Read an Excerpt
Writing and Selling Thriller Screenplays
By Lucy V. Hay Oldcastle Books
Copyright © 2013 Lucy V. Hay
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-84344-263-9
CHAPTER 1
PART ONE
WHAT IS A THRILLER?
'Nine million terrorists in the world and I have to kill one with feet smaller than my sister.'
John McClane, DIE HARD
MARIE: Do you have any ID?
JASON: Not really.
THE BOURNE IDENTITY
'Smile, you son of a bitch.'
Brody, JAWS
NATALIE: What's the last thing you do remember?
LEONARD: My wife ...
NATALIE: That's sweet.
LEONARD: ... Dying.
MEMENTO
'I'm gonna save the motherfucking day.'
Cameron Poe, CON AIR
DEFINITION OF THRILLER
Thriller has to be the most misunderstood genre in the spec pile. Despite getting the hang of horror, being clued-up on comedy and down on drama, screenwriters don't always seem to understand that their thriller screenplays need to thrill. Such a small thing, yet it means everything. I've read hundreds, probably thousands, of screenplays that have sought to call themselves 'thrillers', yet very few bear any kind of resemblance to the thrillers I see at the cinema, on DVD or via streaming services like LoveFilm et al. Yet thrillers being 'thrilling' is something we all demand at a grass -roots level, as noted in this straightforward (albeit rather non -illuminating) dictionary definition:
Thriller(noun)
1. A novel, play or movie with an exciting plot, typically involving crime or espionage.
2. A person, thing or experience that thrills.
Thriller is an incredibly broad genre, so attempting a thriller screenplay for the first time – or, indeed, rewriting one – may seem like a daunting task to screenwriters. The problem is immediately apparent: what is deemed 'thrilling' to one person may make another claw his/her eyes out with boredom. Looking to produced movies in isolation may not help either, since everyone has different views on what makes a 'good' film (never mind what makes thrillers 'thrilling'!) and this includes the actual people who write and make them. Similarly, while thrillers have so many subgenres and cross-genres, not to mention various common elements, they nevertheless have lots to set them apart from one another (more about that in a minute).
So how can we look at the thriller genre, when it is so broad and complex? Jon Spaihts, one of the writers of Prometheus (2012), whose spec thriller Shadow 19 sold to Warner Bros in 2006, tweeted this excellent and concise summary of how thrillers work:
'In thrillers the hero is reactive; a firefighter. The villain is the fire. The villain's plan is in some ways the soul of your story.'
As a script editor and reader, I couldn't agree more. Putting the villain or antagonist in the driving seat is what sets thrillers apart from all other genres, including horror. Making your protagonist/s work to foil the antagonist's 'plan' (or similar) is the foundation of your story; all other elements are then piled on top of it, including subgenre, characters and even how the plot is executed, as illustrated by this very good Wikipedia entry on the thriller genre:
'The aim for thrillers is to keep the audience alert and on the edge of their seats. The protagonist in these films is set against a problem - an escape, a mission, or a mystery. No matter what subgenre a thriller film falls into, it will emphasise the danger the protagonist faces. The tension with the main problem is built on throughout the film and leads to a highly stressful climax. The cover up of important information from the viewer and fight and chase scenes are common methods in all of the thriller subgenres, although each subgenre has its own unique characteristics and methods.'
So whether your protagonist is female and fighting home invasion (as in Panic Room, 2002); or a male protagonist attempting to expose his mafioso bosses (The Firm, 1993); or a child, tortured by visions of dead people (The Sixth Sense, 1999); or an ensemble cast of doctors fighting disease (Contagion, 2011), your thriller screenplay must ensure that your protagonist overcomes all the obstacles put in their way by the antagonist/s, not to mention the situation at hand.
START AS YOU MEAN TO GO ON
'A thriller must thrill. And I would get that first thrill, the one that sets the tone, the one that starts the setup, to play out on page one.'
– Chris Jones, writer/director (@livingspiritpix)
Before we really put the thriller genre under the microscope, stop! Forget all you know – or think you know – about thrillers. Forget about those cool set pieces you want to write in the second act; forget about your brooding heroes or your haunted heroines. Forget about 'refragmenting the narrative' or 'vertical writing' or 'rising action' or whatever the cool screenwriting buzz phrases of the moment are. Think instead about your story's identity.
Arguably the biggest issue I see in thriller screenplays is that they don't 'feel' like thrillers in the first instance. The reasons for this can be varied and complex but, generally speaking, the writer has neglected to set the tone and the rules of the story world we are dealing with. More often than not, the writer believes erroneously that we must be introduced to the characters first, THEN the story. They'll frequently attempt this via dream sequences, flashbacks and early morning/getting ready for the day montages (all three if the reader's *really* lucky!).
First, remember: tone is everything. How do your favourite thrillers begin? What do we see? Is there a prologue? How do the characters interact? Are they happy, oblivious? Or do they have other problems? What is the 'feel' of the piece? Is it unstable, threatening from the outset? Or are we plunged from a happy home into a living nightmare? Whatever the writers and filmmakers choose – and writing and filmmaking is about choices: this is a craft, not magic – the audience must be left in no doubt about the tone and the story world they are entering.
BEGINNING, MIDDLE, END
'Keep the script lean and pacey, don't get bogged down with unnecessary set up, scene description and (especially) exposition. Structure the action around exciting set-pieces; don't let the story slow to a grind with introspective character studies or indulgent dialogue scenes.'
– Danny Stack, script editor & writer/director (@ScriptwritingUK)
Structure. An element of screenwriting that never fails to have people gnashing their teeth with frustration and rage. All manner of accusations are levied at it, from the notion it's horribly formulaic, through to its even being responsible for killing one's creativity. Generally, I tend to think of structure as the three acts described by Aristotle in Poetics, simply because it makes the most sense to me and because the industry (as I've experienced in meetings and similar) tends to talk about 'acts'.
Before I go further, however, it should be noted I am not a purist. I believe whatever works for the individual screenwriter is valid, be it three acts, five acts, Syd Field's Paradigm, John Truby's 22 Steps, Chris Soth's Mini Movie Method, Blake Snyder's Save The Cat! Approach, or something else. As far as I'm concerned, all a story really needs is a beginning, middle and end (and not necessarily in that order). I'm a passionate believer in the notion of story counting above all else, which is why I always stop short of 'page counting' for turning points, etc, preferring instead to rely on 'intuitive script editing', i.e. does a particular moment in the story 'feel' as if it is in the 'right' place?
So, those disclaimers aside, put bluntly, I see thriller structure broken down basically as follows:
• ACT ONE - SET UP: Protagonist presented with problem by the antagonist; the protagonist *needs* to solve it (s/he can't just walk away).
• ACT TWO - CONFLICT: Protagonist is presented with variety of obstacles by the antagonist ...
• MIDPOINT: Things get worse/eye of the storm (as appropriate).
• ACT TWO - CONFLICT: Those obstacles keep coming and the protagonist must keep overcoming them, even though each obstacle is more difficult than the last.
• ACT THREE - RESOLUTION: Looks like all is lost for the protagonist ... It looks like the antagonist is going to win ... And then the protagonist turns it around *in some way* and solves the problem (or not, as the case may be).
Again: no need to get 'your panties in a bunch' as our American friends would say. Of course the above is not set in stone, and following it to the letter *no matter what* is obviously not desirable, as we end up with a movie by the numbers, ticking various boxes as we go along. Structure is not a 'quick fix' cure, and nor should it be. However, I do think it works as a good model to place our spec thriller screenplays against, to establish whether they work or not (plus what that means and why). As with anything else, it will depend on the story you're telling
"THE SAME ... BUT DIFFERENT"
Writers frequently hear the phrase, 'the same ... but different', but just as often misunderstand what it means: they either go too 'samey' with their concepts, imitating those produced movies they've seen, or they go too different, meaning their specs are a difficult sell. As with most things in scriptwriting (or, indeed, life), 'the same ... but different' is about balance.
Consider two thrillers which are obviously similar: Die Hard (1987), in which a bloody, daring siege takes place in a towering building; and Con Air (1997), in which prisoners perform an equally bloody and daring coup on their guards, this time on board an airplane. In both, only one man can stop the criminals, holding everyone, literally, to ransom. But crucially, John McClane in Die Hard and Cameron Poe in Con Air are two quite different men. Perhaps just as importantly though, Hans Gruber and Cyrus the Virus are two very different antagonists. And, what's more, the secondary characters and their individual role functions are very different in each film. So, whilst we might have the same spirit and tone in both films (larger than life, with comedic and action elements), we nevertheless have wildly different characters and settings (building versus a plane).
So, if you want to attempt 'the same ... but different', take a good look at what has gone before. Work out what you want to emulate and how, whilst still ensuring your script has its own original take on the story. It is difficult to get right, but, if you can, this will really help your spec thriller's chances in the marketplace in the long run. (For more on 'the same ... but different', check out Part Two of this book under 'genre busting', and find out what you can really do in this respect to get attention for your thriller screenplay).
THE ROUTE TO YOUR AUDIENCE
'Audiences show up for story, not for big themes or great characters. But it's the big themes and characters that send them away happy.'
– Stephen Gallagher, screenwriter & show runner (@brooligan)
Audiences know what they want, so as writers we need to give it to them. This is not to say we should 'dumb down'; far from it. It is possible to convey any manner of complex and interesting messages and themes within the perimeters of what audiences want ... which is to be entertained, first and foremost. Forget this at your peril. It's not rocket science. Yet the average spec thriller screenplay is not entertaining, because it has forgotten the notion of whom it's actually FOR.
Like or loathe them, some of the most successful filmmakers of the last 30 or 40 years have made thrillers, many of them in the action subgenre: George Lucas; Steven Spielberg; Tony Scott; James Cameron; Quentin Tarantino; JJ Abrams; Christopher Nolan; Michael Bay. (Yes, even Michael Bay. Deal with it.) The reason these guys are so successful is because, though they often make testosterone-soaked sausage-fests, they provide what audiences want. In these cases, audiences want brooding heroes; epic arenas; huge fights, explosions and high-octane CGI-based sequences. The potential audience knows exactly what it's going to get when it sees those filmmakers' names attached to various films. This is why people go in droves to see them.
Now I'm not advocating we all write thrillers about giant killer sharks, aliens or robots (though go ahead, if you want to). Rather I am suggesting we learn a lesson from the Spielbergs and Camerons and Nolans in terms of entertainment. Be honest about what you write, who you want to appeal to and how you are going to appeal to that potential audience. It's no good to say, 'Well, it's great writing, it will appeal to everyone' or 'I see the trailer in my head, it's gonna be awesome'. That way disappointment lies – for you, because it will never get 'off the page'. You need to figure out exactly how you are going to entertain your audience, and you can't do that without working out who they are first. In order to do so, I recommend thinking about the following:
• What is my audience's demographic? Be specific, but not too specific. It's fine if you're going primarily for a specific age group or gender, but say stuff like 'only white people will be interested' and suddenly you seem like an over-privileged idiot.
• How can I open this up? Everyone knows the supposed core demo of cinema-going people is 15–25–year-old males, but no one knows if this is really true (and if someone insists they do know, be suspicious). What is definitely true: everyone loves a good yarn, well told. So if you can come up with a great story, with great characters, you have every chance of tapping into a BIG audience that transcends that supposedly traditional core demo. So don't make everything androcentric to appeal to that mythical demographic, and ignore everyone who says you 'must' have a male protagonist because men don't watch movies with women at the helm. If that were true, there would be no female Hollywood stars. (Of course, there is sexism and misogyny in Hollywood and the film industry in general, but that's a debate for another time.) Consider what you can do to make things more interesting. But make considered choices; bring people to your story by making it as accessible as you can, via any storytelling device you see fit. The likes of Jurassic Park (1993) and Avatar (2009) do extremely well with audiences year on year, not because they are full of special effects but because people can relate to the stories, the characters, the messages behind them (whether we, as writers, agree with those messages or not). In the case of Jurassic Park, it's also rather funny, in terms of both comedy dialogue and moments. There's all manner of things you can do as a writer to 'open up' your audience and include as many people as possible, so never underestimate this.
• Why would they watch this movie? This is where you get really specific. It's not good enough to say, 'It's really exciting.' What has gone before? What is 'the same ... but different' about it? How does it break new ground? How is this a new take on what we have seen already? What might your audience have seen before, which may make them want to watch your movie?
Last of all, never ever undervalue your audience, think they're stupid or that you need to spoonfeed them. Modern audiences are smart; they are more media literate than ever before and can decode stuff instantly. This is why you need to 'hit the ground running'.
HITTING THE GROUND RUNNING
'The best thrillers are often set in a self-contained universe - a small town, a police precinct, a casino or a prison; all of which have their own rules.'
- Harriet Davis, MBA Literary Agents
A few decades ago, even Hollywood movies had 'slow-burn' techniques, but today modern audiences demand that stories 'hit the ground running'. Where once audiences were happy to wait for the protagonist and the situation in hand to be introduced over the course of ten or even fifteen minutes, we now slam into the action within two or three, meaning screenwriters must adjust their techniques accordingly. Many thrillers even begin with a shocking or intriguing catalyst in the first minute, out of sync time-wise with the rest of the story, that then requires the audience to 'rewind' to days, or a few hours, earlier. (Interestingly, this, too, is now beginning to feel rather old hat, leading me to wonder if more slow-burning techniques may return, for want of a change?)
However you choose to open your thriller screenplay, it's crucial to remember that character and story must be introduced hand in hand, which is possible even with slow-burn techniques. As mentioned previously, spec screenwriters often believe we must be introduced to the characters first, THEN the story. As a result, the reader (and thus the audience) is left waiting for the story to start. In this media-literate age, when audiences can pick up even the most scant of information and decode it instantly, being made to wait even just five minutes can spell disaster for your spec screenplay's chances in the marketplace. Common mistakes from writers trying (and failing) to 'hit the ground running' include montages to attempt to set the tone; disjointed prologues that take too long to connect to events *in* the situation at hand; and flashbacks to unrelated events that are somehow 'character -building' for the protagonist, particularly if she is female. It is worth noting that female protagonists in spec thriller screenplays are commonly rape and child abuse survivors, and/or fighting depression or other mental illnesses. Beware of piling such pasts/back stories on your characters (not because issues of rape, abuse or mental illness, etc, are not serious or worth talking about). However, by making such back stories supposedly 'character building', you risk trivialising them and thus isolating your audience.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Writing and Selling Thriller Screenplays by Lucy V. Hay. Copyright © 2013 Lucy V. Hay. Excerpted by permission of Oldcastle Books.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
