Great Endings #6: Two key moments that set up your ending

by on December 2, 2013

in Film analysis, Hero's Journey, Screenwriting tips, Story structure

Dead Poets Society Midpoint Mr Keating (Robin Williams) confronts Todd (Ethan Hawke) and the timid student finally reveals what lurks beneath his timid shell

An emotionally powerful ending depends on 2 key moments before the climax itself. And neither of them is the Inciting Incident or a Turning Point.

Emotional power comes from character not plot

When I look at most screenwriting texts I see a preoccupation with plot. They’ll talk about the importance of character and how you need a character arc but then most will talk about structure independently of character. Structure is not about plot. It’s about using plot to drive the transformation of the character.

So, while Inciting Incidents and Turning Points are important, they tend to be plot- rather than character-focused and they are not the key moments in determining the emotional power of your climax.

What are the two moments you need to get right if you want to set up a profoundly moving climax?

The first is the unglamorous and generally overlooked first 5-10 pages of the script: the Ordinary World.

Why first 5-10 pages is critical for character arc

In my earlier posts on Great Endings, I have pointed out that the really powerful endings depend on character transformation. It’s not so much about what your hero/protagonist does at the climax of your third act, but how that relates to what they were like in Act 1. What was their ground zero?

I’m going to refer again to Dead Poets Society not only because I think it has one of the most powerful endings in cinema based on the reactions I get in class, but because of its simplicity. A student stands on his desk and says, “Oh, Captain, my Captain”. How can that possibly move us in the way that it does? Because, for this character, that represents a monumental transformation. Where was that transformation set up? In the first 10 pages of the script.

In Cracking Story: The Heart of Screenwriting, I play the opening of Dead Poets Society, and ask who is hero of the film?

Some will say that it’s the Robin Williams character, Mr Keating. No, he is the mentor.

Many will say that it’s the Robert Sean Leonard, Neil. I can understand this point of view but he is not the hero by my definition. I say that there are two ways to identify your hero: the character who is most changed by the story and the character who takes the decisive action to resolve the conflict. And, in neither case, is that Neil. He is just what I call the Protagonist – the character who drives the action. So who is the hero? It’s Todd (Ethan Hawke).

Todd is the character who is most changed. And he’s the character who takes the decisive action at the climax.

Having identified that Todd is the hero, I point out how the writer sets up his character in these opening pages. Apart from his generally timid demeanour, we hear him described as “a stiff” by the gormless red-headed Cameron, and three times we hear a reference to his over-achieving brother. Todd is a guy of whom nothing is expected. And he does everything he can to retain that identity because that is a safe place to be. If nothing is expected of you then how can you ever disappoint?

Which brings me to the second key moment that sets up the climax.

Midpoint is not about stakes – it’s about character confrontation

I have written previously about the importance of the midpoint but I will summarise again here.

If you read Syd Field on the midpoint, he will say that it’s about raising the stakes or about burning a bridge that makes this a point of no return. I won’t say that the midpoint can’t be about those things. What I would say is that if that is all your midpoint is about then good luck achieving a profoundly moving climax.

The midpoint, for me, is the second key moment in the character arc. And what needs to happen here?

Your hero needs to be confronted with their flaw. Someone needs to hold up a mirror to them and say, here, look at yourself, this is what is wrong with you.

And that’s what happens in Dead Poets Society. Mr Keating (Robin Williams) forces Todd, very much against his will, to conceive a poem in front of the class and Todd resists and resists and resists, before finally his “woe-is-me” Identity cracks open and he gushes forth with his “Sweaty Tooth Mad Man” revelation. The room is stunned into silence. Finally, Todd has unveiled what really lives inside that diffident exterior.

“Don’t you forget this”, says Keating.

This moment is critical to your story. You need to confront the character, make them aware of what ails them, and then given them the opportunity at the climax to prove that they have learned the lesson.

Please read my earlier post on what should happen at the midpoint because if you can wrap your head around this moment you will fundamentally alter your understanding of story.

Your ending is only as good as the preceding 100 pages

I have heard stories of producers saying to writers, “We love the first two acts, we just want you to fix the ending”.

Not a chance.

If the ending is not working, it is highly unlikely there is anything you can change in the last 10-15 pages that is going to lift it. The ending can only build on what precedes it.

And, while every single scene of every single page is important, the two key moments that I would look to address would be these two:

1. Ordinary World: Is the character’s flaw set up BEFORE the inciting incident?
2. Midpoint: Is the character confronted with their flaw in Act 2?

Get those right, and you have some chance of achieving a profoundly moving climax.

But, there a few more things that the great films do with their endings, and I’ll explore another of those in my next post …

Great Endings #7: Want a massive high? First, you’ll need a huge low.

Catch the entire Great Endings series of posts here

Join the Cracking Yarns mailing list

Learn about our Screenwriting Courses
Learn about our Online Screenwriting Courses
Learn about our Free Screenwriting Webinars
Learn about our Script Assessment options
Subscribe to the Cracking Yarns YouTube channel

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

Jeremy Dylan December 2, 2013 at 9:50 am

“I say that there are two ways to identify your hero: the character who is most changed by the story and the character who takes the decisive action to resolve the conflict. And, in neither case, is that Neil. He is just what I call the Protagonist – the character who drives the action.”

When you have wrapped up this excellent series on endings, perhaps you might consider a post on the difference between a protagonist and hero – and situations where you might embody those in two separate characters (ala DPS) instead of one character (ala Groundhog Day).

Wrapping my head around the idea that this didn’t always have to be the same person was a big revelation for me during the Grad Cert, and isn’t generally addressed in screenwriting tomes. I imagine there for aspiring writers who haven’t been Palmered, this could be a valuable insight.

Allen Palmer December 2, 2013 at 9:56 am

Yes, Jeremy, I am getting a little frustrated myself with this piecemeal approach and would love to start from the beginning and write a book but then I would get no creative work done at all …

James Brettell December 2, 2013 at 12:44 pm

I got the same revelation about the hero/protagonist not having to be the same person just from the 1-day seminar Allen put on earlier this year. It’s now one of the big bits of advice I give others when we’re talking about their scripts.

Following that the protagonist then is generally defeated because they haven’t risen to their challenge and it tells the hero that the stakes are high and what could happen if they don’t rise to their own challenge.

My question about midpoints:
I’ve always seen the midpoint in the grand scheme of momentum in the film as being either a false victory or false defeat. Our hero is confronted and they either rise to the challenge or have a set back. Both bring about a chain of events that leads to a reverse victory/defeat later in the script before they ready themselves for Act III. Is that focused too much on the scene direction and plot though (+/- -/+) and where it needs to be rather than focusing on the ordeal of the character within the scenes? I feels like an ‘outside in*’ perspective that Fields and Snyder use a lot more of rather than an ‘inside out’ perspective that Campbell and Vogler go for.

* I’ll expand on this if that doesn’t make sense.

Allen Palmer December 2, 2013 at 12:54 pm

Yes, James, this is the traditional approach to the midpoint – plot-focussed. False victory or a false defeat. If you listen to most theorists, it’s all about how the hero/protagonist is progressing in relation to the Want. This might work for a Cathartic Story but you’re going to need to be more character-aware if you want to lift to the level of the Transcendent Story – if you really want to move us.

I would suggest you take this approach … work out who or what is going to confront my character with their flaw? Then work out what plot you need to produce that confrontation. Then make sure that that plot is going to organically evolve from your setup. Sometimes a false victory or defeat might produce the character confrontation. But don’t leave it to chance or make it a secondary consideration.

Plot is not the primary consideration. Plot works in the service of character to produce the transformation that can profoundly move the audience.

Alan Tilley December 3, 2013 at 11:54 am


I really enjoy reading your posts. They are easy to digest and full of useful information. I suggest you do an online course – with skype interaction – for those of us outside of Australia.

Taipei, Taiwan

James Brettell December 4, 2013 at 12:23 am

I can think of plenty of ‘who’s that confront character’s flaws in films, but not as many ‘what’s. That would take it outside of character interaction wouldn’t it? The person that cares the most is the one who confronts the hero?

Allen Palmer December 4, 2013 at 6:52 am

Hi, James,
One “what” I can think of that confronts the hero, is in The Lives of Others … Wiesler is confronted (though he only hears it through his headphones) with the suicide of Jerska, in which he feels complicit. This is the beginning of his Ordeal, where he is made aware of the inhumanity of what he is doing.

In The Apartment, Baxter sees the cracked compact mirror that tells him that his boss has been using his pad to sleep with the woman of his dreams. So Fran doesn’t confront him – again, it’s something that he discovers that confronts him with his character failing. A What rather than a Who.

More typically, though, it will be a character who has the hero’s best interests at heart who confronts them with their flaw.

Leave a Comment


Previous post:

Next post: