Here's how...

There are three sorts of adventure film that routinely include weak women characters.  These  characters are there because they are thought of as being merely  ‘love interest’ (romantic or paternal) for a male protagonist.

The standard screenwriting model of 'one protagonist on a chronological journey' is a great model, but it isn't the only one (I deal with more than 20 different models in my work).  Its big problem is that if wrongly used its protagonist-centered approach can create tunnel vision. It can make you as writer feel that a good story means everything you write has to be about servicing the protagonist. This is what's behind the idea of love interest, which translates into an entire character being included merely to show the emotions of another character.  BTW, I really wish we could ban terms like 'love interest'.  They really are recipes for  two-dimensional characters.  

You need to reject four assumptions
You can make these 'love interest' women characters  richer and more complex and increase the suspense and richness of the film quite easily, but you’ll need to reject four standard assumptions about protagonists   These assumptions are that:

1.     The most interesting character is automatically the protagonist
2.     Protagonists must be proactive and cannot be reactive
3.     There is only ever one protagonist
4.     The same person stays protagonist for the whole story

Heresy? Crazy? Stay with me. These answers work.

Remedy 1 Use a Mentor Antagonist  
This remedy involves you rejecting two assumptions. The first assumption you need to reject is that the protagonist is automatically the most interesting character.  The second assumption is that the protagonist must always be proactive, not passive or led by another.

The Mentor Antagonist is a character type I’ve identified. Oddly, I seem to be the only person who's picked,  it, despite its many appearances, so don't be surprised if you don't come across it elsewhere.  It’s not to be confused with Christopher Vogler’s Mentor figure.

Mentor antagonists don’t appear in all stories, only in stories that have a very specific content: stories about a normal person being caused problems and/or being intrigued by an enigmatic stranger.  Examples are Rain Man, Foxcatcher, The Elephant Man, King Kong, Collateral, Silence of the Lambs, Jean de Florette and many more.

Mentor antagonists are strange, unpredictable outsiders, sometimes sinister, sometimes benign, who take a  less interesting but normal person on some quest or adventure, sometimes physical, sometimes emotional, sometimes both. In benign versions  like Rain Man, the mentor antagonist teaches this normal person some wisdom about life, often a wisdom born of pain and the adventure or quest is one of the spirit. In sinister versions like Fox Catcher, the mentor antagonist is dangerous, often murderous,  and the normal person has to escape.  

We’d all agree that the most interesting character in all of these films is the enigmatic outsider character.  But in all of them, the enigmatic character is NOT the protagonist.  They are an antagonist and the normal character is the protagonist, even though this normal character is  less interesting and is reactive. Now, this is not theoretical. It's good strong writing technique.   It's about how you, as writer,  keep your story interesting.  The enigmatic outsider must be seen from the outside so that they remain mysterious, unpredictable and terrifying.

If you make them the protagonist we see their motives. They lose their mystery. They become normal.   And because your story already calls for a normal person to deal with a strange one, you end up with two normal people, one a little strange but understandably so. Result: boring.

How to improve the boring woman character
In films where the woman is the boring ‘love interest’ and the man is a boring nice guy protagonist (as in Passengers, Wedlock and Solace) you can improve the script instantly and massively  by making the boring woman the protagonist and turning the man into an enigmatic (and in darker films),  sinister mentor antagonist.

You swivel the film so that everything is seen from the woman’s point of view. It’s her story. She is locked into a situation with a man who is at best strange and enigmatic,  and, in the darker films, actively dangerous (think Silence of the Lambs). In the darker versions, you have instant  suspense and tension in addition to the existing external threat.  In the benign versions you’ve made the enigmatic outsider more poignant, more complex.  

In both cases you’ve not only created a much better female character, you’ve created  a much more interesting male character. Win-win.

 Note that  FoxCatcher has two protagonists, the two brothers both faced with the dangerous Mentor Antagonist, Du Pont.

If we rewrote Solace (which has three normal partners) we could  make the strange psychic  (played by Anthony Hopkins),  an enigmatic mentor antagonist  with two protagonists disagreeing about him.  We could make the current anodyne female FBI agent our interesting protagonist number one, in conflict with the present anodyne male FBI agent - changed in our new version into interesting protagonist number two. They could be at odds about the psychic’s motives and behavior. Perhaps one could feel that rather than rather than helping find the serial killer, the psychic might indeed be the serial killer.

One final practical thing about mentor antagonist stories. You will often think of the enigmatic outsider character first – because they are so interesting.  Don't fall into the trap of automatically making them the protagonist. To make your story powerful you might need to turn your interesting characters into a mentor antagonist and invent a new and less interesting normal person to be the protagonist -  so that that your enigmatic outsider is seen only from the outside and stays mysterious and unpredictable.  Remember, the most interesting character is not necessarily the protagonist. Good stories are about suspense and interpersonal conflict.  Be guided by your content.

By the way, a perceptive YouTube video has actually  picked out that Passengers would have been much more suspenseful had it been created as the woman’s story.  I completely agree. I’ve given a detailed breakdown of how the film Wedlock could have been fixed in an identical way in my books Screenwriting Updated and The 21st Century Screenplay)
You can check out the YouTube video I mean here


Remedy 2   Make sure the female buddy in your buddy movie is interesting and involved in a conflict with the male buddy.

To do this,  you need to reject the idea that you must have only one protagonist and that a protagonist can never change into an antagonist.

Buddy movies are films in which two friends, or two people who end up friends, are involved in an adventure.  In films like Lethal Weapon, which involves two male police officers, and Thelma and Louise,  which is about two women, there is one normal partner and one wild card. In these, both partners are protagonists in the adventure plotline (what I call 'the action line').
They are both different versions of the same protagonist in the action line, each fighting the joint enemy but in their different ways.  However,  in their personal interaction (what I'd call 'the relationship line' and what is often called 'the subplot') one character stays the normal person (that is, the protagonist) and the other is an unpredictable wild card (antagonist) causing the sensible one trouble.   Hence, the same character can be a protagonist in one plotline and an antagonist in another.  This way you avoid having Tweedledum and Tweedledee. 

Unfortunately, when this story has a woman as one of the two friends when the other friend is a male,  the woman is often boring, with little to do except be rescued or decorative. She becomes the 'love interest' -  either the man’s romantic partner or a daughter figure. The answer here is to set up a normal-person-plus-wild-card situation, where the woman is either the protagonist in both plotlines (action line AND relationship line), or the woman is a protagonist in the adventure, but a wild card unpredictable antagonist in the relationship line.
Here are some examples.

1. Romancing the Stone    In the action line,  both characters are protagonists, or rather, different versions of the same protagonist.  Both fight the common enemy (in their separate ways).  However,  in the relationship line the woman is  the normal partner and the man  is the wild card antagonist.  Hence they both fight the enemy in the action line, but in the relationship line we're in the shoes of the woman, who stays protagonist while the man becomes an unpredictable wild card, seen from the outside.
2.  The African Queen   In the action line, both characters are protagonists, or rather, different versions of the same protagonist. Both fight the common enemy (in their separate ways). However,  in the relationship line the man is the normal partner and the woman is the wild card antagonist. Hence they both fight the enemy in the action line, but in the relationship line we're in the shoes of the man, who stays the 'normal' protagonist while the woman becomes an unpredictable wild card, seen from the outside.  

Notice that the woman can be either the normal one or the wild card, but making her one of these will instantly make her more interesting, and having an antagonist-protagonist relationship will improve the whole film.  Notice that here, as in the mentor antagonist model, the change creates conflict in the inter-personal relationships.   It provides unpredictability and suspense.  (BTW, those of you who've read my books will know my view that you can write multiple protagonist films more easily if you approach all of the members of the group as different versions of the same protagonist. In my view,  successful Buddy Movies are just one sort of multiple protagonist structure)


Remedy 3   Double Journeys Form – make sure you have two heroes on two separate journeys
Here, you need to reject the assumption that there is only ever one protagonist.

Double journey films are films in which there are two characters travelling together or apart or in parallel.  They are films in which the story demands that we follow two characters in their lives together and in their lives apart. They are not like buddy movies because the partners in buddy movies either stay physically together for the whole film or are only briefly apart. Double journey films include films  as different as Finding Nemo,  Brokeback Mountain, The Queen and Lives of Others. 

These films have three main plotlines.

1.     Each partner has a story when they’re apart.
2.     They have one story that they share.
3.     They  have one when they are together.

In the one they share we will usually see one character in more depth than we see the other.

The two will be different versions of the same protagonist, often two opposing views of a  social role or two opposing social roles or taboo.

When a woman is involved as one of the partners, the 'love interest' problem can creep in.   A clear example is Cold Mountain, in which Nicole Kidman, as the faithful lover waiting for her man, has no plot and is given nothing to do. In Cold Mountain, all poor old Nicole is given to do is wait, presumably because the male partner  is being thought of as the sole protagonist, the hero on his journey home - so it  probably didn't occur  to the film's creators to give the woman anything to do until the man came back into her life.  She was there solely to be wait and to be inspirational to her man.

You could instantly energize and enrich the story and the issues it raises around war by making the woman the man's mirror opposite. In this model, as the man goes into moral decline ( into what he says in the film is a damaged version of himself) the woman moves from passivity into  a more proactive version of herself. She does something, perhaps actively assists escaping slaves. This way, she would travel a journey too.

Notice that a 'mirror image' story like this not only creates a much better woman character, but also, enriches the male partner because of the contrast between the two journeys.  BTW, Double Journeys movies, like Buddy Movies, are in my view, as you might have realized,  another instance of multiple protagonists. However, Double Journeys differ from Buddy Movies because, as well as two versions of the same protagonist, in some films you have mirror images or opposites of the same protagonist.

The moral of the story
So there you are. Three ways to turn boring female characters into interesting ones. And notice, it’s all about changing your attitude to the conventional views about protagonists. Rejecting the assumptions I've mentioned increases suspense and mystery and can actually rescue a struggling film and turn it into something very powerful.

Forget the idea that narrative is always the same.  It isn’t. The one hero model is a fine model, I love it, particularly Vogler's model, it's brilliant. But it's not the only model. As I say, in  my work I isolate over 20 different types of structure that don’t fit that model.  I repeat, that model is, as I say, great. It's just not appropriate to certain stories, which actually often use multiple plotlines, nonlinear as well as chronological, as well as using the protagonist differently.  To assume the one hero model is the the only one immediately blinds you to solutions.

Be guided by your story content.  Different story types demand different structures and many of them involve more than one protagonist and characters who don't obey the rules that govern the one hero model.

For an overview by me of the different sorts of parallel narrative - ensemble, flashback, fractured, nonlinear etc  here's a YouTube video

Hope that was useful.

www.lindaaronson.com

Stop Press: If you're in Australia you might be interested to know that I am teaching a two-day seminar on New Structures in Film and TV Writing in Melbourne, Australia this weekend! 1-2 March    Greatly looking forward to it.  I don't  know when I’ll be back teaching in Melbourne (this is the first time in about 8 years) so if you’re interested maybe now is the time.  Here's the info  I particularly like the pic to the left since it looks as if the Sydney Harbour Bridge is about to fall on me (it didn't).  Hope to see you in Melbourne if you can make it.  BTW for those in Europe who've been asking, yes, I'm back teaching in various places in Europe in Autumn.

 Software and Creating on the Keyboard
Meanwhile, last weekend I was teaching a two day seminar in Sydney (it was great, thanks to everyone for coming) and someone asked me at one point about typing and software.  Here are some quick comments. 

1.     Always keep all of the lines you write for a speech. If you are a touch typist and you are typing your script, keep all of your various attempts in place in the speech but in a smaller font. Sometimes you need to resort to them.  If you write in pen, put the various attempts in brackets or highlight them

2.     If you don’t touch type, write in pen.  Dialogue is too hard to create if half your mind is taken up with finding the right keys.

3.     Learn to touch type.  It saves ages.

4.     Beware scriptwriting software.  I love Final Draft and the like but they can make the telephone directory look like a masterpiece.  Don’t just sit down and start writing with these programs because any old rubbish will look good.  Plan!

5.     Plan by notes, outlines and crucially, by using cardboard index cards to set out the beats so that you can see the whole film at a glance.  Don’t use images of cards on a computer screen to plot your story progression.  There are about eighty or ninety plot beats in a film, sometimes more.    You can’t possibly get all of those on to one computer screen.  You need distance on your film so that you can cut and rearrange beats. But do remember to number them, particularly each time you reorganize them, so there isn’t a calamity when they get dropped (which always happens). 

I've been having some correspondence with a writer who has written a film that has multiple  storylines and multiple protagonists but been told by a number of people who have read the script to pick a hero or heroine and make the film about just that character. I thought readers might be interested in the issue since it’s one that often comes up.
As you’ll all be aware I am a great supporter of films that involve multiple protagonists and multiple storylines. I think scripts are often wrecked because a script that has its interest specifically in being about a group is turned into a story about one of the group - with the other members of the group simply appearing from time to time being, well, colorful.  This is a bit like turning the The Full Monty into a story about one man putting on a striptease show not a group, or perhaps making The Magnificent Seven into The Magnificent One. 

Some stories are about groups, full stop, and they won’t work with a ‘one hero’ structure.

But films that use multiple storylines each with their own protagonist are not always the answer.  Many fine films consist only of one hero on a single linear chronological journey. It depends on the  story you want to tell.  Content dictates structure.  If you do decide to use multiple storylines (and there are many different types of structure that will permit you do that ) you will hit all kinds of challenges. These include the need to have connections between your storylines (or your audience will rightly be asking ‘what is all this about? Why these characters and no others?’) and you will always have a battle to create and maintain pace, meaning, closure and how and when to jump between stories - simply because all parallel narrative scripts do. It’s the nature of the beast. 

But there are many types of multiple storyline structure
Note that I said there that there are many types of structures that use multiple storylines and multiple protagonists, not just one. For example, Pulp Fiction has multiple storylines and multiple characters but it's structured very differently from The Full Monty or Traffic, both of which also have multiple storylines and protagonists. This is an important point to remember because conventional screenwriting theory lumps together all types of film that don't fit the one-hero-on-a-single-chronological journey. They are clearly not all the same. I stress, the  plotting and character problems in a film like Nashville are completely different from such problems in a film like Pulp Fiction.   In The 21st Century Screenplay I have isolated six categories with many subcategories (for example, there are many different types of flashback).  But meanwhile, hybrids are appearing all the time and we must expect more. Screenwriting structures are diversifying all the time.

Here is what the writer said:

Writer to Linda 

• Any of [the 6 characters in my film script]has a strong enough story to build an entire film around...yet I'm being pushed to 'pick a hero/heroine', which feels wrong & unnatural. I'll stick to my guns, but is there a section in your book that throws light on aforementioned? 
• Each person that's read script identifies with a different character according to (reader's) gender, sexuality, colour, educational/cultural values & personal/sexual prudery = for me this is a positive, it's what I aimed for.

• Ergo it's logically impossible for me to 'please' all readers.

• There isn't ONE main protagonist - each character/character's storyline is strong enough for a film in its own right = for me a positive

Linda's reply
Sticking to your guns...
First of all I’d say don’t  stick to your guns about anything before you’re very sure that the people picking the problems are wrong. Maybe they’re right and you do need a one hero storyline because the story material is really mostly about one character. Alternatively, assuming that what you are intending to transmit does require a group of characters, maybe your readers have picked inadequacies in the way you are creating your group story but are offering the wrong solution.  Very often when people tell a writer to focus on one hero and not the group it’s a case of there being something wrong with the multiple protagonist script but the wrong solution is being offered.   Perhaps your multiple protagonist films is indeed coming over as characters in search of a plot and you need to invent a  plot that unites and explains them.  Maybe there is, generally, insufficient connection between the storylines so that they feel random.  Maybe you are just not getting what’s in your head on to the page. You are certainly not convincing your readers that your film is at present holding together as you feel it is. 
I was given this very good piece of advice many years ago by a very good and very experienced producer: ‘If one reader thinks there’s a problem, it might be just their idiosyncratic view.  If two people have the same problem, sit up and listen. If three readers have the same problem you have some fixing to do’ 
 
'Logically impossible to please all readers?'

The writer says:
Each person that's read script identifies with a different character according to (reader's) gender, sexuality, colour, educational/cultural values & personal/sexual prudery = for me this is a positive, it's what I aimed for. Ergo it's logically impossible for me to 'please' all readers.

I'd say - not necessarily. If the characters are sufficiently connected and all contribute towards an interesting message you may be able to please them all. They are clearly not pleased at the moment, so you have a choice either to  dismiss their opinion and seek another audience or to do something to make them enjoy the script.

Not one main protagonist
The writer adds
There isn't ONE main protagonist - each character/character's storyline is strong enough for a film in its own right = for me a positive.

Fine!  Lots of great films have multiple storylines and multiple protagonists, but there needs to be a connection between them that answers the question: ‘why these six characters and not another six characters?’or your audience will get restless and irritated.  They will be asking (and who can blame them?) 'Why these characters? What’s the connection?  What’s the intention of the film?' 

Is the writer confusing multiple protagonist form with tandem narrative structure?
I haven't read the script, but the more I look at the writer's comment  that 'each character/character's storyline is strong enough for a film in its own right'  the more I think the writer might be confusing what I term 'multiple protagonist form' (which is about a group of characters on a joint 'adventure' which is either a quest, a reunion or a siege, social or physical) and another sort of group story which I've termed tandem narrative, which also has multiple storylines, each with its own protagonist, but which is very different and needs handling in a very different way.  What is tandem narrative? I've explained this as 'equally important storylines running together in tandem in the same time frame on the same theme'. It's the form of films like Traffic or Nashville, where characters have separate storylines – rather than being involved together in a joint quest, siege or reunion. Tandem films follow individual characters off on their own journeys.  Sometimes these characters don't even know each other.
From the sound of things I think the script is a tandem narrative. But I think the writer might be trying to think of this according to the guidelines I've set out for multiple protagonist form, which don't apply. I'll discuss this further later. First let's look at the issue of connection in these films.

Connection in Multiple Storyline films,

Whether you're using tandem narrative or multiple protagonist narrative (or any other kind of parallel narrative for that matter) it's not enough simply to have fascinating characters. From the audience’s point of view the issue is not that the characters are each individually fascinating.  It’s why the filmmakers have put these particular characters together in a film. The audience questions are, as I've said : ‘why these characters and no others?’ ‘What is the connection?’  ‘What is the intention behind  the film?’  And crucially: 'Why am I sitting here watching this?’  

If there is no proper connection, people will feel resentful.  For example, many people reject the film Babel out of hand because they felt the Japanese girl’s story was insufficiently connected to the others. No matter that they loved the rest of the film.  Babel by the way is in the form  I've termed a 'fractured tandem' film, that is, it has equally important stories on the same theme but is fractured.

How to make connections in tandem narrative films
Tandem films are normally connected by a theme.  For example, a simple type of connection in  film about six people having very separate adventures would be something like: all six are versions of ‘a bizarre person living in London’ with the theme being: ‘bizarreness in all its forms is difficult to cope with but is something we need in this world’. 

Typically in these films connections are made in some or even all of the following ways.

1. connections through date (e.g. six differently bizarre people are having their separate adventures in London on the same day )
2. through place (e.g. six differently bizarre people are having their separate adventures in the same part of London on the same day)
3. through an object (e.g six differently bizarre people are having their separate adventures in the same part of London on the same day and they all, one after the other, sit in the same seat on the same bus as it travels its designated route up a major road in their area).
4. connections through plotlines – that is, characters might appear in more than one storyline.
5. conections through a 'Macro Plot'.  There is often what I call  a macro plot, that is, an umbrella plot line on the same theme as all of the other stories, but one that links all of the differently bizarre characters together physically AND by theme.  For example  London is blanketed by a terrible fog (symbolic of the confusion and anonymizing aspects of city life which makes us need more bizarreness in our lives),  that is causing pneumonia and traffic accidents to the populace, including the bizarre characters.

The writer concludes
I will however fight with myself to form a character hierarchy & see what that brings forth...
My issue is character democracy 

Let's pause here.  You're not being asked to create a character hierarchy. This comment is another reason that I feel you might be getting confused with multiple protagonist form, in which you have  a range of different version of the same type of protagonist, including what I've called 'the instigator', that is, the protagonists who causes the story.  The instigator in the multiple protagonist film The Full Monty is the Robert Carlyle character, the man who has the idea of the striptease.  I'd say your issue is to explain what is similar about your characters, why they have not been chosen at random.  
Regarding 'character democracy' I think you have to ask yourself here: ‘to what end?’  What is your intention in putting these particular characters into a film together?  Sometimes it helps with this sort of thing to ask yourself what the audience is supposed to be thinking and feeling and discussing when they leave the cinema. Sometimes this can clarify your intentions. 

Or is it consecutive stories form?
There are, as often happens in these parallel narrative forms, different ways to tell our story.  We could, for example, tell the stories of our six differently bizarre characters in yet another way. Let's imagine we use the idea of each of the six using the same bus seat on the same day. You could construct the film by following each of the characters in turn off the bus and into their own story.  Once that story is complete or semi-complete, you could return to the bus with the next bizarre character getting on. You'd then somehow unite the characters at the end.
That structure would be a form I've given the name of 'consecutive stories'.  You can have that in simple or fractured forms. My  hunch is that our writer is thinking of a tandem narrative structure.

But do you need to invent a hybrid?
 More and more I'm being asked to help with complex film scripts that are blending different types of parallel narrative.  You may need to create your own particular hybrid.  How to do this?   I'd suggest you start by looking at what I've isolated, checking my guidelines in The 21st Century Screenplay and seeing how you can merge them, always keeping an eye on pace, connection, meaning and closure.  That is usually a lot of help. After that, unfortunately, you are on your own.  Writing alas isn't easy.  Ever wondered why top writers can command such large sums?  You get the picture.

To sum up... 
In conclusion, for anyone wrestling with this sort of problem, I suggest checking out first the many articles on this site under the tab Practical Writing Advice  then look at my chapters in The 21st Century Screenplay on parallel narrative, particularly the chapters on Tandem Narrative and Multiple Protagonist narrative. These explain what plot and character components work in successful films of each kind.  Also read the section in that book entitled 'Lost in the Telling'.  This includes discussion of Multiple Protagonist and Tandem films that don't work - and crucially, why.Make doubly sure that you have chosen the particular structure that suits  the story you want to tell. 

I just added a comment to Lucy Hay's Bang to Write blog on the issue of how to succeed as a writer so I thought I'd also post it here.  See Lucy's post and the comments When you get a job, even it's the most menial, put in 100%. Knock their socks off. The person in the drama department making the tea today will be head of drama in 5 years. That person will want their own stable of new, committed (and cheap) writers. The number of new writers I've heard trash the jobs they've landed - eg soap. Hello? Speaking as an experienced writer when you hear a new writer speaking like that it's hard not to make a mental note that this person might be hard to work with because their hearts are not in the job. You're thinking 'What if they're asked to do a major rewrite, will there be a tantrum? Are they seriously concentrating on this script?' etc So when a pal asks if you know any up and comings they might employ you have to qualify any recommendation you might give with the proviso that this person might not be as committed as others. Go figure

I’m fascinated by that comment you often hear when people discuss non-linearity, to wit:  ‘every film has a beginning middle and end – but not necessarily in that order’. And it’s always said dismissively, as if it ends the debate.

I find it interesting for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that it’s totally inaccurate.  Nonlinearity in all of the nonlinear structures is (as far as I can see) always arranged so that the end always occurs at the very end of the film, or else, if there are multiple stories, that the film ends on the end of one very powerful story, thereby getting its strong ending from that story’s ending, piggybacking,  if you like, on that story’s pull to closure ( as happens in Pulp Fiction for example). 

There is always a striking or thought-provoking resolution, indeed, nonlinear forms very often clearly show what I call a ‘Rosebud’ twist ( a term referencing Citizen Kane), where only in the final moments is the crucial answer given and this answer turns what seemed to be the message and point of the film on its head.  In fact, it’s this pleasing tying-up of threads in an unexpected way that gives nonlinear films much of their pleasure.

But let’s move on. What practical help is this little dictum offering?  Well, none. To the contrary, not only has it pointed you towards disaster by suggesting that you don’t have to have the end of the story at the end but it begs a dozen questions. Let’s look at it.  ‘Every film has a beginning, middle and end but not in that order’. Surely one has to say: ‘ That sounds really useful, but can you please elaborate?  Your comment implies that you have come to this conclusion after studying these forms in some detail (otherwise how could you make such a sweeping and apparently authoritative statement?), hence, can you please list these different orders, with examples? Please also explain by what rules, if any, one should choose to use any individual order?  Is there any particular form of story content to which each is best suited?  And please may I have some technical details here.  How precisely am I to jump between the three components?  Your argument is premised on there being three distinct parts to the story that one reorders. How do you define those parts? I need to know so that I know precisely where to start the reordering. How do we define the end of the beginning and the start of the middle and the end of the middle and the start of the end?

I’m not being smart here. These questions are the ones you really have to ask about the practical mechanics of non-linear.  Where you jump stories is vital.  Films crash and burn if you jump at the wrong places.  Personally, I’ve spent years studying how and when and why nonlinear stories jump at the points that they do, and what effect each sort of jump creates for the audience and what sort of material suits what sort of structure.  I had no choice about this because the jumps to and fro between stories make or break the nonlinear film and you need to choose the right structure to tell your story or it won't work. I’d say, for example, that many nonlinear forms open on the second act turning point of one of their stories then jump to its disturbance.

My only request is for precision and seriousness. Bottom line. Let’s have a proper debate about nonlinear.

I often get letters from writers asking me for advice about getting into the film and TV industry, sometimes also asking about how to get agents. I can’t help you with agents, I’m afraid.  Getting agents is very hard and agents are not usually interested until a writer has  some kind of track record.  On the bright side,  as many writers will tell you, it often happens in the film and TV industry that the writer is first approached by a director or producer -  and only then does the agent come in, to organise the actual deal.  So don't feel that you must have an agent to succeed, or that breaking in depends on having an agent.  Most writers get started without an agent. Really, the first thing for any writer to do is to make themselves and their work known to their local film, TV and theatre people.  Become part of the industry so that people know you and realise that you're serious about wanting to become a writer. That way,  if they're looking for a writer they'll remember you.  Don’t wait for people to come to you, go out and find people. Try to create your own opportunities.  Many countries have schemes to help new writers and filmmakers (this includes developing countries).  Offer your services and work for free at first, if necessary,  or, if there is money,  for a share of the profits.  Show yourself to be a person who's full of energy, helpful, a good team player and determined to carve out a career for themselves in the industry.  Think of people like the filmmaker Mike Leigh - who started off by making his own films with amateurs and a non-existent budget.  If you have written material, create  your own website or Facebook page (for free online) so that you have an international identity.  Even one page is fine. Provide a brief description of your scripts (just a couple of lines) and/or  the kind of work you’re interested in doing.  Next, go online and join The London Screenwriters’ Festival. It’s free, and you get free writers’ tips and videos of filmmakers talking about their work. I mention the LSF because I think the site and the festival is very good, but there are lots of sites that provide scriptwriting and other technical help online. I'd suggest making some short films (even using just your mobile phone and some friends as actors ) and put them on YouTube.  Get a twitter account and tweet about your work.  All of these things give people a chance to notice you hence create the possibility that someone will ask you to work for or with them, or be interested in your material. Oh yes. Don't forget to try writing for radio and theatre too. It's often a bit easier to break in there.  Keep writing. I hope this is useful.  Good luck.