The script has a very straight forward structure, For A Story: "The beginning", or say the synthesis part introduces the protagonist to us, her life and her professional challenges. Like 10 pages into the script, we know who is Stephanie (Cristine in the movie), her aspirations, her challenges and pretty much her whole world. Then she was confronted with a dilemma , which pushes the story into the middle part, Act 2. Then figuring out Lamia, till she kills her kitten can be considered as the first part of Act 2. The Dinner at Ray's (Clay in the movie) is like the mid-point because she thinks its over. From there to the time when Shaun Sen Dena dies, is the second half of ACT 2 . She was confronted with all is lost moment, till Rham Jas gives her a glimmer of hope by suggesting her to give it as a gift to someone. Act3 starts with her figuring out who should she give the Button too,till the twist in the end. B story is her, professional aspirations, and the dynamics with the coworkers, Her love life, and meeting the BF's parents for the firs time. I read the script first and then watched the movie, while reading I was thinking at time like some places had too much exposition, but when I watched the film, I was glad that the directors took all the extra exposition out.

-Yes, very simple straightforward and economical. The bookend structure of the finished film -- begins with a character being dragged to hell; ends the same way -- makes it even more effective. Also matches the story's fable-like structure ("Even a small sin may lead to damnation... See? We told you so.") -I love how clear and punctuated the story's catalyst moment is -- Mr. Jacks: "Tough decision. Your call." All the events that follow are a direct result of Steph/Christine's decision at that one moment. -Thanks for the spreadsheet, Teddy. The "set piece" distribution especially caught my eye. There are many set pieces throughout the script... but none in the first 18 pages. Makes even more sense now that the Raimis would want to start the movie off with a band.

Thanks, Joe. Google Docs messed up the formatting on the text so the plot points aren't exactly visible. For anyone who is interested, I'd be happy to email them the spreadsheet directly. Also, this is my first attempt to present a breakdown visually. If anyone has any ideas how to improve this, (making spreadsheets is definitely not my forte) please let me know. theteddypasternak AT gmail DOT com

So you made this, huh? Impressive layout -- and theft-worthy, too. Tracking characters and other elements this way could really be useful going into a rewrite.

Property is theft, Annika. I'm happy to share it with anyone who wants it :) I started doing a virtual cork board for my own outlines. This is just an expansion of that idea.

A few things stood out to me when I looked at the spreadsheet. - Stephanie is in every scene. - References to her past are more present than I had initially noticed. Most of them in the second act - tied to her character development, perhaps. - The coin is only mentioned three times. But the instances are very well placed. - Stephanie's work, her boss, co-worker, and mentions of the promotion are featured heavily in the first act but get less and less prevalent as the story progresses.

That makes sense, as she moves from the ordinary world to the extraordinary one. (Yep, intellectual property is intellectual property, but a good organization system is a good organization system and those things walk... at least, that's what the very old man who invented storyboards told me the other day.)

OK, well, as I noted in the general reaction - I don’t like this story very much, mainly because this is really not a genre that I am that interested in. But instead of starting negative, I will start with the things that I think it does have going for it - and basically that main thing is the character of Stephanie. Unlike the other characters, she does have complexity (e.g. mixed motivations of wanting to be nice and help people like Mrs. Ganush, and trying to succeed at her job by turning Mrs. ganush down for the loan extension) and she also has a few surprises to throw at us (like killing the kitten). And it is her needs and desires, both the small ones (e.g. relationship with Ray, trying to do the right thing) and her big one (getting rid of that curse!) that really drive this story along. So, as much as I really didn’t like it - like I said, horror is not my thing, and plots that depend on stereotypical and one-dimensional characters as well as numerous coincidences don’t really grab me - I still did not find it a chore to read. I did actually become interested in Stephanie’s quest, and how she was going to resolve it. (And the ending was a surprise for me, too!). So, here is my general act and plot-point breakdown, followed by some other miscellaneous notes about the structure and sub-plots. ACT I (p1-21) p17 inciting incident: Mrs Ganush accuses Stepahnie of shaming her p21 PLOT POINT 1: the curse is on: MRS. GANUSH: The Lamia. It’s coming for you. ACT II (p22-69) p27 plot point: Rham sees something bad in her fortune p41 plot point = MID-POINT (?) Mrs. Ganush’s motivation has changed from getting her house back to just exacting revenge - which suddenly means that there is nothing that Stephanie can do to change Mrs. Ganush’s desire p62 plot point: Mrs. Ganush is dead! Cannot negotiate with her now. p68 PLOT POINT 2 Ray comes up with the funds for the séance - BUT Ray cannot come to the séance - she is on her own. Leads into final showdown: ACT III (p70-92) p70-76 suspense and terror as evil spirit migrates from person to person p78 twist - Shaun dies, and séance didn’t work - BUT Stephanie can still get out of this by becoming a murderer, passing the curse off to someone else (a moral dilemma for her, internal conflict) p85-87 CLIMAX: final showdown, battling with Mrs. G’s corpse resolution - all seems well, it’s all over, The button is gone (or, ha ha ha, is it?), Mr. Jacks is going to promote her, she’s off for tryst with lover… BUT… p91 she dies. The curse still got her. Main plot Ambitiious young banker girl finds herself cursed, needs to get rid of the curse to survive. Sub-plot 1 She wants the promotion. She needs to be tough in order to prove she can do the job. But her early achievement of being tough is what leads to the main-plot inciting incident: pissing off Mrs. Ganush. p 67. plot point: the McPherson loan went to First National (but she coincidentally saw Stu going in there - how come she doesn’t twig to Mr. Jacks’ news?) Stu is an obstacle. He miraculously gets nailed for betraying the company (no explanation why or how) and she is going to get the promotion. All should be good… Sub-plot 2 Relationship with Ray - will he propose? (Obstacle is his mother) - only really intersects with the main plot twice: - once at the parents’ dinner where she hears the spirit and they think she is crazy (and this is never followed up… they had been coming around to her until then, now what?) - ending, on the train platform about to go away with Ray, and he returns the button to her and she falls on the tracks Through-line Her past as obese child, her current eating issues when stressed… doesn’t really add anything to the story though. Structural issues: 1. Coincidences: - kitten showing up (from genre, we know this is not going to end well for the kitten) - coincidentally overhearing Ray’s call with Mom - Stu coincidentally finding her First National file - coincidentally seeing Stu at First National (which we as audience get - Stephanie never follows up n this) - coincidence in getting the envelopes mixed up - how did Mr. Jacks find out about Stu’s betrayal? 2. Lack of subtlety or complexity Around p. 12, everything has stacked up against her so quickly: phone call with Ray’s Mom, Stu undermining her for the job. Characters (other than Stephanie) are pretty simple, cut and dry: evil witch, nice boyfriend, hardcore boss, undermining upstart (Stu), shallow status-focussed mother 3. Character action or motivation doesn’t make sense p22 Really? After Mrs’ Ganush’s harsh physical attack on Stephanie in the car park, they would only give her a warning? p23 Stephanie, ocmpletely traumatized after the attack, suddenly giggles and wants to get their fortunes read (necessary to introduce Rham to the story - but unbelievable) p51-52 Stephanie, in first moments of meeting with Ray’s mom Trudy, lapses into whole dialogue about the farm and miling cows… not believable considering how much she wanted to impress them by appearing sophisticated and educated. p68 Ray has been out of the picture for a while, when suddenly he shows up with the $20,000 for the séance - how did he know? Other notes: Plant/payoff The kitten - becomes a sacrifice. The nickel for Ray - which leands to the envelope mix-up later. Writing notes: p18-20 Lots of exposition, long paragraphs (not much white space) - is this considered OK?

Teddy, wow, this is great! And funny, just today I was thinking I need to somehow graphically represent the storyline on my own work in progress... this is a good starting point for me to model that from. Anyway, very interesting to see it laid out like this...especially to see that some things that are so important, such as the coin, are barely mentioned in the script (yet do not lose their importance). And vice versa - I didn't find that the references to her past (her weight issues, her alcoholic mother) contributed much to the story, yet they featured a lot.

Annika, what I meant was this, as a joke. The opposite of "don't steal it."

So go ahead and use it as much as you wish. That was my point :)

Oh -- I knew you were joking. (I may have even LOL'd) I was just joking right back!

And now that I've checked out the link, I'm doubly impressed. It's not every day that someone quotes a French anarchist on GITS.

Teddy, each one of these points is instructive: -- This is one of those stories that is heavily Protagonist-centric. Literally every scene, every character, every dynamic flows into and through Stephanie's character. -- Point #2 and Point #4 are related: #4 is about establishing Stephanie in the present and that necessitates introducing her life up to Fade In existence including job circumstances. Once the plot really gets rolling, then we move to the next stage, and the references to her past are about the revelation of character. So Act I is about Stephanie's present being the present, and Act II has more of her past emerging into the present. -- Point #3: Judicious placement of the coin and the classic three-beat structure. And the beauty of your spreadsheet is it shows all that -- visually

Terrific work, Jacqueline, once again. A few comments. (1) I was bothered by the number of coincidences as well. The rule-of-thumb is you are allowed 1 coincidence per script. (2) The several twists involving Stephanie's character are one of the ways the script elevates itself. It also helps me to understand why they have such a black-and-white presentation of Stephanie in Act I, even to the point of a Save The Cat -- literally! -- moment: to set us up to think she is a pure Protagonist. (3) So, as much as I really didn’t like it – like I said, horror is not my thing, and plots that depend on stereotypical and one-dimensional characters as well as numerous coincidences don’t really grab me – I still did not find it a chore to read. I did actually become interested in Stephanie’s quest, and how she was going to resolve it. (And the ending was a surprise for me, too!). If I was Sam Raimi or his co-writing partner brother and read your comments there, I would be quite happy with your reaction because of the fact you are not a fan of the genre, and yet got at least somewhat caught up in the story, primarily through your connection with the Protagonist.

I'm watching the film right now (I'm about half-way through) and they fixed a couple of the coincidences: She already has a cat. Stu the co-worker overhears the talk about the McPherson file and even tries to sneak a peak at it but fails. Then after Stephanie/Christine leaves, he takes it.

@Scott - Hmm, that's interesting, that you think they would be happy with my reaction. I guess it is actually quite a good reaction, considering it really is not a genre I would ever watch. I want to listen to the interview you posted, but won't be on a fast enough internet connection to do that for 2 more days... @Teddy - Well that is very interesting, that they fixed some of the coincidences. So they themselves also realized there were some problems with this draft of the script. Thanks for letting us know that!