at aol dot com. It's a fun book and it
Speaker 1: actually dissects the many many fantastic claims Judith very Baker
Speaker 1: in her own words.
Speaker 7: Yo, yovis Doug Campbell, host of the Dallas Action podcast
Speaker 7: presented by Wall Street Window. And you are listening to
Speaker 7: the o'chill effect revelation through conversation to use.
Speaker 1: Expressed by callers, tools or anyone else who happens to
Speaker 1: get on the er or Jelly dot com not necessarily
Speaker 1: reflect us little Jelly dot com or ll and we
Speaker 1: are not responsible. We're getting stupidity which might ensue.
Speaker 8: Thank you, uncle. Do you remember that time when Benjamin
Speaker 8: Fulford said that an Asian secret society was going to
Speaker 8: dispatch ninja's to take down the Illuminati.
Speaker 9: Oh that's interesting, yeah in the platoon?
Speaker 8: Yeah did that ever work out too good?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 8: It didn't, did it didn't? But here on Ocelli dot
Speaker 8: com Radio network, things work out a bit better, don't.
Speaker 1: They much better? Much?
Speaker 9: I mean it is clear and understanding about the programs.
Speaker 9: The programs much clear, getting live people into it. They
Speaker 9: really have a good conversation going much better, much better scene.
Speaker 8: I say, forget Benjamin Fulford and his ninches and listen
Speaker 8: to the Ocelli dot Com radio network.
Speaker 9: I agree it's straight to the point, straight talk, and
Speaker 9: I like that idea com.
Speaker 10: Nat Lata s Papa.
Speaker 1: Revelation through conversation.
Speaker 11: Nuclear holocaust.
Speaker 8: You know what uranium is right?
Speaker 11: I think on nuclear weapons and other things like lots
Speaker 11: of you.
Speaker 6: Know what uranium is right?
Speaker 11: Barred things things are done with uranium, including some bad
Speaker 11: things nuclear holocaust.
Speaker 1: You know what uranium is right? I've been Nuclear Holocaust.
Speaker 2: Nuclear Holocaust. You know what uranium is right?
Speaker 11: They thinks all nuclear weapons and other things like lots.
Speaker 2: Of you know what uranium is right?
Speaker 11: There are things things are done with uranium, leading some
Speaker 11: barred things nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear Holo Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust,
Speaker 11: Nuclear hall.
Speaker 5: Unter Biden is the talk of the town this week,
Speaker 5: being a central character in the ongoing Ukraine Russia war
Speaker 5: plot that has spanned now for over a decade, and
Speaker 5: after impeachments, laptop scandals, a fucked election, more impeachments, and
Speaker 5: then a war, the man behind the many Eminems gets
Speaker 5: to walk free of anything that can be used against them.