Obviously the first thing that comes to mind in terms of structure for this story is its non-linear approach. The temporal changes here are part of a storytelling device and I agree with some of the comments from yesterday that state if this were told in a linear fashion, some, if not much, of the charm would have been lost. First of all, there's 500 days so we know we're not going to get all - it's not a reality show based on a 12 episode series schedule after all. So what we get are bits and pieces of certain days, some of them have significant bearing on the story at hand while others exist just to show the relationship as "being". Without taking the time to go back and watch again, my gut tells me part of the juxtaposition of "days" was to actually show non-causality. If we think about it, watching things develop in a linear fashion allow us to see causation: this happen, but caused this which had that as a consequence. Stripping the narrative of a linear approach essentially strips it of causality, leaving us even more engrained into Tom's shoes for he himself doesn't understand why they can't be together. As such, lives have an ebb and flow to them - ups and downs - and that's what we're presented here. There IS no cause for their breakup - it's just something that happened. I started to post something about having been in Tom's shoes before and that for most people, they don't get any sense of closure or answers to why things ended from the other's perspective. Upon watching the 30 minute Q&A with the writers last night, I was happy to see them acknowledge this and how the scene in the park near the end was perhaps the one bit that wasn't indicative of true life, going so far as to having some people interpret it as being Tom's imagination (where did Summer come from? She's just... there). The cause and effect isn't what's important to this story for Tom - it's the emotional roller coaster that being blinded by love can put one through. One minute, you're high as a kite, the next - you're insecure and angry because you've allowed someone to make you feel the complete opposite.

Very well said, TBBB. I had never considered non-causality as one of the reasons for the non-linear narrative, but it makes a lot of sense. When we look back at events in our lives such as relationships we don't remember them chronologically. We skip back and forth remembering good things, bad things, random moments. It's hard to make sense of failed relationships and to figure out what made them fail and it's a bit of a puzzle that we try to piece together after the fact. Kind of like what Tom is trying to do after his 500 days with Summer.

TBBB, I like your analysis. By removing the causality, by cloaking it for the audience, it allows us to follow Tom as he tries to piece together the mystery for why this relationship failed. Part of a bad break-up like this is answering 'why?'. If we had been along for the story in a linear fashion then we would already recognize the signs (Summer not really being into Tom as much as he thinks). Now we can play detective alongside him. Your analysis really got me thinking about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I think there are some interesting similarities with both these movies.

TBBB makes a great point about causality being, if not missing, buried deep enough that you don't see it, so you just go along on the roller coaster ride with Tom. Another interesting effect of the script's structure is it tells the story of the relationship the way the human mind recollects a significant period of someone's life. We don't remember things linearly like machines, but instead knit together the highlights and lowlights to make up the totality of the experience--what it was like to be there--sometimes jumping around as one incident comments on another one, or is linked up to it thematically (like the juxtaposition of their good times at IKEA with their bad times there--they were separated by many weeks in reality but in the retelling it's seconds). Also, from a straight marketing/business perspective, the non-linear structure just makes it something DIFFERENT, which everyone welcomes. (I just noticed Vic made this point in the general discussion but since we're talking about the script's most unique feature--its structure--I thought it was worth repeating.)

Thanks - I played a lot with the narrative structure of the very first script I wrote because the main character has repressed memories. So for me, I didn't necessarily think about any particular order to put the memories in other than through the character's perspective and how they fit into his schema. This was key because ultimately at the core was a horrendous crime with unintended consequences, so his experiencing the memories was non-linear for a purpose: they needed to remain broken until he was finally confronted with the one piece of the puzzle that put everything else into place because he was, after all, doing his damnedest to keep the memory repressed, reinterpreting events through his colored lens so that other people's actions made them suspect (and the reader believe so as well). Did a lot of research with that one, reading a fascinating book titled Unchained Memories: True Stories of Traumatic Memories Lost and Found by Lenore Terr. Great reading on the topic of memories. Causality can still be found in non-linear approaches, though - just take Memento as an example. The scenes playing out the way they do serve a different purpose, though: rather than a who done it, the story is focused on why, making it a much more engrossing because we're forced to see the narrative as Leonard experiences it - constantly trying to answer the big question: why? Ahhhhh, memories. Such a fun topic!

Gabe - no sooner responded to Teddy and then saw your post echoing the same exact thoughts I posted with regards to Memento as an example of "why?"! That would be an interesting comparison to examine 500 Days alongside ESotSM - been a while since I watched it, though I do have on DVD.

Something I like about this screenplay is the more you delve into it and the more layers you peel back, the more you realise that the structure is actually about as conventional as they get. It took some finding, but it’s there alright. Before getting to the act structure and such, the way the story is set up and a lot of what happens early doors proves my point. The easiest spot is the use of a narrator to introduce and bookend the story, which is a decidedly orthodox approach. There’s very little narration in between, and while some might say using a narrator in this fashion is actually lazy writing, preferring consistent usage throughout, I think the writers got this one right. Personally, I can’t think of a better way of introducing the narrative and telling this story, so I’d say this is an appropriate and astute use of this device. The way the writers start at the end rather than the beginning is also quite common, although in my reading experience a lot of screenplays tend use a scene somewhere around the second act break for their flash forward, then show us how the characters got there, and then move towards a resolution. Then again, these guys do that too – within a few pages we get the breakup scene, which is pretty much an all is lost, end of act two moment that ends up being the catalyst for Tom’s personal renaissance. I like the ambiguity of the opening, the wedding ring MacGuffin as a hint that maybe things do work out even though we’re explicitly told that this is not a love story. It gets you asking the question, and ups the chances of you sticking around to find out the answer. Pretty much all of the main characters are introduced in the first few pages. We don’t get to meet Tom’s boss or the girl he goes on a date with right away (he features soon after, and she can’t be on the scene until much later for obvious reasons), but seeing as how the vast majority of the screenplay is made up of dialogue between Summer, Tom, his half sister and two friends, again you’d have to call this conventional and a by the book approach that professional readers regularly cite as an expectation more so than an approach. Another box ticked. Then we get to the act structure, and while it’s not completely straightforward there is still a very recognisable skeleton. Putting the forward jumps to one side (and again, these feature in many, many screenplays, more often than not maybe), you get introduced to Tom and Summer through some early childhood snapshots, get to see them meet, witness their earliest flirtations, and by page thirtyish they hook up. Act One. Then we get some fun and games, the two of them messing around in Ikea, the ‘You make my dreams come true sequence (arguably the standout scene), some getting to know you stuff, we see their relationship becoming more intimate as she lets him in to her apartment and, well, just lets him in, and round about page sixty they’re at loggerheads over what they are and how to label it. After some back and forth, they find a relatively happy medium. Midpoint. A lot of the rest of the second act is a downer. Through counterpoint flashback from earlier in their relationship, we get to see some of the early cracks, we witness Tom’s disintegration and unhappiness, it’s a bit of a downward spiral. And then comes the wedding they both attend, and just when things are looking up it turns out they are not. Right on cue, around page ninety, the bombshell. She’s engaged. End of Act Two. Tom goes through a dark night of the soul, sees his dead-end job for what it is, starts to use hindsight (flashbacks) and sees his relationship with Summer through normal eyes rather than rose-tinted specs, starts getting wise to what he needs to do to turn his life around, and starts doing it. He puts himself in the architecture game, sees Summer again and reaches a point of resolution there (I could swear I read somewhere that this scene is actually in his imagination – anyone?), interviews for the job, meets Autumn, and maybe finds true love. Or just starts the whole messy business all over again, who knows? The End So I’ve taken a really long time to say that behind Oz’s curtain, this screenplay is actually pretty conventional and hits a lot of expected marks and beats. Lots of setups and payoffs along the way, some jumping about for dramatic contrast, as bog-standard a protagonist’s arc as you’re ever likely to ride. Thanks (if you stayed with me and made it this far), I’m here all week.

A few thoughts: The non-linear construction allowed the story to go back into itself and add additional layers to moments in the relationship. For example, towards the end we go back to THAT DAY (Day 240 p. 95) and see another layer of the day where the relationship unraveled, this time knowing more of their history (than we did on p. 5) and learning more about what happened that day. As time in the real world progresses, Tom is analyzing and learning more about his relationship with Summer, and this knowledge is leading him to reflect and see past events in a different light. With the non-linear structure we are able to go back and see this too. Additionally, the non-linear construction of the story elevated the drama because it allowed events that were separated by weeks and months to be juxtaposed back-to-back (the Ikea scene).

Due to the flood of entries for "The Quest," I'm a bit time challenged just now, so I will come back to your comments up to this point. But I thought this might be interesting: This is the chronology of the actual days in the script as it exists: 488: Park Bench, T and S, wedding ring, Narrator 1: Office, T sees S for the first time, intro to T & S as young people (The Graduate / cut hair) 240: Fateful Day, Postscript with T breaking dishes, sister, talks about the arc of relationship 1: Office, S introduced to the company -5513 / -4779 / -3 / -1: Summer’s special something 3 + 4: Office, T declaring he’s not interested in S, elevator where she likes his music 154: “I love everything about Summer” series of shots 11: T and sister playing Wi where he says S is “special”, warning from sister 22: PacMan center, “It’s off,” she had a “good” weekend, times he tried to reach out to her and she rejected his clues 27 + 28: Office / Karaoke bar: She’s interested in him, but just wants to be friends 29: Copy room, surprise kiss / T’s apartment with Paul 238: Ikea, negative vibe (payoff) 31: Ikea, positive vibe (setup) 32: Greatest Morning Ever! 268: Office, despondent, T in “going to get her back mode” 45: Office, “Knight Rider” payoff 59: Going to movies 87: Record Store, Ringo Star [setup], porn video, shower sex 95: Tom’s Park, 1st time with Summer, architecture talk and draw on her arm 109: S apartment, “I’ve never told anyone that.” 116: PacMan café: T says they don’t need to nail down what they are 118: Soccer I, T asks sister about whether to push S about what they are 366: Party at Summer [setup] 269: “I hate everything about Summer” [payoff] 185: Bar, fight / T & S fight as he presses her on what they have / restless night apart / she shows up / next morning talk about her ex boyfriends 141: Park, “penis” 273-286: Movie montage of T depression 293: “Worst Morning Ever” [payoff], cut from movie 303: Meets with Boss, now to do funeral and grieving cards 167: Montage: Great at job [nice contrast to 303] 306: Seeing Summer everywhere, cut from movie 345: Blind date, FB to where Summer was turning against him, ending up at karaoke bar 360: Train, he and Summer going to the wedding, wedding, dancing 366: Summer party, getting married 402 + 403 + 403 ½: Total depression 404: Quits job 419: Soccer II, starting up with architecture again 240: Fateful day [Payoff] 421-464: Getting his act together montage 488: Tom’s park, T meets with S one last time, he was right, she says, he is a realist now 500: Job interview, meets Autumn 1: One thing I really noticed: Set-ups and Payoffs. And in the case of the nonlinear approach, Payoffs, then Set-ups.

These comments are really interesting and have helped a lot in my understanding of this film. I can't add anything better but I do have a (possibly very naive) question. It seems to me that if you rewrite this story chronologically then its structure is that of a mythological tale where the goal of the "hero" is to get the girl. In this movie the analog of the various "stages" in the hero's journey are the numerous comedic set-pieces in the film (eg, the IKEA scenes). Is this too simplistic?

A partial reply to myself - on one hand my explanation it is too simplistic since the guy does not get the girl in the 500 Days movie. Even in mythologically structured tales, the hero does not actually get the goal he was after but often finds something better as a result. In chasing the rainbow, he finds a pot of gold. I guess in this case, the prize the hero finds is the realization of who he really wants to be. I'm not saying that the mythological structure 100% accurately describes the movie, but, if I'm understanding the rough idea of the film okay, it seems to fit the rough pattern of one.

I enjoyed the use of juxtaposition made possible by the nonlinear approach, especially where it compares what we want with what we get and why we get it, and whether we even have what we think we have, or know what it is we really have. I agree with Vic that the structure is conventional at the root. A different story could have been told, perhaps leading to a different conclusion, had the writers opted for a linear timeline. But as it is, we get the full brunt of the disjointed experience that is typical breakup aftermath. On the whole, if we were to look at the structure in terms of the stages of grief, most of what we see is a whole lot of screwed-up mental bargaining (but it was real and it was right and I can turn it around again if I just understand it), culminating in the wedding day-trip, and then shattered into full-on depression by the roof party. A linear approach to telling this story wouldn't have allowed for as much focus on the struggle to understand. Really, the nonlinear storyline is probably the only way they could have fit this into a conventional structure while still making the story so clearly about Tom's wrestling with what went wrong, rather than being about a relationship starting wrong (she doesn't want a serious relationship) and then GOING wrong, which would have made the ending less satisfying.