I finally saw The Help last  night.  Structurally, it's  using three kinds of parallel narrative technique.  The most important of these is that it's created using a double journey structure. 

By that I mean the story follows two protagonists, Skeeter and Aibileen on their parallel journeys.  However , it's  also using preview flashback, opening on the  the first act turning point (Skeeter's first interview with Aibileen when Aibileen has agreed to help with the book).  We then  flashback to the start of the story. 

There are also brief flashbacks of the simple kind that I call  'flashback as illustration' - brief memories depicted on screen, for example, Skeeter remembering the maid, Constantine, who brought her up and was her mother figure. 

What's particularly interesting is that the opening - which is actually  the first act turning point, and after it we'll flashback to the start of the story - actually works very well.  A common problem with using the first act turning point as your opening scene is that when the film returns to it (to the first act turning point) there is a kind of 'okay, so what?' sensation, and  we feel as if we're starting a new film. 

I'm not entirely sure why some films work and some don't when they open on the first act turning point .  The Help certainly does.  I think the answer is that opening on  first act turning point and flashing back to the start will work if there are three elements in place. 

The first is that the first act turning point scene that we witness is immediately very striking and unusual (in The Help, a wealthy white 1960s era girl from Jackson is interviewing her maid in the maid's home, which is instantly intriguing)  The second vital element is that this scene is really the start of the film's main plot (what I call the 'action line') so when we return to it the film really surges forward.

The third - and probably the most important - is that the first act itself is actually useful plotwise.  If you really don't need to know all of the information in the first act - for example, if you have a meandering normality or if your first act isn't really on the point of your story - then your best course of action is probably to ditch the first act as you have it and open the story just before the scene you you currently have as the first act turning point.

The Descendants.  A fine film. A rear tear jerker! 


It's a linear one hero on a single journey film.  At first sight, I thought it  didn’t seem to have a fight back in the third act.   But on second thoughts, the pursuit of Brian, and the involvement with Brian and his problems was a form of fighting back.  The search for Brian became a quest. 


Often the best way to see the function of a section of a film is to ask what would be lost if it were removed.  Remove the quest to find Brian and the impact on his family when he’s found, its ramifications and the film would have been circling around the conflict between the father and his daughters.  

It would have become all relationship line.  It would have slowed right down.  The revelation about Brian and the search for Brian not only inserted a powerful emotional charge, forcing the George Clooney character into emotional turmoil and lifting the emotional stakes, it also inserted physical action and a goal to pursue. 


The result for the audience was an increase in empathy and suspense.Clever.

By the way, was anyone else puzzled that it was described in publicity as a comedy-drama?  Comedy?

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.  A terrific, nail-biting spy movie. I'd say it's a kind of multiple protagonist structure, but with flashbacks.  Note the interesting flashback use. It’s operating like case history, but not a standard form.  It's a bit like Citizen Kane, with Smiley acting the part of the investigator, as he tries to search out the traitor.  The audience  is given the flashbacks of a series of other characters, as Smiley deals with them, but Smiley also has flashbacks of his own. An interesting hybrid.