i started watching this, then stopped to watch A Few Good Men for the first time, then came back and watched it... now i've been a fan of michael for a while, wrote a story using his six step process, watched him lecture and listened to him speak many times over a year, but the amount of knowledge that got instilled into me from watching this movie for the first time and then watching michaels analysis is just astonishing. like a read a library on story writing.
*Index* [00:00] Question 1: why did you choose A Few Good Men? [01:47] Question 2: let’s get started with Act I, Stage 1: The Setup [02:13] Intro: The Six Stage Plot Structure created by the Five Key Turning Points *Act I* [03:19] Stage 1: The Setup [08:40] Turning Point #1: Opportunity (10%) [09:59] Stage 2: New Situation [11:05] Turning Point #2: Change Of Plans (25%) [1/2] [21:20] Turning Point #2: Change Of Plans (25%) [2/2] *Act II* [22:10] Stage 3: Progress [25:45] Turning Point #3: Point of Non Return (50%) [27:51] Stage 4: Complication & Higher Stakes [28:37] Turning Point #4: Major Setback (75%) *Act III* [33:29] Stage 5: Final Push [35:17] Turning Point #5: Climax (90-99%) [36:18] Stage 6: Aftermath *Definitions* [03:52] Definition of a Hero [04:26] Definition of an Outside Action Opening [12:46] The Inner Journey For The Character [17:10] Definition of the character’s Identity [18:44] Definition of the character’s Essence [20:30] Definition of the Reflection Character [22:32] Definition of The Nemesis *Other* [11:59] How to get a free Six-Stages Plot Structure Chart [24:18] The character’s Identity to Essence Rule [39:05] Question 3: courtroom scene breakdown [39:38] Key Structural Devices [39:38] Characters in Control Shifting [1/2] [40:20] Anticipation and Surprise [42:13] Obstacles Getting Bigger and Bigger [43:24] Characters in Control Shifting [2/2] Since the content is condensed in that video, I made an index that may contain some mistakes but hopefully if needed it’ll help to get straight to a particular topic. This is a great video, to say the least, to have a better understanding of Michael’s approach. Thank you very much to Michael Hauge and Film Courage for sharing this content.
Thank you. Sadly since this video was uploaded 5 years ago, the six-stage structure chart is no longer available, when you click on the link provided in this video's description box. Your post is much appreciated!
I simply love Michael Hauge and his brilliant analysis of this movie. A Few Good Men is one of my favorite movies, but frankly I never knew exactly why...until now. Mr. Haugh is my hero! Also, kudos to the interviewer ...she allows Michael to lecture without jumping in with stupid questions every few seconds like a lot of interviewers. You are too my hero! Maybe he can one day give a brilliant analysis of Ordinary People?
I first took Michael's class in 1983 when he taught regularly at UCLA. If you are truly interested in knowing how to create screenplays, take a course, buy his book, or see his videos. They are truly the best.
I've watched it in my teens for the first time and even at the time I was grabbed by the story but especially the permormsnces of ALL envolved. After about a 20 year hiatus without watching it , lately, for whatever reason I end up yearning for another watch every couple of months. On of my favourites indeed and award worthy Tom's performance.
I’ve read some of the negative criticism of this film and they’ve said that the movie is too predictable. I think the brilliance of the movie is that you are essentially with the defense team and are watching how they put together the case when all the pieces of evidence aren’t available to them. The suspense of the movie is not linked to finding out the facts of what happened to Santiago in Guantanamo Bay but rather in how Kaffee and his team will help their clients.
I took Michael Hauge's screenwriting workshop in 1990 or '91. It's a joy to find the material on this channel. The workshop has influenced my writing (for what it's worth) from the foundation.
I LOOOOVE Michael Hauge! I only use him as my mentor for learning to write good screenplays. BUT! ! He remembered wrong though, at the 37:42 mark, when saying Kaffee leaves the courtroom at the end of the movie with the words: “So this is what a courtroom looks like”. This is wrong :-) Tom Cruise's character already says this about 30% into the movie when first leaving the courtroom after accepting the case for real. This is where he speaks that line Hauge refers to, and not at the end ;-) I know, I know, just a tiny small detail, just couldn’t help but mention it hehe.
When I saw the movie for the 1st time when I was 15 or 16 years old, I always thought Kaffee would win by using those 2 groundcrew members' testimonies. I never realized they were meant as distraction so that he could get to the real point about "why would Santiago be in danger if orders were always followed". I recalled saying a "wow" at the end of the movie.
12:30 Unfortunately 5 years after this was uploaded, when you click on the link to Michael Hauge's Wordpress website and the six-stage story structure chart he mentions, it's no longer there! 🙄🙄🙄
'Dangerous to delay who we're rooting for.." What?? Has this guy ever seen The Hunt For Red October?" Good grief we don't know who until 30 minutes in... Gurus like to come off like they know the absolute.. and we're talking about an art form. Gimme a break.
He almost always includes caveats like "in general" or "there are exceptions." He's talking about what the vast majority of produced screenplays have in common.
The American screenplay is very formulaic. Since 1930s Hollywood, film production companies are factories, where hit movies are churned out to an unchanging recipe. It can be very boring indeed, and is the reason why European cinema went a different way in the fifties and sixties. While I recognise the equation he presents us with here is a winning one, I do find the notion great art can be achieved in this 'paint by numbers' way pretty absurd!
It's a great screenplay, and Tom Cruise is at his youthful best playing the protagonist. But let's not be under any illusions here - 'A Few Good Men' would not enjoy anything like such high status as a classic movie, without Jack Nicholson's unforgettable, scene-stealing performance as the villain of the piece, Col Nathan Jessup. It's a dream of a 'baddie' role for any actor to get his teeth into. And any number of big gun movie stars could have done it justice - Gene Hackman, Robert De Niro, Richard Gere, Christopher Walken, Harrison Ford, Clint Eastwood - all would have delivered a fantastic Colonel Jessup, I have no doubt. But Jack Nicholson brings an extra, magic ingredient to the role - his dangerous charisma. The smile on the face of the crocodile. His ruthlessness is matched by a powerful magnetism, intelligence, cunning and unassailable confidence, that together provide a compelling and chilling package. Nicholson's aura manages to embody all the scariest characteristics of senior military men in one irresistibly fascinating characterisation. The audience fears for Tom Cruise's character Danny Kaffee in their final courtroom showdown, and is intrigued to see them go head to head. Stanley Kubrick once said the presence of Jack Nicholson on a movie set, guarantees every other actor present, however big a star, is on their mettle and brings their A-game to the table. I have no doubt back in 1992 that was the case on the set of 'A Few Good Men'. Casting Jack Nicholson as Colonel Jessup was a masterstroke, that drew some of the best-ever performances out of Tim Cruise and all Jack's other co-stars.
It makes me doubt a little his taste NOT mentioning The verdict which is ten times better than a few good men. Mamet is a giant in comparison to Sorkin
Does every successful, lauded movie have to follow this rigid structure? It's massively formulaic! We absolutely do see it in the fodder churned out by the movie production companies. And movies often feel (and are) predictable for it. Surely in 2022 writers and producers should be trying to break the mould at times, and create original and surprising, not cookie-cutter and predictable, new dramas?
![Screenwriting Plot Structure Masterclass - Michael Hauge [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/besI6G4p4nw/mqdefault.jpg)
![Screenwriting Plot Structure Masterclass - Michael Hauge [FULL INTERVIEW]](/img/tr.png)
![The Idea: The Seven Elements of a Viable Story for Screen - Erik Bork [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8s45pNvEBIc/mqdefault.jpg)
![It’s All About Story And Nothing Else - UCLA Professor Richard Walter [FULL INTERVIEW]](/img/n.gif)
Every young writer aspiring to become a screenwriter should watch this. Period.
"Period"?
Pierre Stephens yes!
Not only young writers - older people can have just as much if not more to bring to the table, as young writers!
i started watching this, then stopped to watch A Few Good Men for the first time, then came back and watched it... now i've been a fan of michael for a while, wrote a story using his six step process, watched him lecture and listened to him speak many times over a year, but the amount of knowledge that got instilled into me from watching this movie for the first time and then watching michaels analysis is just astonishing. like a read a library on story writing.
This is a wonderful video. Watched it about a year ago and have returned to it.
*Index*
[00:00] Question 1: why did you choose A Few Good Men?
[01:47] Question 2: let’s get started with Act I, Stage 1: The Setup
[02:13] Intro: The Six Stage Plot Structure created by the Five Key Turning Points
*Act I*
[03:19] Stage 1: The Setup
[08:40] Turning Point #1: Opportunity (10%)
[09:59] Stage 2: New Situation
[11:05] Turning Point #2: Change Of Plans (25%) [1/2]
[21:20] Turning Point #2: Change Of Plans (25%) [2/2]
*Act II*
[22:10] Stage 3: Progress
[25:45] Turning Point #3: Point of Non Return (50%)
[27:51] Stage 4: Complication & Higher Stakes
[28:37] Turning Point #4: Major Setback (75%)
*Act III*
[33:29] Stage 5: Final Push
[35:17] Turning Point #5: Climax (90-99%)
[36:18] Stage 6: Aftermath
*Definitions*
[03:52] Definition of a Hero
[04:26] Definition of an Outside Action Opening
[12:46] The Inner Journey For The Character
[17:10] Definition of the character’s Identity
[18:44] Definition of the character’s Essence
[20:30] Definition of the Reflection Character
[22:32] Definition of The Nemesis
*Other*
[11:59] How to get a free Six-Stages Plot Structure Chart
[24:18] The character’s Identity to Essence Rule
[39:05] Question 3: courtroom scene breakdown
[39:38] Key Structural Devices
[39:38] Characters in Control Shifting [1/2]
[40:20] Anticipation and Surprise
[42:13] Obstacles Getting Bigger and Bigger
[43:24] Characters in Control Shifting [2/2]
Since the content is condensed in that video, I made an index that may contain some mistakes but hopefully if needed it’ll help to get straight to a particular topic. This is a great video, to say the least, to have a better understanding of Michael’s approach. Thank you very much to Michael Hauge and Film Courage for sharing this content.
You are 🔥
Thank you. Sadly since this video was uploaded 5 years ago, the six-stage structure chart is no longer available, when you click on the link provided in this video's description box. Your post is much appreciated!
❣❣❣❣❣
I simply love Michael Hauge and his brilliant analysis of this movie. A Few Good Men is one of my favorite movies, but frankly I never knew exactly why...until now. Mr. Haugh is my hero! Also, kudos to the interviewer ...she allows Michael to lecture without jumping in with stupid questions every few seconds like a lot of interviewers. You are too my hero! Maybe he can one day give a brilliant analysis of Ordinary People?
Hi Sandra, your comment is a delight. Thank you for sharing
Sandra Scott yes. Hauge is amazing
How about analyzing Midnight Cowboy? Thank you
I first took Michael's class in 1983 when he taught regularly at UCLA. If you are truly interested in knowing how to create screenplays, take a course, buy his book, or see his videos. They are truly the best.
I could listen to this gentleman all day. So helpful and insightful. Great video.
I've watched it in my teens for the first time and even at the time I was grabbed by the story but especially the permormsnces of ALL envolved. After about a 20 year hiatus without watching it , lately, for whatever reason I end up yearning for another watch every couple of months. On of my favourites indeed and award worthy Tom's performance.
A few good men hands down hit every peak of the 6 stage structure love the movie!
Wow, I just watched that film! Mike put the icing on the cake. Thanks FC! Your videos are educational and inspirational.
We love being able to share this one. Michael is awesome. Thanks for watching!
These are truly incredible videos! Well done! I'd love to see more analysis videos by Michael Hauge of other films.
please keep making this kind of script analysis video, it really helps alot. please cover more movies also.
I’ve read some of the negative criticism of this film and they’ve said that the movie is too predictable. I think the brilliance of the movie is that you are essentially with the defense team and are watching how they put together the case when all the pieces of evidence aren’t available to them. The suspense of the movie is not linked to finding out the facts of what happened to Santiago in Guantanamo Bay but rather in how Kaffee and his team will help their clients.
Watching it for the second time in a row. That's how important this is.
I took Michael Hauge's screenwriting workshop in 1990 or '91. It's a joy to find the material on this channel. The workshop has influenced my writing (for what it's worth) from the foundation.
I LOOOOVE Michael Hauge! I only use him as my mentor for learning to write good screenplays. BUT! ! He remembered wrong though, at the 37:42 mark, when saying Kaffee leaves the courtroom at the end of the movie with the words: “So this is what a courtroom looks like”. This is wrong :-) Tom Cruise's character already says this about 30% into the movie when first leaving the courtroom after accepting the case for real. This is where he speaks that line Hauge refers to, and not at the end ;-) I know, I know, just a tiny small detail, just couldn’t help but mention it hehe.
When I saw the movie for the 1st time when I was 15 or 16 years old, I always thought Kaffee would win by using those 2 groundcrew members' testimonies.
I never realized they were meant as distraction so that he could get to the real point about "why would Santiago be in danger if orders were always followed".
I recalled saying a "wow" at the end of the movie.
These lessons on storytelling are helping me to understand real life better.
Lol! Movie screenplay story structure, has absolutely nothing to do with real life!
This is great, loved it (: We are in the process of staging the original stage-play of this great script (:
Love it.
5:11 A Marine, not a Soldier. There is a vast difference between the two.
39:05 Beats
When I sell my first screenplay I will send Michael a gift basket. This is awesome. Lol.
I learned so fucking much without paying thousands of dollars
Sensational and insightful interview!
Really really helpful. Thank you so much for sharing!
Hi Vlad, it was a lot of fun to film this Michael and now to share it. Glad you got something out of it.
That is so absolutely useful, holy crap
An enjoyable and insightful interview
12:30 Unfortunately 5 years after this was uploaded, when you click on the link to Michael Hauge's Wordpress website and the six-stage story structure chart he mentions, it's no longer there! 🙄🙄🙄
I am in the middle of a giant change in my life right now.
This is very helpful. I have learned a lot.
Master class! Thank you
Masterclass 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
love michael
'Dangerous to delay who we're rooting for.." What?? Has this guy ever seen The Hunt For Red October?" Good grief we don't know who until 30 minutes in... Gurus like to come off like they know the absolute.. and we're talking about an art form. Gimme a break.
He almost always includes caveats like "in general" or "there are exceptions." He's talking about what the vast majority of produced screenplays have in common.
@@vladimirhorowitz Correct and in basic terms that makes him what he is.. A bean counter.
The American screenplay is very formulaic. Since 1930s Hollywood, film production companies are factories, where hit movies are churned out to an unchanging recipe. It can be very boring indeed, and is the reason why European cinema went a different way in the fifties and sixties.
While I recognise the equation he presents us with here is a winning one, I do find the notion great art can be achieved in this 'paint by numbers' way pretty absurd!
@@glamdolly30 That's exactly the point.
thanks!
Cheers Mac!
Chills.
Is this dude teaching me about screenwriting or psychoanalyzing me? :P
Nice explaining!
It's a great screenplay, and Tom Cruise is at his youthful best playing the protagonist. But let's not be under any illusions here - 'A Few Good Men' would not enjoy anything like such high status as a classic movie, without Jack Nicholson's unforgettable, scene-stealing performance as the villain of the piece, Col Nathan Jessup.
It's a dream of a 'baddie' role for any actor to get his teeth into. And any number of big gun movie stars could have done it justice - Gene Hackman, Robert De Niro, Richard Gere, Christopher Walken, Harrison Ford, Clint Eastwood - all would have delivered a fantastic Colonel Jessup, I have no doubt.
But Jack Nicholson brings an extra, magic ingredient to the role - his dangerous charisma. The smile on the face of the crocodile. His ruthlessness is matched by a powerful magnetism, intelligence, cunning and unassailable confidence, that together provide a compelling and chilling package. Nicholson's aura manages to embody all the scariest characteristics of senior military men in one irresistibly fascinating characterisation. The audience fears for Tom Cruise's character Danny Kaffee in their final courtroom showdown, and is intrigued to see them go head to head.
Stanley Kubrick once said the presence of Jack Nicholson on a movie set, guarantees every other actor present, however big a star, is on their mettle and brings their A-game to the table. I have no doubt back in 1992 that was the case on the set of 'A Few Good Men'. Casting Jack Nicholson as Colonel Jessup was a masterstroke, that drew some of the best-ever performances out of Tim Cruise and all Jack's other co-stars.
Did LTJG Kaffee get IKEA steak knives for winning that case?
It makes me doubt a little his taste NOT mentioning The verdict which is ten times better than a few good men. Mamet is a giant in comparison to Sorkin
Always be wary of taking screenwriting advise from those who have few to no actual writing credits.
Does every successful, lauded movie have to follow this rigid structure? It's massively formulaic!
We absolutely do see it in the fodder churned out by the movie production companies. And movies often feel (and are) predictable for it.
Surely in 2022 writers and producers should be trying to break the mould at times, and create original and surprising, not cookie-cutter and predictable, new dramas?
I feel like Luke _ after the cave experience.