-
Day 4: 3rd Act Climax
Instructions:
1. Please watch this scene and provide your insights into what makes this scene great from a writing perspective.
2. Read the other writers insights and make notes of how you will take a scene to an extreme..
3. Rethink your Climax scene using your new insights and rewrite the scene.
-
2 Replies
-
WATCH 1ST TIME FOR:
BASIC SCENE COMPONENTS
–SCENE ARC – seems Kaffee is losing his case to he gets Jessep to admit he ordered a “Code Red.”
–SITUATION – 2 marines up for murder, defense lawyer trying to get them off
–CONFLICT – between Kaffee & Jessep, also between formal and informal law/orders
–MOVING THE STORY FORWARD – Kaffee starts slow, looks like he’s losing, then he ramps up questioning Jessep (I’m thinking this is like the final court scene in LEGALLY BLONDE), making Jessep more and more angry until he lets out the truth.
–ENTERTAINMENT VALUE – dramatic argument with dramatic meaning about defending the country & what Jessep felt was necessary beyond the rules/law.
–SETUPS/PAYOFFS. Kaffee is weak. Jessep thinks it’s over, starts to walk out, the Kaffee strengthens begins asking and pushing, finally getting the truth from Jessep
WATCH 2ND TIME FOR:
–HOW THIS SCENE IS THE ULTIMATE EXPRESSION OF THE CONFLICT. Saw the movie, so it is a conflict between young, inexperienced, follow the law/rules vs. old/experienced/deviate from law out of (what he thinks is) necessity
–THE ESCALATION OF THE CONFLICT. THE FINAL TWIST AT THE END OF THE SCENE. Jessep finally admits to what all have been covering up.
–INTRIGUING DIALOGUE· THE FINAL PAYOFFS OF THIS MOVIE. In addition to the main conflict, there is the side issue of respect and using proper titles, the judge also demanding respect.
—————–
WHAT MAKES THIS SCENE GREAT FROM A WRITING PERSPECTIVE
–the climax of a courtroom battle, very dramatic. Defense lawyer Kaffee does a “Perry Mason” in getting Jessep to admit he had ordered the two defendants to do a “Code Red” (informal discipline) which got out of hand and killed the marine. It’s dramatic they way Jessep explains his side, why he did it.
——————–
NOTE: I saw the original 3:10 TO YUMA (1957) — great movie. Will look into the climax in the remake later.
-
What I learned is that the Climatic Scene must bring to a head the conflict that began and fuelled the story – and it must play out in the most dramatic way possible, which is true to the characters and makes complete sense to the world the story is set in.
The Climax here is in Court – which makes sense as the the conflict throughout is between Kaffee and Jessep who each represent ‘doing things by the book/the correct legal route’ versus ‘real-life in the army’ – it shows ultimately how Jessep believes he is above the law and some rookie wet behind the ears lawyer who never served in the army (or never broke the law) is not going to tell Jessep how things work. Jessep has become corrupted by his own sense of power and has lost all sense of the rights of the individual (Sandiago) . He believes he is above the law in every respect, in the name of defending his country, but he has become tainted, as power has corrupted his moral code.
Yet Jessep’s argument is poignant – I haven’t see the film but his argument about making America less safe appears relevant – he believes he had to do what he did, to protect the Nation – even if it meant bending the rules, killing someone in the name of Security. Is the Army accountable for atrocities? Of course it should be. But really, is it?
This climatic scene is the ultimate battle between the rights of the individual /the legal route and infallible Power (or the corrupting influence of Power – played out in a Court Case where the rookie Lawyer got the Colonel to finally confess to the truth.
Log in to reply.