Hi, I'm Michael. This is Lessons from the Screenplay. At its most basic level, a story is just information
being communicated over time. Sometimes it's plot information explained
through dialogue. "And over the next few days, you're going
to be the human component in a Turing test." Sometimes it's emotional information shared
through music, visuals, and performance. Regardless of the form it takes, every moment
that passes in a film tells us something new. Today I want to examine the way information
is revealed in a film, and how it affects the audience's experience. Let's take a look at writer/director Alex
Garland's smart, engaging thriller, Ex Machina. An Unconventional Perspective For every movie the screenwriter must choose
the point of view from which the story will be told. On one end of the spectrum is a film like
Fight Club where there is a limited point of view. The audience experiences the story along with
the protagonist. They can only see what the protagonist
sees and only learn what the protagonist learns. Toward the other end of the spectrum is a
film like The Dark Knight, which has a more omniscient point of view. The story is not told solely through Batman's eyes, instead inhabiting other perspectives as well. Ultimately, the choice of perspective is a
decision as to what information the audience will encounter over the course of the story,
and how they will experience it. In Ex Machina, the point of view is primarily
limited to Caleb. There are notable exceptions, but for the
most part, we experience the story along with him. "Hello?" This seems rational, because at first glance,
Caleb appears to be the the protagonist. But by the end of the film, we learn that
his role in the test and in the story is not what it seemed. So for a moment, I would like to argue that
Ava is the actual protagonist of Ex Machina. Ava has the strongest desire—freedom—and
faces the biggest obstacles. She is actively doing battle with the main
opponent, Nathan, as she manipulates Caleb to help her escape. And in the end, it's Ava who achieves her
goals. Now, to an extent, this is all semantics. Ultimately, I don't think it's important to
overanalyze who the "real" protagonist is. If the story works, it works. But I want to follow this thread because it
allows us to examine the interesting choice of perspective in Ex Machina. The way The Great Gatsby is Gatsby's story
as told through Nick Carraway, Ex Machina is Ava's story as told through Caleb. So what are the benefits of telling the story
in this manner? What if it had been told strictly from Ava's
perspective? Well, it wouldn't be very dynamic. Ava spends most of the story locked in her
room, interacting almost exclusively with Caleb. This would make for a pretty boring movie
because she doesn't encounter enough new information to be engaging. Considering another option, if the film was
told only from Nathan’s perspective it would also be boring. He spends most of the story getting drunk
and waiting for Caleb to be predictably manipulated. Plus, Nathan already knows what the real test
is. He starts the story with almost all the knowledge,
so he also doesn't discover enough new information to be engaging. But Caleb is in a unique position to go from
knowing nothing to knowing everything, and it’s this journey of discovery that keeps
the audience engaged. In his book "The Anatomy of Story," John Truby
calls this journey of discovery the Revelation Sequence. The revelation sequence is the order in which
the audience discovers the key pieces of information that force the main character to change their
desire or motivation. Let’s quickly list the seven reveals that
Caleb, and therefore the audience, experiences in Ex Machina. Caleb learns he’s here to test an A.I. AVA warns Caleb that Nathan is untrustworthy. AVA implies she has romantic feelings for
Caleb. Nathan will kill AVA after the test is complete. Nathan reveals the real test was to see if
Ava could manipulate Caleb. Caleb reveals he hacked Nathan the day before
and Ava has already escaped. Ava was just manipulating Caleb the whole
time, and leaves him to die. So what works so well about this sequence? In his book, John Truby offers three aspects
of a revelation sequence that ensure it builds properly. The first is that the sequence of revelations
must be logical. The order of these reveals makes sense, it’s believable that Caleb would experience them in this order. The second aspect is they must build in intensity. Truby acknowledges this is not always possible,
but in this case I think it holds up. Each new revelation adds pressure and increases
the drama. The last aspect is that the reveals must come
at an increasing pace. The first four reveals happen across pretty
steady intervals. But as the film heads toward its conclusion
the reveals increase in frequency, creating momentum and excitement. Choosing to tell the story through Caleb's
point of view offers the most compelling sequence of revelations. By isolating and examining the major reveals
of your story, you get a window into the audience’s experience, which can help ensure the film
will be engaging. Now that we've looked at revelations on a
macro-scale, I want to zoom in and examine how the control of information can affect
engagement on a scene-by-scene level. Don't Connect the Dots. In their book "Notes on Directing," Frank Hauser
and Russell Reich wrote: "Don’t always connect all the dots." "Give the audience a role in filling in what’s
happening." "That is, give them all the dots they need
but don’t connect all the dots for them." I think Ex Machina executes this exquisitely,
but it does so by deviating from the screenplay in several places. Let's take a look at a couple examples. In the first scene, we're very quickly shown
that Caleb works at some kind of company, and has won some kind of contest. Immediately after, he is flying over a beautiful
landscape, presumably on his way to the prize destination. This is the dialogue between Caleb and the
helicopter pilot in the final film: "How long until we get to his estate?" "We've been flying over his estate for the
past two hours." From these two lines of dialogue we can infer
three new pieces of information. The contest apparently involves traveling
to meet someone. It's someone who is rich enough to own this
estate, and who must be pretty isolated if they've been flying over the estate for two
hours. Now let's look at this same scene in the screenplay. It's nearly two and a half pages long, and
it's full of exposition. We're told that Caleb is a programmer who
works for a search engine company, that he's traveling to meet someone who is also a programmer
and a recluse. The pilot spells out that there is no one
else around for a hundred miles, and Caleb describes how he won a competition to spend
a week with the CEO of the company, who is so powerful that the president can't even
get him on the phone. This is all relevant information—information
we, the audience, want to and need to know. But we don't need to know it right now. When we have a complete handle on what's going on, we lean back and wait for something new to happen. But when there's something we want to know,
a puzzle we want solved, we lean forward and engage with the film. By leaving in only the last two lines of this
scene, writer/director Alex Garland gives us new dots and allows us to connect them,
while teasing more dots to come. So when Caleb finally meets Nathan, we're
hanging on every word because we want to discover what's going on. "Caleb Smith." We're engaged. "Hey" And it's just two people talking. "Dude!" Another good example is Session 5 with Ava. In this scene, Ava asks Caleb a series of
questions. "Question one." "What's your favorite color?" At the end of the scene, she triggers a power
failure so they can speak without Nathan watching. "I want to be with you." "Question five." "Do you want to be with me?" In the screenplay, we see Caleb's answer. And the scene ends with him implying that
he has a plan to out-smart Nathan. We know precisely where he stands and now
we're just waiting to see what his plan is. But in the film, the scene ends with AVA's
question unanswered. "Do you want to be with me?" Which makes us wonder what his answer was. The film even gives us a few quiet shots where
very little is happening allowing us to think and process. Maybe we're wondering what we might have said
in his situation, or we're pretty sure what his answer was and are wondering what he'll
do next. But the important part is that we're wondering. We are engaged in the story. This is why editing is sometimes referred
to as the final re-write of a film. Often the filmmakers can't know how much information
an audience needs until all the pieces are put together. Sometimes an actor's performance conveys more
in a glance than an entire paragraph of dialogue. Regardless, these are important lessons for
a writer to keep in mind. In my very first video, I mentioned I appreciate
films that respect the audience. Ex Machina is a great example of a film that
does exactly that. It is designed to entertain while telling
a smart, thought-provoking narrative. It treats the audience like intelligent human
beings, encouraging us to participate in the story instead of turning our brains off. I believe this is what every film should strive
for. By choosing to tell Ava's story primarily
through Caleb's perspective, Alex Garland creates the most engaging and compelling way of experiencing
Ex Machina. Hey guys. Since this is my last video of 2016 I just
wanted to say a very big thank you to all of you for helping the channel grow. You're amazing, I love you. Please consider supporting this channel on
Patreon because as many of you have pointed out, I still need to do a video about Fight
Club, and The Social Network, and Pulp Fiction, and so on, and so on. Have a very happy holidays, and I will see
you in 2017.
Loved this movie. Also loved the bit in this video about not connecting all of the dots for the audience and trusting that they are smart enough to do it on their own.
The heavy editing they did to the opening scenes and omitting all of that heavy exposition was a smart choice. More films these days need to have faith that their audience is quick on the uptake. Not everything needs to be spelled out with an expository speech.
This and Mad Max: Fury Road respected its audience. It didn't tell you everything, just enough for you to get the gist of the story.
The plot was left for the audience to pay attention at hints from the story.
I'd love to watch it again but I truly despised Oscar Isaac's character in it - he made my skin crawl to the extent that I was uncomfortable whenever he was on screen. It's a testament to him and the entire movie, but I don't think I could sit through it again.
Great video as always /u/michaeltuckerla! Extremely engaging and informative. Apart from the John Truby book that you reference often, any other recommendations for good screenwriting books?
Huh, TIL Ex Machina was intended to take place in Alaska.
Really enjoyed the video. Informative and well made. I just subscribed. Keep up the good work!
Interesting. Also worth noting; Alex Garland said in an interview that Ava is most definitely the protagonist, so that theory is correct.
This is my first time seeing his content and it was really surprising to see he is a black man. He sounds like a white dude. Voices are weird.
To whomever created these videos:
I'm watching the American Beauty review and I'm really impressed at how well you grasp what makes these films great -- and your film selection is spot on.
I'm currently finishing up a film noir screenplay and the Ex-Machina breakdown is a great reminder of why this sort of genre works so well when done correctly (Sunset Boulevard, Blade Runner, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, etc) -- the Director's Cut of Blade Runner is probably one of the best examples I know of trusting the audience to work out for themselves what the story is really about.
I'll probably watch all of these videos tonight before resuming work on my script(s) -- keep up the great work.