Where to give backstory.

[nganok]

I was recently given the advice to not reveal to much backstory early on in a script (which I have a problem doing). I was told to keep the reader guessing. I get that but, when then. Before the first ten? Act two? End of Act one? is there a good place at all. I am currently following the advice but I don't want to just totally loose my reader by not giving something up. I feel like I should give something to give reveal motive in my protagonist. Advce anyone or anybody have the same issue.


PS- anybody ever notice how the royal family on playing cards always look really stoned. Just a thought.

[WritingFool]

I have a simple question. why are you following advice on whats youre story. Tell the story the way you feel it needs to be told, in the manner you feel its best told, then work at dressing it up later.
Unless that someone is a proven authority on story telling, I wouldnt just listen to just anyone. And only you are the one who will know when its right, in the right place.
you can follow "the structured" recipe for what a good script is suppose to follow, like a properly formatted poem, or any work of art. The problem is theres too much junk out there that seems to be following the standardization of what a movies suppose to be...break the rules, bend em, make your own...do whatever it takes to make your story stand out, but flow.
I dont think anyone else can tell you how to do that, its your story who will drive you exactly where you have to go.
Hope that makes some sense

[Kosh]

I have a simple question. why are you following advice on whats youre story. Tell the story the way you feel it needs to be told, in the manner you feel its best told, then work at dressing it up later.
Unless that someone is a proven authority on story telling, I wouldnt just listen to just anyone. And only you are the one who will know when its right, in the right place.
you can follow "the structured" recipe for what a good script is suppose to follow, like a properly formatted poem, or any work of art. The problem is theres too much junk out there that seems to be following the standardization of what a movies suppose to be...break the rules, bend em, make your own...do whatever it takes to make your story stand out, but flow.
I dont think anyone else can tell you how to do that, its your story who will drive you exactly where you have to go.
Hope that makes some sense


I was just saying why I liked a certein scifi show in another thread and it was because of what you wrote in your post. I'm a new writer, so I do study structure just so I now what makes stories work; but I definately want to write "unsafe" stories once I master the craft.

[NikeeGoddess]

I was just saying...
are you 2 aliases?!

[[[the NikeeGoddess just shakes her head]]]

stick to one name, dude. and use your real name for business purposes.

[TheRuleofThirds]

Follerin' the format, I'd say backstory needs to end by the time the character reaches the 'inmost cave.' For some reason, I can see characters revealing the past up until that point, but after that, their concern is the future, because that's what they're trying to change. They're either trying to make something happen or keep it from happening. If you need to present info that will come in handy for overcoming an obstacle in the late 2nd Act/3rd Act, then you ought to present it in the beginning. You can't just make it a deus ex machina or else your story's believability will suffer (even though it should be a little unbelievable).

[/prophecy]

[TheRuleofThirds]

He was talking about B5 on the TV thread, NG.

[wskel]

Just go with the flow of your story and put it wherever you feel its needed. Sometimes at the beginning is fine, other places are fine too. I wouldn't use too much backstory at the beginning.

[WritingFool]

I just caught on to the split personality thing. Is this a dr. Jekyl Mr Hide occurence.
Now Im wondering if the person whos giving him his advice is his alter ego, and if its an inner conflict as to what personailty will gain control of the story.
Either way, thought it was funky. Oh well, the things people do.

[Joe Calabrese]

NOTE: Trust me. I have my ways, but nganok and kosh are NOT the same person, unless he/she can travel a thousand miles in an hour, so everyone forget about it. Kosh was just saying that Fool's post reminded him/her of a similar discussion he/she saw on another thread.

Anyway. I personally like to know most about my lead's BS by end of Act 1 so we can focus on his conflict and resolution from there on.

Of course, you can speckle some things throughout the entire script (a cop who is afraid of dogs and we come to find out at the end it was because of a childhood accident.), but the majority of his backstory should be done by page 30ish. Unless an element of his BS would make a great reveal at the end or mid point plot twist.

I like to think of it as:
Act 1, get to know the hero,
Act 2, watch the hero get messed up with conflicts and antagonists,
Act 3. watch the hero find a way and conquer.

[Mac H.]

One rule of thumb that I like to use is not to give the audience an answer to a question that they aren't asking.

Does the audience want to know about your hero's childhood? If not, then don't tell them. If you want to tell the audience about the guy's childhood, then either slip it in without them noticing or MAKE the audience want to know.

Anything else might just annoy them - it might come off like the old 'Nazi with a rubber ducky' scene ...

Mac

[maestrowork]

It all depends on how "revealing" your back story is. Is it essential for the plot? For the climax? My view is:

Leave the audience crumbs, so when you reveal the secret it's not jarring. Throw them a bone once in a while to keep them guessing, but not frustrated. And when the time is right, reveal. When is the right time? When it's ABSOLUTELY essential for the plot to move forward and for the audience to understand what's going on. If the back story is important for the climax, then reveal it right before the climax. If it's important for a plot twist in the middle, reveal it then. The point is, don't tell the audience what they need to know until they need to know it.

E.g. In Batman Begins, the deaths of Bruce Wayne's parents are revealed early on because it makes sense to the story. The scenes with the trial of the guy who killed his parents come later... when the story requires that information. However, the back stories of why Bruce is fearful of bats come early because the fear is essential throughout the whole story.

[dpaterso]

I'd take a long, hard look at that backstory and ask whether the current story (which is far more interesting -- that's why it's the current story, right?) actually needs it.

A character is defined through his or her actions. What that means is, I don't really have to know that Little Bobby's stepfather locked him in a dark closet when he was a boy -- his refusal as an adult to enter enclosed dark spaces suggests something happened in his past... and his taking physical action whenever he sees someone frightening a kid enforces this. Must we have it spelled out for us? Isn't it enough that we know there must have been some incident in adult Bobby's past that made him what he is today?

Think of Crowe's tough cop character in L.A. Confidential. When we meet him he's responding to a domestic, where a husband is slapping his wife around. He beats up the husband and sends the wife on her way with money. When he later loses his temper and hits Kim Basinger's character he's as shocked as she is! And driven away from her by his guilt. The script says something like, "The sins of the father are visited upon the son!" -- a rare but perfect piece of "telling" that helps make the script itself a great read. But the film SHOWS us this without having to watch the backstory of the boy witnessing his father beating up his mother.

Of course, if the past is more interesting than the present then maybe that's the story you ought to be telling.

-Derek
Derek's Web Page - stories, screenplays, novels, insanity. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57/scripts.htm)

[Mac H.]

What Derek said.

Another beautiful piece of backstory is from 'A Fist full of Dollars'.
We learn the entire backstory of the 'Man with No Name' when he's asked why he's risking his life to help rescue someone else's wife and child.

He simply replies "Because once I had a family like yours ... and there was no-one there to help."

No long speech. No details. Just one line.

Mac.

[Joe Calabrese]

E.g. In Batman Begins, the deaths of Bruce Wayne's parents are revealed early on because it makes sense to the story. The scenes with the trial of the guy who killed his parents come later... when the story requires that information. However, the back stories of why Bruce is fearful of bats come early because the fear is essential throughout the whole story. All in the first act.

The back story of Ras al Ghul having been around since the time on the Romans is a bit tricky.

In the Comics, Ras was an immortal who would bath in the Lazarus Pit when weak, injured or old to bring himself back to life. That aside, the movie dealt with the Legion of Shadows as an institution instead or an actual being, but the reveal that they tried destroying Gotham before with economics came out of the blue as well as that revelation that they have been around for centuries doing similar things to "Sodom and Gomorra" type cities. I would have like a few more hints to this before, so It didn't feel like a Bond Villain gloating and giving the audience the info at the worst time.

I personally feel it is better to have the hero discover the truth than to be spoon fed by the villain.

Probably just me and the bias towards the changing of the comic origin-- or maybe not.

With that said, Batmat Begins is a near perfect script, with great acting, plot, and a real feel in the film, excpet for the "I'm Batman" curse that all the films feel compelled to do with Wayne's love interest. What part of "secret identity" does he not understand?

[Joe Calabrese]

What Derek said.

Another beautiful piece of backstory is from 'A Fist full of Dollars'.
We learn the entire backstory of the 'Man with No Name' when he's asked why he's risking his life to help rescue someone else's wife and child.

He simply replies "Because once I had a family like yours ... and there was no-one there to help."

No long speech. No details. Just one line.

Mac.Clint has a way of doing this a lot as in Escape from Alcatraz. I've said it before, but the line about his childhood when asked how it was. He just said "short."

[Kosh]

I'm sorry for all the confusion I started; but I assure you, all my other personalities will be posting under the same screen name. ;)

[IWrite]

I totally agree with Dpat.

One common problem with inexperienced writers is that they often the lack the ability to differentiate between what backstory information is needed to understand the story and what backstory information is not.

As Dpat pointed out, we should be able to follow a story and get a feel for the character based on what happens during the film. Many new writers rely too heavily on backstory to EXPLAIN character and plot to the audience rather than letting their actions define who they are. Many new writers often front-load it slowing down the story upfront.

When writing the first draft I recommend that you parse out backstory and expositon on a need to know basis - that is that you shouldn't divulge any information until the precise moment that the audience NEEDS the information in order to make sense of what is happening. By approaching the structure this way - it can help keep out unnecessary backstory - it also prevents the backstory from getting lumped together in long expository monologues that don't move the plot forward.

During the rewrite process you can go back and move some of it around if it serves your storytelling better.

Regardless of when it comes out - it is best to get out backstory and exposition via conflict and crisis.

[icerose]

I always find that backstory has a way of filtering itself in naturally and never all at once. I use little bits here and there as it is asked and I don't give a full explanation. I expose backstory through dialog for the most part as it is the most natural way for me to make it relevant. That also applies to character's motives and logic, they reveal it through dialog and interaction.

Just my thoughts :)
Sara

[maestrowork]

backstories are often more useful to the writer than to the audience.

[JERETHAL]

I'm kind of having the same problem. I am working on a screenplay that I intend to send to Clint Eastwoods Malpaso productions.

It's called " The Golden Role" As a play on the Golden Rule.

It's about a gang of hustlers who plan to run one of their own for Congress with the express purpose of finding out how the money is made and transferred and where the country's gold is kept. The plan is to steal "all" the nations cash reserves and gold bullion. The idea is to get the guy elected to congress, get him on the commerce commitee, send him on a fact finding mission to the federal reserve bank under the guise of "understanding" everything about how money gets transferred, where the gold is kept, what the security loopholes are , then maybe send a piece of paper and have the government bureaucrats load the money and the gold into the robbers truck themselves. He's in effect a robber who plays the "role" of a curious congressman.

I was trying to keep the audience in the dark about his motives by making him look sincere and benevolent like he really cared, then WHAM! Reveal his true motives. His co-conspirators are on his staff. But the story isn't interesting unless you know what they're up to because you are appalled at the way he goes to Political action committees and sucks up like he really cares.

I tried like hell to hide the robbery but it just didn't work. The way I'm doing it now, it's kind of cool to let the audience in on the secret. They get to watch everybody get played for a sucker.

At the end, I'm gonna have them all get greedy and kill each other. The tractor trailers of cash and gold get left wide open when they shoot each other in a paranoid flash. A drunk comes along and hepls himself to a $100.00 bill and walks off. they pulled off the mother of all robberies. they got a trillion dollars in cash and gold, and never even fired a shot. they did it with paperwork. Exploited the loopholes in the system.

I hated letting the audience in from the beginning, but I thought I came up with a good way to tell it. I let them in from the time they hatched the idea over a few beers.

I EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT RUNNING FOR CONGRESS AND DOING IT IN REAL LIFE! BUT THEN I FIGURED IT WOULD BE EASIER TO WRITE THE SCREENPLAY, SELL IT, AND DO IT DURING FILMING. RUNNIN FOR CONGRESS COULD BE FUTILE.

[nganok]

I'd take a long, hard look at that backstory and ask whether the current story (which is far more interesting -- that's why it's the current story, right?) actually needs it.

A character is defined through his or her actions. What that means is, I don't really have to know that Little Bobby's stepfather locked him in a dark closet when he was a boy -- his refusal as an adult to enter enclosed dark spaces suggests something happened in his past... and his taking physical action whenever he sees someone frightening a kid enforces this. Must we have it spelled out for us? Isn't it enough that we know there must have been some incident in adult Bobby's past that made him what he is today?

Think of Crowe's tough cop character in L.A. Confidential. When we meet him he's responding to a domestic, where a husband is slapping his wife around. He beats up the husband and sends the wife on her way with money. When he later loses his temper and hits Kim Basinger's character he's as shocked as she is! And driven away from her by his guilt. The script says something like, "The sins of the father are visited upon the son!" -- a rare but perfect piece of "telling" that helps make the script itself a great read. But the film SHOWS us this without having to watch the backstory of the boy witnessing his father beating up his mother.

Of course, if the past is more interesting than the present then maybe that's the story you ought to be telling.

-Derek
Derek's Web Page - stories, screenplays, novels, insanity. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57/scripts.htm)

Good example! - I was waiting to here an example of this in a pratical since. THhough I did finally decide that it was important in my sci fi fantasy-- this spoke volumes in editting my other scripts.

P.S - Ngano King does not go by any other name. Who is this Kosh you speak of.

[StephieM]

"One rule of thumb that I like to use is not to give the audience an answer to a question that they aren't asking."

Mac,
That's a great way to look at it. I never thought of it like that. :)

I think the main thing is, that it depends on the story. I'm having the same problem, deciding wether or not I should open my current script with my main character as a child, simply because it would explain why she is the way she is. It's either show it in the beginning or use tiny flashbacks. I'm not sure which is better or worse. I guess the rule is not to reveal too much. I've learned in screenwriting, that some things just don't matter. I think it was someone here who once told me that it's good to just let the audience draw their own conclusions. Not everything has to be explained.

Steph

[Boo_Radley]

My last script was nothing BUT backstory, as told to a psychiatrist by a killer (update: I've received a request from an indie studio to read it...my first script, my first request to read...woo hoo!!!).

But normally I like to just sprinkle it throughout the story where it will enhance the scene or teach us something new about a character. I have a cop drama I'm particularly proud of (though I'm dreading the rewriting process on this lengthy puppy) and the only time I ever refer to the lead's back story is a scene where he compares his life to a high-stakes game of poker. It reads something like this:

VAL
You play cards?

STRICK
Sometimes.

VAL
Say you're neck deep in a game.
Been at it for hours. Years, it seems.
You want to win, so you put
everything you have on the line.
You're staying alive but then you
start thinking, hey, I don't want
to play this game anymore. You've
had it, f*** it, doesn't matter what
it's gonna cost you. You just want the
f***in' game to be over so you don't
have to play anymore. You ever play
that game?

STRICK
No. You?

VAL
Every day.

The Val character is a VERY crooked cop who's spent years playing the system and from this brief exchange you get the idea that his conscience has begun to weigh heavily on him, and he just wants out of it and doesn't care what it might cost him.

At any rate, I think the best stories tell us only what we NEED to know WHEN we need to know it. And that's the kind of approach I normally stick to.

[JERETHAL]

Boo Radley,

Great board name. One of my all-0time favorite flick's.

|Why the **** did you name a guy- a cop no less- VAL.

[Boo_Radley]

I liked the sound of it. I liked the idea of giving this bad-*** crooked cop a "sissy" kind of name. It's a contrast thing lol

[Kosh]

In the script I'm writing now, I've changed the backstory (as well as other parts of plot) with every draft. Is this a bad practice?

[TheRuleofThirds]

I wouldn't think it's good to. To me, it's a form of cowardice. It shows signs of weakness. :guns: Of course, with the big project I'm working on now, my character's backstory's based on someone else. If I change anything relating to the backstory, it's usually how much is revealed and how it's done.

[Boo_Radley]

If it improves the story and doesn't cause confusion, I say go for it.

[IWrite]

I wouldn't think it's good to. To me, it's a form of cowardice. It shows signs of weakness.
It's a sign of cowardice and weakness to change the backstory? The story story tends to change through progessive drafts. Characters change are added and removed through the rewrite process. It is neither a sign of cowardice or weaknesses to make changes. In fact just the opposite is true those who are most attached to their original drafts or the first thoughts that popped into their heads and unwiling or unable to make changes are the weakest writers.

[Joe Calabrese]

Third, I missed the cowardice comment. Please don't joke around like that as some may not think you were joking and not everyone in the world has seen Ghostbusters or memorized all the lines.

Iwrite, Please don't escalate posts to the point of war or go tit for tat. Learn to brush things off or if you have a problem with someone, PM them-- or better yet, me.

I don't see how you two fighting like cats in heat out in the open like this best serves the forum, its members, this thread, or the poster who wanted opinions on a dilemna, so please BEHAVE or I'll have to take both of you out back and put a switch to your backsides.

And that wasn't a joke to difuse anything. I will do the forum equivalent if you two don't start acting like adults.

So that the nice, decent folk here don't have to trudge thier way through trash (almost a third or this thread) to get to relevent, thoughtful and respectable posts, your fight has been deleted.

Sorry you wasted all those keystrokes for nothing.