In the opening example, we know Ragnar is a literary giant whose works have stood the test of time.  The first two references create the beginning of a pattern that is paid off by the third surprising reference.  We set up "real famous writer" and "real famous writer" which allows us to effortlessly convey to the audience that Ragnar is too which allows the audience to enjoy the surprise, "Aha, but he is not real."  (Note: Can you see how awful this line could be if it were three fictional references?)

Scenes need setup (sometimes subtle) to create and deliver a coherent surprise for an audience.  In Tin Cup, Tin Cup (Kevin Costner) makes a bet with Simms (Don Johnson) on who can hit a golf ball farther.  After Tin Cup hits a great shot, there is a lull before Simms does something surprising.  The surprise is that he will not be playing this "straight," within the conventions of golf, i.e., where a player has to hit the ball on the course in front of him. 

Sure, some of the expectations are built-in since it is a sports movie about golf.  But your craft must calibrate the audience's for maximum impact and clarity.  Tin Cup, in a gesture that seems like fair sportsmanship and as a competitor who is confident of victory, has a few lines that externalize his possible subconscious concern as well as serve as set up.  He says to Simms, "Take a minute to limber up, fine with me -" and when Simms responds, "Don't need to," Tin Cup adds, "Take your jacket off?"

The visuals and action description did their job.  Simms wears dress shoes and a sports jacket but the few organic lines create the expectation that this battle will look like what we expect from a golf competition.  When Simms turns sideways and hits the golf ball onto the road where it bounces forever, the surprise that he "broke the implicit rules of golf" and did something unexpected (not golf) is that more distinct and enjoyable because of the contrasting setup.

"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"  - Anton Chigurh, No Country for Old Men

Think about how No Country for Old Men and Grand Torino each foiled the expectations of violence in genres where audiences expect a man-to-man confrontation in the climax where the type of physical violence that has been present resolves the situation.  No Country for Old Men is probably the better film by most criteria but its ending confused some audience members, leaving them with ambiguous thoughts and feelings. 

The Coen Brothers probably wanted to challenge audiences and were aware of the rules they were breaking.  The story that Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) tells about the steer being shot hints at the random unknowingness of violence and his surprisingly introspective non-macho voice over are contribute to the set up and foreshadow the nontraditional showdown.  However, I think that by the standards of Hollywood filmmaking (if relevant), the set up was a combination of missing, too subtle and vague.  I understand the responses that included head-scratching.

The ending may be less meaningful in Gran Torino when - surprise -- the dying old man can't really defeat a dozen gang members with one gun, but it's less jarring.  It's a more organic twist from the set up.  Casting, specifically the legacy of all of the other tough guys Clint Eastwood has played over the years, plays a part of the set up too. 

Expectations can sometimes come from other factors.  The movie Scream relies on the viewer's implicit understanding of the Hollywood Star System.  Drew Barrymore is a movie star, so there is no way she is going to die in the first ten minutes, right?  Wrong.  It's a great surprise that straddles the line of "Wow" and "Out of Left Field."

Young Adult - Spoiler Alert - This movie was just released.  

(Skip the three red paragraphs to miss the spoilers.)

There are several surprises in the second Diablo Cody-Jason Reitman collaboration, Young Adult. The movie toys with the implicit (Or explicit?  You can send me the rule.) rule about the necessity of likeable protagonists. 

Although the film eschews a classical transformative Hollywood story where a character changes and learns a lesson, it uses it as jumping-off point.   They decide to let the main character, Mavis, stay the same but they do it with crafty coherence.  The film takes us to what looks like and is positioned like the scene where another character might give the protagonist insight into her flawed ways.  Just like in Tin Cup, the writer establishes what should be "normal" and expected.  In a textbook example of this topic, the scene begins with the Mavis announcing that she needs to change. 

However, the other character in the scene pushes Mavis to stay the same.  Instead of coming into conflict with her selfish and delusional values, she completely supports them.  Mavis grasps onto her viewpoint with renewed vigor.  This is the opposite of what usually happens but the reminder/setup of the "norm" makes the surprise twist more enjoyable.  The scene is not on-the-nose nor does any of the other setup ever feel like exposition but specificity and clarity allows for coherent and "expected" reversal.

THE MISTIFYING THE MIST

The ending of the movie The Mist really bugs (pun intended) me.  Although my issues are based on character and theme, this same principle applies.  I am not going to go back and rewatch it, so if my argument isn't sound enough for my book or DVD, lucky you, you get to be the only audience.  With the title including the "Mist", one could argue that any confusion is appropriate.  However, I find the ending in the movie to be completely incoherent. 

Maybe The Mist gets under my skin partially because the ending involves a father shooting his own son.  However, that is one of the strongest reasons the movie needs more setup. In order for me not to "call a b____t" on that moment, there needs to be more supporting how and why that could happen.  In other movies, maybe a character is crazy?  Or maybe the world is hyperbolic or the story a parable?  Could it be ultra-serious look at heavy stuff like Sophie's Choice?

In this movie, the father isn't set up as crazy.  In fact, I would characterize him as an everyman.  It ain't Sophie's Choice.  Which leaves the middle possibility.  Is it a parable?   Or are we supposed to treat it like mythology or a fairy tale?  I guess that's up to you.  It didn't work on that level for me.

Llet's keep things moving (and under 3000 words).  Here is a possible solution or angle of approach for a better set up.  If you want to go deeper into this one, gang up on me at the Champion Lab.  

Her are excerpts from the last two rants by the generically-crazy lady, Mrs. Carmody.

       MRS. CARMODY

We been punished for delving into secrets forbidden by God of old!  Walkin' on the moon!  Splittin' His atoms! Messin with His stem cells for the secrets of life that only God has any right to!  (EXCISION) AND THEY DONE IT!  ... (LATER:) ... These are the sort of people who brought it on!  People who will not bend to the will of the Almighty!  Sinners in pride, haughty they are, and stiff-necked.  They mock us, they mock our God, our faith, our values and our way of life, they mock our humility and piousness! They piss on us and laugh.

How does not believing in God or having too much pride relate to the choice to kill your son?   It could possibly.  Maybe the idea that David, the father, takes things into his own hands?  It seems to me the natural argument is that he lacks faith which could lead to "hopelessness."  If he had faith, he could have lasted a bit longer before giving up.  But the film right now doesn't narrow down if and how her words apply to David.

Later when Carmody rallies the troops to kill David's son, Ollie shoots her.  He explains why to David. 

    OLLIE

I wouldn't have shot her, David. 

Not if there had been any other way. 

Do you believe me?

This has some small set up value for the ending by suggesting that there are situations where there is no choice.  Unfortunately, this is the strongest of any relevant set up. This should be the weakest of three setups, not the only one.

Here is the moment before David kills the other people in the car, including his son:

Billy's asleep.  The four adults sit, exhausted. Out of gas and out of hope.  Knowing what this means.  Like Mrs. Carmody said: it's death.  Nobody says anything for a while, then:

     IRENE

We gave it a good try. Nobody can say 

we didn't.

Don't want to be a hater. I like Frank Darabont.  Went to his birthday screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey.  But I really hate that the context for the action of a character killing his son is done in two "cheats."  "Like Mrs. Carmody said: it's death."  Really?  Gosh, Napoleon, why don't you just throw in her VO and make it a "Use the force, Luke" moment.

And the more egregious cheat is "Out of hope."  Yes, this could be an honest motivation if the script had even the least meager of setups about faith and hope and trusting that God is present even when he appears not to be.  But right now, it's merely an aside that might help a reader understand this is a piece of prose but it doesn't contribute anything to the screenplay or movie.

Frank's not a client but I would tell him the same thing I would tell my clients, even those with billions of dollars at the box office, when I see an under-developed moment like this: "The idea is right and it's right there.  But it's not screenwriting yet.  Go back and plant this idea in what we can see and hear.  And then tie it in to the character."  For instance,  taking her generic tirade ("arrogant nonbeliever") and reframing it toward hope ( "lack of faith") would be a doable way to make the ending have some meaning.

WRAPPING UP

The use of set up to elimination confusion from a surprise has practical relevance in theme, character, concept and scenes.  The flip-side is just as important.  All of your surprises and twists must come from the set up.  This relates to last issue's topic exploitation of concept: the premise of your concept is a set up, so now your scenes must use it.  (Note: a possible future discussion is why a perfect logline that nails a script's concept with precision and its entirety must be created by the writer during the writing process.)

Surprise versus confusion even applies to the famous Joel Silver line about wanting something that's the same but different.  When writers try to reinvent the wheel, they get lost.  Some context is good.  Begin with audience expectations and then add in something extra.  You can learn everything you need to know (or 99% of it) about Being John Malkovich or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind from studying Big. However, there is still near-infinite room for your own creativity.

Some of the most surprising twists in cinema like the Chinatown reveal ("She's both.") have gained their power by careful foreshadowing and mining the established set ups and expectations.  If you are going to use something out of left-field to jar an audience, consider using it like we use "coincidence."  Use it early and get it over with.  Let it be a catalyst as opposed to a late turning point or resolution. 

These are not ground-breaking principles but they are an alternate way to understand some subtle elements of craft.  I want my diverse approach to complement whatever paradigm works for you. Screenwriting and filmmaking can be learned but the last steps are always going to involve you, the screenwriter, taking it all the way by yourself.  Nobody can drag you to the finish line but when you are ready for the last leg, I hope to hand you the baton.

If you want to work with Jim on your own scripts or in your development as a screenwriter, check out his site or the current deals at his blog.