How To Improvise a Full-Length Play

C H A P T E R 3

The Structure of a Full-Length Play

At the heart of every play is a well-constructed story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. The Beginning is separated from The Middle by an event that I call The First Significant Event, and The Middle is separated from The End by another event that I call The Climax. So, the first evolution of our structural map for a full-length play looks like this:

Beginning

First Significant Event

Middle

Climax

End

The Beginning

The Beginning establishes The Foundation of the story by introducing important expository material such as the time, the place, the characters, and the context. However, the most important function of The Beginning is to clearly establish the routine. What is life like, for the main characters, on an ordinary day when nothing unusual is happening?

The Beginning is usually about 25 percent of the entire story. In a two-hour play, that’s anywhere between twenty and forty minutes.

The First Significant Event

The First Significant Event is a single action that breaks the routine. It destroys The Foundation, and it thrusts the characters irrevocably into the unknown. It ends The Beginning and begins The Middle.

The Middle

In The Middle, the characters are faced with the consequences of having broken their routine. Thrust into the unknown, they encounter difficulties and struggle against them in order to succeed.

The Middle is about 50 percent of the entire play, but this approximation varies quite a bit. In a two-hour play, The Middle can be anywhere from forty-five minutes to an hour and forty-five minutes.

The Climax

The Climax is a single action that sets the characters upon their final path toward success or failure. It ends The Middle and begins The End.

The End

In The End, the characters either succeed or fail in their efforts to overcome their difficulties, and a new routine is established. The End is the remaining 25 percent or so of the entire play, up to half an hour in a two-hour show.

Here’s our first evolution of the structural map again, along with the core function of each section:

STRUCTURAL MAP,

FIRST EVOLUTION	CORE FUNCTION
Beginning	The Foundation is built, and the routine is established.
First Significant Event	The routine is broken, and The Foundation is destroyed.
Middle	The characters face the consequences of having broken their routine. They encounter difficulties and struggle against them to survive.
Climax	The characters embark toward success or failure.
End	The characters either succeed or fail, a new Foundation is built, and a new routine is established.

Exercise #8: The Story Spine *

The Story Spine is an excellent exercise for learning how to build a well-constructed story. Simply improvise the endings to each of the following sentence starters:

Once upon a time . . .

Every day . . .

But one day . . .

Because of that . . .

Until finally . . .

And ever since then . . .

This can be done as an individual exercise or in groups, with each player taking the next line. Do it fast and have fun! Here are some quick examples:

Player 1:	Once upon a time there was a frog named Freida who lived in a swamp.
Player 2:	Every day she ate a fly.
Player 3:	But one day, she ate a grasshopper.
Player 4:	Because of that, the grasshoppers attacked the frogs.
Player 5:	Because of that, the frogs fought back, and the flies were caught in the middle.
Player 1:	Because of that, the Swamp Wars of 2007 were born.
Player 2:	Until finally, the flies sided with the grasshoppers.
Player 3:	And ever since then, frogs ate pizza.
Player 1:	Once upon a time there was an evil king named Rex the Rude.
Player 2:	Every day he crushed the peasants with injustice and tyranny.
Player 3:	But one day, Peter the Peasant spoke out and denounced the king.
Player 4:	Because of that, Rex the Rude had Peter the Peasant arrested.
Player 5:	Because of that, a spirit of rebellion swelled within the breast of the peasantry.
Player 1:	Because of that, the peasantry stormed the castle and captured Rex the Rude.
Player 2:	Until finally, Rex the Rude abdicated his throne in order to secure his release.
Player 3:	And ever since then, the people were ruled by Peter the Benevolent.
Player 1:	Once upon a time there was a chief executive officer of a major corporation named Tabitha Jones.
Player 2:	Every day, she stole the credit for the brilliant ideas of her executive administrative assistant, Mary.
Player 3:	But one day, Jennifer, Mary’s best friend, exposed Ms. Jones for the sham that she was.
Player 4:	Because of that, Ms. Jones fired both of them.
Player 5:	Because of that, Jennifer and Mary sued Ms. Jones for wrongful termination.
Player 1:	Because of that, Ms. Jones became the focus of a national media circus.
Player 2:	Until finally, she was removed from office by the board of directors.
Player 3:	And ever since then, Jennifer and Mary have run a very successful nonprofit organization that helps employees sue their bosses.

Now, let’s take a look at how the Story Spine correlates with our current structural map of a well-constructed story:

STRUCTURAL MAP	OFFER FROM STORY SPINE
Beginning	Once upon a time . . . Every day . . .
First Significant Event	But one day . . .
Middle	Because of that . . . Because of that . . . Because of that . . .
Climax	Until, finally . . .
End	And ever since then . . .

Let’s analyze our first example in order to demonstrate how each offer fulfills its core function:

	OFFER FROM STORY
STRUCTURAL MAP	SPINE	FUNCTION
Beginning	Once upon a time there was a frog named Freida. Every day, she ate a fly.	The Foundation is built, and the routine is established.
First Significant Event	But one day, she ate a grasshopper.	The routine is broken, and The Foundation is destroyed.
Middle	Because of that, the grasshoppers attacked the frogs. Because of that,the frogs fought back. Because of that, the Swamp Wars of 2007 were born.	The characters face the consequences of having broken their routine. They encounter difficulties and struggle against them to survive
Climax	Until finally, the flies sided with the grasshoppers.	The characters embark toward success or failure.
End	And ever since then, frogs ate pizza.	The characters either succeed or fail, a new Foundation is built, and a new routine is established.

Back to The Beginning

Let’s take a closer look at The Beginning and bring our structural map to the next stage of its evolution. From now on, we’ll refer to The Beginning as The Foundation. The Foundation ends with The First Significant Event. So, the second evolution of our structural map of a well-constructed play looks like this:

Foundation

First Significant Event

Middle

Climax

End

A DEEPER LOOK AT THE FOUNDATION

The Foundation is usually about 25 percent of the entire play. So, in a two-hour play, the first thirty minutes or so is foundation. It’s important to note that The Foundation, although its purpose is to establish the routine, is not intended to be dramatically stagnant. When we first began rehearsing Play by Play, with the original cast at Freestyle Repertory Theater, we were afraid to make strong, spontaneous offers in The Foundation for fear of breaking, rather than establishing, the routine. We were tiptoeing through The Foundation as if it were a shop full of delicate crystal glassware, afraid to bump into a display case and cause something to break. As a result, we had thirty-minute foundations that did little else than reiterate the information that was established at the very beginning. We were saving the “drama” for The First Significant Event, and our foundations were incredibly dull.

We knew, however, that our favorite plays often had exciting and dramatic foundations that had continuous twists and turns in the plot and that seemed to be breaking routines at every available opportunity. How could this be if, by its very definition, The Foundation must establish the routine rather than break it? The answer is that routines are relative. Remember, The Foundation does not establish what life is like, for most people, on an ordinary day when nothing unusual is happening. It establishes what life is like for your main characters on an ordinary day when nothing unusual is happening. And, to take it one step further, it doesn’t establish what life is like for your main characters on any old, ordinary day when nothing unusual is happening, it establishes what life is like for your main characters on this particular ordinary day on which nothing unusual is happening, the particular day that you have chosen to dramatize.

To demonstrate this, let’s take a look at the following Foundation:

Once upon a time there was a brother and sister named Jack and Jill. Every day, they dressed in superhero costumes, flew out the window, defended the earth from alien invaders, got captured by an archenemy, nearly died, escaped his clutches, and defeated the villain.

Now, while this would be unusual for most of us, it would, in fact, be perfectly routine for Jack and Jill if they happened to be a pair of action-adventure superheroes. Routines are relative. While the action described above could, in fact, be material enough for an entire play, if it all happens in The Foundation of your show, then it all becomes the routine and it’s up to The First Significant Event to identify it as such, by clearly and decisively breaking it:

But one day, Jack told Jill that he didn’t want to be a superhero anymore.

In fact, the reason that I call it The First Significant Event is to imply that it is not the only event or The First Event that occurs in The Foundation. The Foundation is absolutely full of events, exciting and dramatic events at that. It is The First Significant Event because it is the one that breaks the routine as established by all of the dramatic events that have come before it.

A DEEPER LOOK AT THE FIRST SIGNIFICANT EVENT

We know that The First Significant Event breaks the routine of the everyday world and destroys The Foundation of the story. In addition to that, however, it serves yet another critical function; it identifies the central characters of the play. In order to place this remark in its proper context, I’ll need to take a moment to explain what I mean by the “central characters of the play.”

There are two central characters; I refer to them as character #1 and character #2. Character #1 is the character whose success or failure must be settled before the story can end. It is the character whose journey the audience is most invested in and whose fate the audience is most concerned with. It is often the title character, or the “starring role,” or the protagonist—but not always! And that’s the reason that, rather than using any of the previous terms, I say character #1.

Now, a story in a play must have one and only one character #1. If a play has more than one character #1, then that means it has more than one story, each with it’s own character #1. These additional stories are known as subplots and are very common. For our current purposes, however, we will assume that our play has a single plotline, a single story, and a single character #1.

Now, the reason that the audience cares most about the fate of character #1 and the reason that it is the success or failure of character #1 that must be decided before the story can end is because it is character #1 who causes all the trouble in the first place! It is character #1 who breaks the routine. It is character #1 who destroys The Foundation! It is character #1 who commits The First Significant Event. And it is character #1 who both the audience and dramatic justice demand be held accountable. It is character #1 who must take responsibility for her own actions by setting things right or, if unable to do so, by perishing in the attempt.

And so, the definition of character #1 is the character that breaks the routine by committing The First Significant Event. However, the nature of a play also demands that the fate of character #1 be intertwined with the fate of another character. This second character is often the second character in the title, or the “costar,” or the antagonist—but not always! And that is why, rather than using any of those terms, I refer to this character as character #2.

In order to ensure that the fate of character #1 is inexorably intertwined with the fate of character #2, The First Significant Event must involve the two of them. Specifically, it must be an action committed by character #1, on stage, in the present, and directly upon character #2. And how do we know which character is character #2? Simple, it’s the character upon which The First Significant Event has been committed.

This, then, is our formal definition of The First Significant Event: a specific action that breaks the normal routine of the characters’ lives as established in The Foundation. It is committed by character #1, on stage, in the present, and directly upon character #2.

In addition to being an important element in the construct of a full-length play, insisting that The First Significant Event be committed by one character directly upon another has a supreme benefit to the improvisers on stage. It ensures, as I’ll demonstrate later, that the central conflict of the play is about the relationship between the two central characters. A strong relationship between the two characters on stage—a relationship in which the two characters have strong feelings, strong needs, much at stake, and the ability to profoundly impact the life of the other—is a crucial element to a compelling drama and often a missing element from the stage of improvisation.

Consider the difference between these First Significant Events:

Jason goes to war.
Debbie wins an award.
A volcano erupts and threatens the town.

And these:

Jason tells his mother that he is going off to war.
Debbie beats her husband, Neil, in a contest and wins an award.
Marta rescues Marsha just as the volcano erupts and threatens the town.

Notice how the second set of events raises gripping questions about the characters’ relationship. How will Jason’s announcement affect his mother? How will Debbie’s victory affect her marriage with Neil? How will Marsha feel about Marta now that she owes her so much?

Human beings care about other human beings. An audience will care much more about Jason’s affect on his mother than they will about the war, more about Debbie’s marriage with Neil than they will about the award that she won, and more about Marsha’s sense of obligation to Marta than they will about the lava that is rushing toward the town.

We can now improve upon the core functions, from our previous look at the structural map, by integrating our new understandings:

STRUCTURAL MAP,

SECOND EVOLUTION	CORE FUNCTION
Foundation	The central characters’ normal routine, in the world of the play, is established.
First Significant Event	Character #1 breaks the routine by committing a specific action, on stage and in the present, directly upon character #2.
Middle	The characters face the consequences of having broken their routine. They encounter difficulties and struggle against them to survive.
Climax	The characters embark toward success or failure.
End	The characters either succeed or fail, a new Foundation is built, and a new routine is established.

Exercise #9: Breaking Routines

In this exercise, we simply take the first section of the Story Spine and use it to practice creating Foundations and destroying them with dramatic First Significant Events:

STRUCTURAL MAP,
SECOND EVOLUTION	STORY SPINE
Foundation	Once upon a time . . . Every day . . .
First Significant Event	But one day . . .

Again, it can be done in a group or done individually. As always, do it fast, have fun, and be spontaneous. Here are some examples and accompanying observations:

Player 1:	Once upon a time, there was a little boy and a little girl.
Player 2:	Every day, the little boy teased the little girl, and the little girl cried.
Player 3:	But one day, the little girl punched the little boy and gave him a fat lip.

The punch clearly satisfies the requirements of The First Significant Event:

• It breaks the routine.

• It’s on stage.

• It’s in the present.

• It’s an action that one character commits directly upon another.

So, the little girl rightfully takes her place as character #1, and the little boy becomes character #2. It is the little girl who broke the routine by finally standing up for herself in the face of the little boy’s torments, and it is the little girl’s fate with which we are now primarily concerned.

Player 1:	Once upon a time, there was a schoolhouse full of children.
Player 2:	Every day, the teacher punished Edna for talking in class.
Player 3:	But one day, Edna came to class and refused to talk to Margie, her best friend.

By refusing to talk to Margie, Edna breaks the routine of always getting punished for talking in class. Edna becomes character #1, and Margie becomes character #2. Notice that Margie was not even mentioned in the first two lines of the story. This demonstrates that a character need not do anything other than be the recipient of The First Significant Event in order to establish her place as character #2. She needn’t even have to appear on stage until the moment The First Significant Event takes place.

Player 1:	Once upon a time, there was a very popular girl named Mary.
Player 2:	Every day she basked in the glory of her universally accepted popularity.
Player 3:	But one day, a girl named Daisy challenged Mary to an official popularity contest.

By challenging Mary to the popularity contest, Daisy becomes character #1, and Mary becomes character #2. If this were an actual full-length play, there could be forty-five minutes of Foundation, in which we see Mary in action, before Daisy enters to challenge her to the contest. Regardless, it is Daisy who becomes character #1, not Mary.

Exercise #10: The Chair of Significance!!!

This is a fun exercise for developing the ability to recognize when it’s time for The First Significant Event and to purposefully make it happen. Two or three players begin to improvise The Foundation of a five-minute play. Since The Foundation is about 25 percent of the entire play, this Foundation should take about a minute and a half. At just about that point, one of the players claims the position of character #1 by standing on a chair, the chair of significance! Character #1 points dramatically at another player, who now becomes character #2. And finally, character #1 delivers a line of dialogue that serves as a clear and unmistakable First Significant Event.

There are several points to the exercise. The first is to develop a feeling for when The Foundation has completed its job. That is, when has the routine been established clearly enough that any further reiteration is unnecessary. That’s when it’s time for The First Significant Event.

The second point is to practice taking control of the story by observing where it is, deciding where you need it to go, and very deliberately taking it there.

The third point is to drill the notion that The First Significant Event must not only break the routine but must also be committed by character #1 directly upon character #2. (Hence, the dramatic point.)

A TIP FOR SUCCESS:

Get a really strong chair!

Onto The Middle

Okay, settle in.

The Middle has two parts. I call the first part The Foundation Focus, and I call the second part The Foundation Funnel. These two parts are separated by another singular event called The First Significant Repercussion. The First Significant Repercussion gives rise to something that I call The Question of the Play. And finally, The Middle is brought to an end by The Climax.

Here, then, is the third evolution of our structural map along-side the second evolution in order to show how The Middle has been broken out into The Foundation Focus, The First Significant Repercussion, The Question of the Play, The Foundation Funnel, and The Climax:

STRUCTURAL MAP,	STRUCTURAL MAP,
SECOND EVOLUTION	THIRD EVOLUTION
Foundation	Foundation
First Significant Event	First Significant Event
Middle	Foundation Focus
	First Significant Repercussion
	Question of the Play
	Foundation Funnel
(Climax)	Climax
End	End

Here it is again with as much of the core functions as we have discussed:

	STUCTURAL MAP,
	THIRD EVOLUTION	CORE FUNCTION
Beginning	Foundation	The central characters’ normal routine, in the world of the play, is established.
	First Significant Event	Character #1 breaks the routine by
	committing a specific action, on stage
	and in the present, directly upon
	character #2.
Middle	Foundation Focus	The characters face the consequences of having broken their routine.
	First Significant
	Repercussion
	Question of the Play
	Foundation Funnel	They encounter difficulties and struggle against them to survive.
	Climax	The characters embark
	toward success or failure.
End	End	The characters either succeed or fail, a new Foundation is built, and a new routine established.

Here’s a brief overview of the five units that comprise The Middle:

THE FOUNDATION FOCUS

The Foundation Focus raises the dramatic stakes of The First Significant Event. It robs the characters of their comfortable, well-known routine and propels them into some sort of emotional or physical danger.

THE FIRST SIGNIFICANT REPERCUSSION

The First Significant Repercussion is the final and ultimate consequence of The First Significant Event. It puts the focus of the Dramatic Conflict squarely on character #1.

THE QUESTION OF THE PLAY

The Question of the Play is a clear articulation of the play’s Dramatic Conflict. It is raised by the First Significant Repercussion.

THE FOUNDATION FUNNEL

The Foundation Funnel is a section in which all of the characters attempt to resolve the central Dramatic Conflict and answer The Question of the Play.

THE CLIMAX

The Climax is a singular event that sets into motion the resolution of the central Dramatic Conflict.

Let’s go back and take a deeper look at each.

A DEEPER LOOK AT THE FOUNDATION FOCUS

As soon as The First Significant Event is committed by character #1 upon character #2, we are in The Foundation Focus. It is the job of The Foundation Focus to deliver the consequences of having broken the routine and destroyed The Foundation. It does this by raising the dramatic stakes of The First Significant Event.

This is where the characters, and especially character #1, begin to get into trouble. They get into danger. The stable Foundation upon which the characters were safe and comfortable is gone forever, and they must learn to survive in a new and frightening place. They are forced to take risks as their protective layers are stripped away and their vulnerabilities are exposed and challenged.

The cast’s ability to make improvisational offers that raise the Dramatic Stakes of a characters’ situation is of great importance during The Foundation Focus. It is, in fact, the primary responsibility of The Foundation Focus to raise the dramatic stakes. Specifically, its responsibility is to raise the dramatic stakes of The First Significant Event.

So, why do I call it The Foundation Focus? I call it The Foundation Focus in order to emphasize its relationship to The Foundation. The Foundation Focus is born directly out of material that was generated in The Foundation. It’s as if material from The Foundation is being gathered up and refocused so that it shines anew with a stronger, more purposeful light.

Let’s take a look at that Story Spine exercise that I presented earlier with Rex the Rude, and I’ll use it to illustrate my point:

Once upon a time, there was an evil king named Rex the Rude.
Every day he crushed the peasants with injustice and tyranny.
But one day, Peter the Peasant spoke out and denounced the king.
Because of that, Rex the Rude had Peter the Peasant arrested.
Because of that, a spirit of rebellion swelled within the breast of the peasantry.
Because of that, the peasantry stormed the castle and captured Rex the Rude.
Until finally, Rex the Rude abdicated his throne in order to secure his release.
And ever since then, the people were ruled by Peter the Benevolent.

So, in The Foundation we learn about an evil king named Rex the Rude and the fact that he oppresses the peasants. With The First Significant Event, we learn that a certain peasant named Peter has taken a stand against the king. Now, let’s say that the next two lines of the Story Spine comprise The Foundation Focus; Peter is arrested by the King, and the peasants are stirred into rebellion. Notice how all of the danger and discord is not only caused by The First Significant Event (there would have been no trouble had Peter not spoken out against the King) but is also born directly out of material that was established in The Foundation. For example, the fact that Rex had Peter arrested in The Foundation Focus grew logically from a fact that we learned in The Foundation, that Rex was a wicked tyrant. And the fact that the peasants are stirred into rebellion in The Foundation Focus grows logically from the fact that they were cruelly and unjustly oppressed in The Foundation.

Again, it’s as if The Foundation generates light that is captured, strengthened, and sharpened in The Foundation Focus. Finally, this newly intensified light is used to a specific purpose. It is used to shine a spotlight on The First Significant Event. That is, it is used to consistently raise the dramatic stakes of that single, fateful event and, in so doing, to constantly remind the world that it was that event that caused all the trouble.

Consider this alternative Story Spine as a contrast to the one just above:

Once upon a time, there was an evil king named Rex the Rude.
Every day he crushed the peasants with injustice and tyranny.
But one day, Peter the Peasant spoke out and denounced the King.
Because of that, Peter attracted the admiration of his neighbor’s wife.
Because of that, they had an affair.

Notice how The Foundation Focus, in which Peter attracts the admiration of his neighbor’s wife and they have an affair, while certainly a possible outcome of The First Significant Event, is simply not as dramatically satisfying as the first example.

Here’s why. The “light” from The Foundation is not being captured, strengthened, and sharpened for use in The Foundation Focus. That is, none of the information in The Foundation has proven to be important by returning with new force in The Foundation Focus. As a result, all of that potent information about the king has been wasted.

Also, the events of The Foundation Focus, namely, the affair between Peter and his neighbor’s wife, do nothing to raise the stakes of The First Significant Event, Peter’s denunciation of the king. If there is any light in The Foundation Focus, it is not being shone on The First Significant Event.

Another way to look at it is to think of the story itself as a fellow improviser. The Foundation of the play is the story’s offer, and it is up to the other improvisers on stage to accept that offer and build upon it in The Foundation Focus.

A DEEPER LOOK AT THE FIRST SIGNIFICANT REPERCUSSION

By committing The First Significant Event directly upon character #2, character #1 has set a dramatic chain of events into motion. Now, the laws of drama demand that people pay a price for their actions. It was character #1 who set the chain of events into motion, and so it must be character #1 who faces the ultimate consequence for having done so. That ultimate consequence is The First Significant Repercussion.

Because character #1 acts directly upon character #2 for The First Significant Event, character #2 returns the favor by acting directly upon character #1 for The First Significant Repercussion, ensuring once again that the fate of character #1 is inextricably linked to the fate of character #2.

This, then, is our formal definition of The First Significant Repercussion: a specific action that forces character #1 to face the ultimate consequence for having committed The First Significant Event. It is committed by character #2, on stage and in the present, directly upon character #1.

It is the point of The First Significant Repercussion to focus the play on character #1 by throwing the entire weight of the drama squarely and definitively upon character #1’s shoulders. It says to the audience that this is character #1’s play, and character #1’s dilemma. It says this by raising what I call The Question of the Play.

A DEEPER LOOK AT THE QUESTION OF THE PLAY

Smack in the middle of The Middle comes The Question of the Play. The Question of the Play is not necessarily articulated on stage by one of the characters, but rather it is an unspoken question regarding the fate of character #1 as it is connected to character #2.

The Question of the Play is brought into awareness as a direct result of The First Significant Repercussion, and it is a very specific question, which asks whether character #1 will succeed or fail in light of what character #2 just did.

Here are a few little story outlines to demonstrate how The Question of the Play is caused and formulated:

Foundation: Mary and Joe are two platonic friends who have always experienced a great deal of sexual tension. Mary, however, has been dating Roger for a number of years and is planning to marry him. Mary and Joe have never openly acknowledged their feelings for each other. As Mary’s wedding day approaches, Joe finds himself falling deeper and deeper in love with her.
First Significant Event: Joe tells Mary that he loves her. Foundation Focus: Mary is thrown into an emotional turmoil, torn between her love for Roger and her strong attraction to Joe. Joe implores her to give their relationship a chance before she marries Roger and it’s too late. Mary decides that, unless she explores her feelings for Joe, she can never be sure that marrying Roger would be the right thing to do.
First Significant Repercussion: Mary has an affair with Joe.
The Question of the Play: Will Joe end up with Mary?

Some things to notice about The Question of the Play:

• It is phrased as a yes-or-no question.

• Character #1 is the subject of The Question.

• Character #2 is the object of The Question.

Notice how The Question of the Play is brought into awareness as a direct result of The First Significant Repercussion. During The Foundation Focus, Mary is torn between her feelings for the two men, but it is The First Significant Repercussion—her affair with Joe—that brings her crisis to a head and crystallizes The Question for the audience.

Here’s another example:

Foundation: Dr. Elizabeth Frankenberg is on the brink of discovering a cure for everything. However, her insistence upon unorthodox methodologies has cost her the support of the medical community, and her funding is about to evaporate. Although the elixir has not been perfected, she must test her miracle drug on a human subject before the plug is pulled on her project. She fills a syringe with her untested serum and pays a visit to the terminal ward of the local hospital. There she finds Betty, who is dying of everything. First Significant Event: Elizabeth injects her serum into Betty.
Foundation Focus: Betty is cured, but the serum has an unexpected side effect. In order to rebuild the body, it draws on the energy contained in the soul. Betty is now in a state of physical perfection, but her soul has been completely erased. Without a soul, her life and health are meaningless. Elizabeth, on the other hand, is ecstatic that her serum has worked. She is eager to bring her success to the attention of the public and to finally get the fame, glory, and respect she deserves. Betty tells Elizabeth about the loss of her soul, but Elizabeth is too focused on her imminent success to care. At last . . .
First Significant Repercussion: . . . Betty begs Elizabeth to forsake her glory, administer an antidote to the “cure,” and let her die.
Question of the Play: Will Elizabeth allow Betty to have the antidote?

Again, it is The First Significant Repercussion that creates The Question of the Play. Betty begs Elizabeth to give her the antidote, and so The Question becomes: Will Elizabeth give her the antidote?

The Question of the Play must adhere to a very specific formula:

Will character #1 either do something to or have something done to her by character #2?

The formula is important. It makes character #1 the subject of the sentence, reinforcing her position as the subject of the play. It makes character #2 the object of the sentence, ensuring that the fate of one will necessarily involve the fate of the other. And, finally, it allows the answer to The Question to be either yes or no, the importance of which will become apparent as we turn our attention to The Foundation Funnel.

A DEEPER LOOK AT THE FOUNDATION FUNNEL

Everything leading up to The First Significant Repercussion is helping to raise The Question of the Play. Everything that follows The First Significant Repercussion is attempting to answer it.

The answer to The Question will always be either yes or no. Will Joe end up with Mary? He either will or he won’t. Yes or no. Will Elizabeth give the antidote to Betty? She either will or she won’t. Yes or no.

As soon as The Question is raised, the characters in the drama must decide how they want that question to be answered. Do they want it to be answered yes, or do they want it be answered no? In The Foundation Funnel, which begins immediately after The Question has been raised, the characters direct all of their energy toward answering The Question in the manner they desire. Those that want the answer to be yes will strive to make it so. Those that want the answer to be no will struggle to thwart those that oppose them.

Let’s take a look at our example above. In our story about Mary and Joe, The Question of the Play is, “Will Joe end up with Mary?” It is now up to the characters to decide how they would like that question to be answered. Joe, perhaps, would like the answer to be yes, and Mary—riddled with guilt for having betrayed Roger—decides that the answer must be no. Joe would head off into The Foundation Funnel trying to change Mary’s mind, and Mary would head off into The Foundation Funnel trying to find peace with her decision.

Now, let’s assume that there are other characters involved in the drama. For example, Mary has a best friend in whom she confides her situation. This friend must now decide how she would like to see The Question answered. Perhaps, she doesn’t like Joe and does not want to see Mary make such a terrible mistake. In that case, she would want the answer to The Question to be no, and she would work, throughout The Foundation Funnel, to achieve that end.

And what about Roger? Assuming the affair has been kept a secret, and he is unaware of Mary’s ambivalence toward their marriage, he might not even be aware that there is a question waiting to be answered. And yet, unless he is there to affect the outcome, he will not have a place in The Foundation Funnel. In fact, it is wonderful to have characters that are unaware of The Question because they have the fun of affecting the outcome through coincidence. For example, let’s say that Mary has decided that she wants the answer to be no, Joe will not end up with her. However, Joe has been working hard to win her over, and after a while her resistance breaks down and she begins to lean toward yes. That night, Roger comes over to her house with flowers because it is the anniversary of their first date, something that Mary has completely forgotten about. Mary is reminded of how kind and thoughtful he is and remembers all of the reasons that she fell in love with him in the first place. Roger, in this case, has just nudged the answer a bit closer to no without even knowing that the contest was on.

Every action by every character in The Foundation Funnel must push the answer to The Question either closer to yes or closer to no. It is this struggle, between The Forces of Yes and The Forces of No, that creates the central Dramatic Conflict of the play. It is interesting and important to note that character #1 and character #2 need not be on opposite sides of the issue. Let’s say that, after the affair, Mary realized that Joe is, in fact, the man of her dreams and that she must end up with him. In that case, Joe and Mary, character #1 and character #2, would both want the answer to The Question (Will Joe end up with Mary?) to be yes. The conflict, then, would come from the two of them, together, battling the characters who were intent on the answer being no. (A slightly more famous example of this would be William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.)

It is also important to remember that a character need not remain faithful to her original choice. One can switch from yes to no and from no to yes as often as one likes. For example, Mary’s best friend may start off with a grudge against Joe and want the answer to be no. Joe, however, may be able to convince her that she is mistaken about him, and she can change her mind. Suddenly, she realizes what a great guy Joe is and how much better suited he is for Mary than Roger. In fact, the most dramatic and powerful scenes in The Foundation Funnel are often those in which one character attempts to convert another from yes to no or from no to yes.

Now, I’d like to explain why I call this section The Foundation Funnel. In order to do so, we need to look at it through the eyes of character #1. As I’ve tried to make clear, every single character in The Foundation Funnel, whether she knows it or not, is constantly affecting the answer to The Question. However, let’s for a moment just take a look at character #1’s trip through the Funnel. Let’s assume that character #1 wants the answer to The Question to be yes. And let’s also assume that by the time the answer is determined, character #1 did five things in order to achieve her goal.

Let’s use our second story, above, about Dr. Elizabeth Frankenberg and Betty, for the example. The Question of the Play is, “Will Elizabeth give the antidote to Betty?” So, let’s imagine that the rest of The Foundation Funnel plays out like this:

After Betty begs Elizabeth to administer an antidote to the “cure” and let her die, Elizabeth tells Betty that there is no antidote. However, Betty doesn’t trust her. She breaks into Elizabeth’s lab and discovers notes indicating that Elizabeth was lying and that there is in fact an antidote.

When she confronts Elizabeth with the notes, Elizabeth destroys the only vial of antidote that was made and burns the notes. But, the entire scene was observed by Elizabeth’s laboratory assistant, who has a copy of the notes and whose conscience compels him to declare that he can help Betty, if Elizabeth won’t.

Elizabeth orders him not to recreate the antidote, but he vows to help Betty and goes off to another laboratory to begin his work. Elizabeth, now becoming desperate, begs Betty not to take the antidote, but Betty is determined to do so.

Finally, Elizabeth goes to the lab in which her assistant is working and murders him before he completes the new batch of antidote. With the assistant gone, Betty’s last chance at receiving the antidote is gone, and she is forced to continue her life as a soulless creature.

Now, by examining The Foundation Funnel, we see that Elizabeth, character #1, clearly wanted the answer to The Question to be no. In her efforts to make it no, she does five things:

1. She lies to Betty and tells her that there is no antidote.

2. When her lie is revealed, she destroys the antidote.

3. When it is discovered that her assistant knows how to make more of the antidote, she orders him not to.

4. When he begins to make more anyway, she begs Betty not to take the antidote.

5. When Betty says that she will take the antidote, Elizabeth kills her assistant before he can finish making it.

So, we can see, in retrospect, that at the beginning of The Foundation Funnel, Elizabeth has five options available to her:

1 2 3 4 5

However, after she tried option 1, lying to Betty, her lie was revealed, and it was not successful in determining the answer to The Question. She would now have only four options remaining:

2 3 4 5

However, after she tried option 2, destroying the antidote, her assistant’s ability to make more became known, and option 2 was not successful in determining the answer to The Question. She would now have only three options remaining:

3 4 5

However, after she tried option 3, ordering her assistant not to make any more of the antidote, he began to make more anyway, and option 3 was not successful in determining the answer to The Question. She would now have only two options remaining:

4 5

However, after she tried option 4, begging Betty not to take the antidote, Betty refused to listen to her, and option 4 was not successful in determining the answer to The Question. She would now have only one option remaining:

It is option 5 that is finally successful in determining the answer to The Question. Because she killed the assistant, the answer to The Question is no; Elizabeth will not allow Betty to have the antidote.

This progressive elimination of options that are available to character #1 as she is funneled toward her ultimate destiny is what inspires the name Foundation Funnel:

The final option, which in this case is option 5, is The Climax.

Please, please, please understand that I am not suggesting character #1 is supposed to plan in advance all of the options that she intends to pursue during The Foundation Funnel and then systematically proceed to pursue and eliminate them. That would be play-writing, and this is not playwriting. It’s improvisation. The way to make The Foundation Funnel happen on stage is for character #1 to decide how she would like The Question of the Play to be answered and to pursue her goal as vigorously as possible by spontaneously interacting with as many other characters in the play as necessary—just as one would do in life when intent upon achieving a goal. Only in retrospect will the cast be able to look back on The Foundation Funnel and count up the number of options employed by character #1. Also, although I use five options for my example, understand that the number five is arbitrary. In The Foundation Funnel, character #1 will employ as few or as many options as necessary in her attempt to achieve her goal.

A DEEPER LOOK AT THE CLIMAX

The Climax is a critical moment in the play and must be the subject of a considerable amount of discussion. First, I need to define the term as I am using it here. The word “climax” is often used to describe a moment of emotional or dramatic intensity. That, however, is not the way in which I’m using it.

Here, The Climax is a specific action that, like The First Significant Event, is committed on stage and in the present. The Climax is the final action in The Foundation Funnel. It is the last available option to character #1 in her struggle to determine the outcome of her destiny:

It might be a moment of emotional or dramatic intensity, but there is no reason it has to be, and it very often is not. In fact, as we’ll see a bit later, it is often its very subtlety and seemingly inconsequential nature that make it such a powerful dramatic event.

The purpose of The Climax is to set into motion a chain of events that will eventually answer The Question of the Play. The Climax is the beginning of The End.

Let’s use an expanded version of our Story Spine exercise in order to examine The Climax and its function:

Exercise #11: The Expanded Story Spine

This version of the Story Spine adds the offer “And that’s when . . . ” to allow for The First Significant Repercussion, the offer “Which raised the question . . . ” to allow for the articulation of The Question of the Play, and a new “Because of that . . . ” section after The Climax in order to show how The Climax leads to the answer:

Once upon a time . . .

Every day . . .

But one day . . . (First Significant Event)

Because of that . . .

And, that’s when . . . (First Significant Repercussion)

Which raised the question . . . (The Question of the Play)

Because of that . . .

Until finally . . . (The Climax)

Because of that . . .

And ever since then . . .

Here’s how the expanded Story Spine maps with our current version of the structural map and some helpful hints for improvising the exercise:

CURRENT STRUCTURAL	THE EXPANDED
MAP	STORY SPINE	HELPFUL HINTS
Foundation	Once upon a time . . . Every day . . .	Establish the Routine.
First Significant Event	But one day . . .	Character #1 to character #2.
Foundation Focus	Because of that . . . Because of that . . . Because of that . . .	Raise the dramatic stakes.
First Significant Repercussion	And that’s when . . .	Character #2 to character #1.
Question of the Play	(Which raised the question . . . )	(Will #1 _____ #2?)
Foundation Funnel	Because of that . . . Because of that . . . Because of that . . .	The characters take actions that push the answer to The Question either closer to “Yes” or closer to “No.”
Climax	Until, finally . . .	A chain of events is set in motion . . .
The End	Because of that . . . Because of that . . . Because of that . . . And ever since then . . .	. . . that eventually leads to the answer to The Question of the Play.

Feel free, by the way, to use as many “Because of that . . . ” offers as you want. Here are some examples:

Player 1:	Once upon a time, there was a famous opera singer named Maria.
Player 2:	Every day, she devoted her life to the world of the opera.
Player 3:	But one day, she went to a punk-rock concert and met Spike, the lead singer of the Rabid Beasts.
Player 4:	Because of that, she found herself attracted to his rebellious persona.
Player 5:	Because of that, she started dating him. Player 1: Because of that, she started hanging out at his band rehearsals.
Player 2:	Because of that, Angelica Smart, her business manager, expr essed her concern.
Player 3:	Because of that, Maria told Angelica not to worry.
Player 4:	Because of that, Angelica reminded Maria how much she had invested in her career and how much Maria owes her.
Player 5:	And that’s when Spike asked Maria to quit the opera and join the band.
Player 1:	Which raised the question: Will Maria quit the opera and join Spike’s band?
Player 2:	Because of that, Maria was torn between the world of opera and the world of Spike.
Player 3:	Because of that, Spike wrote a song for Maria called “Choose me!”
Player 4:	Because of that, Maria was drawn even closer to Spike.
Player 5:	Because of that, Maria knew that she would have to follow her heart.
Player 1:	Because of that, Maria knew that she would have to face Angelica and tell her the news.
Player 2:	Until finally, Maria told Angelica that she was leaving the opera to join the Rabid Beasts.
Player 3:	Because of that, Angelica was furious.
Player 4:	Because of that, Maria pleaded with her to understand.
Player 5:	Because of that, Angelica told her she was crazy and asked her to please reconsider.
Player 1:	Because of that, Maria told Angelica that her mind was made up.
Player 2:	Because of that, Angelica asked whether she could, at least, arrange a farewell performance, for her, at the Metropolitan Opera House.
Player 3:	Because of that, Maria agreed and performed to a sold-out crowd.
Player 4:	Because of that, Maria rediscovered how much the opera meant to her.
Player 5:	Because of that, she told Spike that she could never leave the opera.
Player 1:	Because of that, Spike told her that his band was leaving on a three-year world tour and unless she came with them, they might never see each other again.
Player 2:	Because of that, Maria bid Spike a sad and reluctant farewell.
Player 3:	And ever since then, there was a touch of sadness in every song she sang.

The answer to The Question is no. Maria will not quit the opera and join Spike’s band. Notice The Climax, itself, does not answer The Question. After Maria tells Angelica the news, it is still possible for the answer to go either way. However, because Maria tells Angelica the news, the chain of events that eventually leads to the answer being no is set in motion. If Maria never told Angelica that she was leaving the opera, then Angelica would not have arranged the farewell performance and Maria would not have changed her mind.

Here’s another example:

Player 1:	Once upon a time, there was a physicist named Iona Quark who worked in a laboratory with her trusted assistant, Newt.
Player 2:	Every day, she came closer and closer to the brilliant discovery that would realize her life’s work.
Player 3:	But one day, Iona met another physicist, named Isa Topes at the big convention for physicists.
Player 4:	Because of that, they began to talk about their work.
Player 5:	Because of that, they discovered that they were each closing in on the same brilliant discovery!
Player 1:	And that’s when Isa told Iona to back off because nothing and nobody was going to prevent her from being the first to make the discovery.
Player 2:	Which raised the question: Will Iona beat Isa to the discovery?
Player 3:	Because of that, Iona did some research into Isa’s past.
Player 4:	Because of that, she discovered that Isa was once alleged to have stolen the research notes of a previous rival.
Player 5:	Because of that, Iona was nervous to discover that Isa was often seen lurking about in the vicinity of her laboratory.
Player 1:	Because of that, she told the guard at the front door to make sure that nobody gets in without the proper identification.
Player 2:	Because of that, she was even more disturbed to learn that Isa had received a visitor’s ID card granting her access to use the research library, which was just next door to Iona’s office.
Player 3:	Because of that, she told the director of the laboratory that she suspected Isa was trying to steal her notes.
Player 4:	Because of that, the director of the laboratory told her that scientists in his America were innocent until proven guilty, and as Isa had never been proven guilty of anything, he suggested that, if Iona wanted her funding to be continued, she had better just focus on her work and leave Isa alone.
Player 5:	Because of that, Iona was at her wits’ end when she discovered Isa hovering ominously about the door of her office.
Player 1:	Because of that, Iona could not put her mind at ease.
Player 2:	Until finally, she took all of her research journals and gave them to her assistant, Newt, with instructions to put them into a safety deposit box at the bank where they were sure to be safe.
Player 3:	Because of that, Newt left to go the bank with the journals.
Player 4:	Because of that, he met Isa on the corner.
Player 5:	Because of that, they kissed and celebrated the success of their wicked plan.
Player 1:	Because of that, they were both terribly excited as Isa took the journals and Newt returned to the lab.
Player 2:	Because of that, Isa now had all of the information she needed to complete the final experiment and make the brilliant discovery.
Player 3:	Because of that, she published the results and became famous.
Player 4:	Because of that, she and Newt set up their own scientific research facility to carry on with the work.
Player 5:	Because of that, Iona was left with nothing.
Player 1:	And ever since then, Iona lived a sad and bitter life.

The answer to The Question is no. Iona will not beat Isa to the discovery. Notice, again, how The Climax doesn’t actually answer The Question but sets in motion the chain of events that eventually leads to the answer. In fact, in Iona’s case, The Climax proves to be an example of dramatic irony. When Iona gives her journals to Newt, she thinks she is bettering her odds of beating Isa to the discovery and answering The Question yes. In fact, she achieves just the opposite as it is that very act that secures the answer of no.

I said earlier that far from having to be the most exciting moment in the show, The Climax is often a very subtle moment that calls little or no attention to itself at all. Let’s look at an example in which that’s the case:

Player 1:	Once upon a time, there was a struggling private investigator named Sol Magee.
Player 2:	Every day, he waited in vain for a client to walk through his door.
Player 3:	But one day, Sol heard a knock and he opened his door to Molly Malloy.
Player 4:	Because of that, she walked into his office and told him that she needed his help .
Player 5:	Because of that, he asked her to explain herself.
Player 1:	Because of that, she told him that her rich husband, Jackson Malloy, was missing and that he had a powerful enemy named Murderous Mike, and so he was probably dead, and that she had a checkered past. And so the cops would probably try to pin the murder on her. But she was innocent, and Sol had to believe her, and he had to help her prove it by catching the real killer.
Player 2:	Because of that, Sol didn’t know whether she was guilty or innocent.
Player 3:	And that’s when Molly broke down into tears, swore she was innocent, and begged Sol to please help her prove it.
Player 4:	Which raised the question: Will Sol prove Molly to be innocent?
Player 5:	Because of that, Sol said he’d take the case.
Player 1:	Because of that, Sol began his investigation.
Player 2:	Because of that, he was lead through a maze of mysterious clues, red herrings, dangerous encounters, cheap booze, close calls, and dead ends—all to no avail.
Player 3:	Because of that, he did it all again and again—to no avail.
Player 4:	Until finally, tired and drunk, he stumbled into a cheap motel and rented a room from Ernie the clerk, determined to wake up early—and do it all again.
Player 5:	Because of that, Ernie gave him the key to room 117.
Player 1:	Because of that, he was annoyed by the loud voices in room 118 that wouldn’t let him get any rest.
Player 2:	Because of that, he walked over to the wall with the intention of banging on it.
Player 3:	Because of that, he heard the voices more clearly and recognized one of them as the voice of Molly Malloy.
Player 4:	Because of that, he put a glass to the wall and listened to what they were saying.
Player 5:	Because of that, he heard Molly say that there was nothing to worry about because she had that ridiculous little detective wrapped around her little finger, and as soon as she planted the evidence on Murderous Mike and told Magee that he threatened her, Magee would pay a visit to Murderous Mike, find the evidence, and she’d be in the clear.
Player 1:	Because of that, Sol called the cops and told them where they could pick up the killer of Jackson Malloy.
Player 2:	And ever since then, Sol stayed away from cheap booze and crying dames.

So, the answer to The Question is no. Sol will not prove Molly to be innocent. Notice how none of Sol’s dogged detective work, which we can only imagine to be filled with “exciting” moments, had anything to do with the final outcome. And, even if we’re generous enough to assume that the scene in which Sol listens through the glass and discovers Molly’s betrayal is a scene of such emotional impact that the Tony nomination is all sewn up, it is still not The Climax. Instead, the seemingly insignificant decision to check into a motel room for a couple of hours of sleep, before continuing his investigation, is what leads to the unraveling of Molly’s scheme, the answer to The Question, and the final destiny of the characters.

However, setting the fateful chain of events in motion is not enough for an action to fulfill the role of a satisfying dramatic climax. There are two more criteria. The first is that, like The First Significant Event, The Climax must be committed by character #1. Notice that this is true for all of our examples above: it is Maria who tells Angelica that she is leaving the opera, it is Iona who gives Newt her research journals, and it is Sol who rents the hotel room from Ernie.

This is essential, and here’s why. If it is character #1 who begins all the trouble with The First Significant Event, and if, as a result, it is character #1 whose fate is called into question by The First Significant Repercussion, then it must be character #1 who takes the final responsibility for answering that question and determining the outcome. Remember, the laws of drama hold characters responsible for their actions and accountable for their destinies. If you’re the one who breaks it, then you’re the one who fixes it; and if you can’t fix it then you have to die trying. And character #1 is the character who breaks it.

It is Maria, in our first example above, who made the decision to stray from her normal world of the opera and experience the world of punk rock. As a result, it is Maria who must wrestle with the difficult choice between the two worlds. And, in order for the drama to satisfy, it must be Maria who is accountable for her decision and responsible for the outcome.

To test this a bit, let’s pick up that example from The First Significant Repercussion and see how the story would feel if we were to put The Climax into the hands of somebody else:

Player 5:	And that’s when Spike asked Maria to quit the opera and join the band.
Player 1:	Which raised the question: Will Maria quit the opera and join Spike’s band?
Player 2:	Because of that, Maria was torn between the world of opera and the world of Spike.
Player 3:	Because of that, Spike wrote a song for Maria called “Choose me!”
Player 4:	Because of that, Maria was drawn even closer to Spike.
Player 5:	Until finally, the drummer in Spike’s band told Spike that he didn’t think Maria was a good fit for the band.
Player 1:	Because of that, Spike said that he was the leader and what he said went.
Player 2:	Because of that, the drummer threatened to quit if Maria became a member.
Player 3:	Because of that, Spike backed down and told Maria that she couldn’t join the band.
Player 4:	Because of that, their relationship suffered and they broke up.
Player 5:	And ever since then, Maria stayed in the world of the opera.

Notice how, in this version of the story, Maria causes the problem with The First Significant Event, and Maria faces the consequences because of The First Significant Repercussion, but the drummer is the one who commits The Climax and becomes responsible for the eventual answer to The Question. By taking The Climax, the drummer has stolen Maria’s opportunity to answer her own question. As a result, Maria is not responsible for the outcome of her own destiny, and the audience is left feeling empty and cheated.

Now, take another look at the original Climaxes in each of our three examples:

Until finally, Maria told Angelica that she was leaving the opera to join the Rabid Beasts.
Until finally, Iona took all of her research journals and gave them to her assistant, Newt, with instructions to put them into a safety deposit box at the bank where they were sure to be safe.
Until finally, tired and drunk, he stumbled into a cheap motel and rented a room from Ernie the clerk, determined to wake up early—and do it all again.

In each case, The Climax is not only committed by character #1 but also, like The First Significant Event, it is committed on stage, in the present, and directly upon another character.

However, unlike The First Significant Event, it is not committed upon character #2. Maria acts not upon Spike but upon Angelica. Iona acts not upon Isa but upon Newt. Sol acts not upon Molly but upon Ernie. In fact, The Climax can be committed upon anybody else in the entire play except character #2.

Let’s examine why. Here is just The First Significant Event, First Significant Repercussion, and resulting question from our story about Maria and Spike:

FSE:	But one day, she went to a punk-rock concert and met Spike, the lead singer of the Rabid Beasts.
FSR:	And that’s when Spike asked Maria to quit the opera and join the band.
Q:	Which raised the question: Will Maria quit the opera and join Spike’s band?

We know that, as the play moves from this point on, we go right into The Foundation Funnel during which each of the characters will fall into one of two groups, those whose actions move the answer closer to yes, and those whose actions move the answer closer to no—The Forces of Yes and The Forces of No.

In this case, both character #1 and character #2 align themselves with The Forces of Yes; they both take actions that move the answer to The Question closer to yes. Spike writes a song for Maria called “Choose me!” Maria allows herself to be drawn closer and closer to Spike, and Maria prepares herself for her uncomfortable conversation with her business manager, Angelica Smart.

However, The Forces of No are still in play. In this case, The Forces of No are represented by Angelica. Maria cannot quit the opera without telling Angelica. And so, even though Maria has decided to quit and join Spike’s band and even though Spike is eager for that to happen, they simply cannot make it happen between the two of them. Character #1 and character #2 have reached a dramatic stalemate. They have both done everything they could possibly do to each other in order to achieve the answer they desire, and they have reached an impasse.

This impasse or dramatic stalemate that develops between character #1 and character #2, as they each pursue their desired answer to The Question, is what demands the involvement of a third character in The Climax. After all, if either of them could achieve their desired answer without having to go outside of the character #1–character #2 relationship, they would! If Maria could simply walk away from the opera, guilt free and with no regrets, to join Spike’s band, she’d be happy to do it. But, she can’t. She first must deal with her mixed feelings and with her obligations to Angelica. Otherwise, the solution to her problem would be too easy, and the entire ending of the play would lack dramatic interest.

It is perhaps a bit easier to appreciate the dramatic stalemate when character #1 and character #2 are on opposite sides of the yes-or-no issue. Let’s take a look at our next example:

FSE:	But one day, Iona met another physicist, named Isa Topes, at the big convention for physicists.
FSR:	And that’s when Isa told Iona to back off because nothing and nobody was going to prevent her from being the first to make the discovery.
Q:	Which raised the question: Will Iona beat Isa to the discovery?

In this case, Iona, character #1, wants to make the answer to The Question yes and Isa, character #2, wants to make the answer to The Question no. In The Foundation Funnel, they both take actions in an attempt to achieve their desired opposing outcomes:

Iona did some research into Isa’s past and discovered that Isa was once alleged to have stolen the research notes of a previous rival.

(Moving the answer toward yes, because it makes her aware of Isa’s criminal nature and allows her to protect herself against it.)

Isa begins lurking about the vicinity of Iona’s laboratory.

(Moving the answer toward no as she apparently prepares to steal Iona’s notes.)

Iona discovers this and tells the security guard to make sure that nobody gets in without the proper identification.

(Moving the answer toward yes as she further protects her notes.)

Isa gets the proper identification in order to get past the security guard.

(Moving the answer toward no.)

Iona tells the director that she suspected Isa of trying to steal her notes.

(Trying to move the answer toward yes as she expects protection from the director.)

The director threatens to cut off her funding if she doesn’t just focus on her work and leave Isa alone.

(Moving the answer toward no.)

Isa hovers ominously about the door to Iona’s office.

(Moving the answer toward no.)

Iona discovers her, and her first apparent attempt to steal the notes is thwarted.

(Moving the answer toward yes.)

And here we have the dramatic stalemate. Iona has done all she could to protect her notes from Isa, and Isa has done all she could to steal them. They are at an impasse. They are equally matched. There is nothing else that they can do to each other in order to move the answer even one drop closer to their desired outcome. An additional influence is required to break the stalemate and give the victory to one or the other.

In order to resolve this conflict, without involving the influence of another character, either character #1 or character #2 would simply have to give up the fight. And that, of course, would be thoroughly dissatisfying for the audience.

Therefore, as soon as the dramatic stalemate is in position, it is time for character #1 to commit The Climax, and it must be committed upon—not character #2—but character #3.

This, then, is our formal definition of The Climax: an action that is committed by character #1, on stage and in the present, directly upon character #3. It sets into motion the chain of events that eventually answers The Question of the Play.

Any character in the play, with the exception of character #2, is an eligible character #3.

We have now completed our analysis of The Middle, composed of The Foundation Focus, The First Significant Repercussion, The Question of the Play, The Foundation Funnel, and The Climax. I can now go back and present, once again, the third evolution of our structural map, this time, with the core functions improved upon and completed.

	STUCTURAL MAP,
	THIRD EVOLUTION	CORE FUNCTION
Beginning	Foundation	The central characters’ normal routine, in the world of the play, is established.
	First Significant Event	Character #1 breaks the routine by committing a specific action, on stage and in the present, directly upon character #2. The Foundation crumbles.
Middle	Foundation Focus	Robbed of their familiar Foundation, the characters struggle to survive as they encounter ever-increasing risk in their new and unknown world. Material from The Foundation is reincorporated and refocused in such a way as to continuously raise the dramatic stakes of The First Significant Event.
	First Significant Repercussion	Character #2 commits a specific action, on stage and in the present, directly upon character #1.The First Significant Repercussion is the logical conclusion of the Cause and Effect chain of events that comprise The Foundation Focus. It throws the entire weight of the dilemma squarely upon the shoulders of character #1 and it raises The Question of the Play.
	Question of the Play	The question regarding the fate of character #1 and character #2 that is brought into awareness by The First Significant Repercussion. It crystallizes the central dilemma that the rest of the play must endeavor to resolve. It is phrased according to the following specific formula: Will character #1 either do something to or have something done to her by character #2? It can always be answered either yes or no.
	Foundation Funnel	The characters act upon their environment and upon each other in order to answer The Question of the Play according to their desires.
	Climax	Character #1 commits a specific action, on stage and in the present, directly upon any character other than character #2. This action sets the answer to The Question of the Play irrevocably in motion. The character that was acted upon becomes character #3.
End	End	The characters either succeed or fail, a new Foundation is built, and a new routine is established.

The End

Everything that happens after The Climax is a part of The End, and I refer to this section as The Foundation Finale. It is in The Foundation Finale that The Climax bears its fruit, the fates of the characters are played out, and The Question of the Play is finally answered.

A DEEPER LOOK AT THE FOUNDATION FINALE

The potency of The Foundation Finale lies in the fact that some of the characters may be unaware that they have entered it until it’s too late for them to do anything about it. That’s because, as we have seen before, it is often impossible for the characters to know that The Climax has been committed until The Question of the Play is finally answered. The characters, then, go through The Foundation Finale as if they were still in The Foundation Funnel, fervently striving to answer The Question according to their individual desires, blissfully or pathetically unaware that The Climax has already taken place, that the outcome has already been determined, and that they are now acting in vain.

This is the case in our story of Sol Magee and Molly Molloy:

Until finally, tired and drunk, he stumbled into a cheap motel and rented a room from Ernie the clerk, determined to wake up early—and do it all again.
Because of that, Ernie gave him the key to room 117. Because of that, he was annoyed by the loud voices in room 118 that wouldn’t let him get any rest.
Because of that, he walked over to the wall with the intention of banging on it.
Because of that, he heard the voices more clearly and recognized one of them as the voice of Molly Malloy. Because of that, he put a glass to the wall and listened to what they were saying.
Because of that, he heard Molly say that there was nothing to worry about because she had that ridiculous little detective wrapped around her little finger and that as soon as she planted the evidence on Murderous Mike and told Magee that he threatened her, Magee would pay a visit to Murderous Mike, find the evidence, and be in the clear.
Because of that, Sol called the cops and told them where they could pick up the killer of Jackson Malloy. And ever since then, Sol stayed away from cheap booze and crying dames.

As soon as Sol rents room 117 from Ernie, we are in The Foundation Finale. The Climax has been committed, and it is now just a matter of time before the chain of events, that will convict Molly and bruise Sol’s heart, plays itself out. Molly doesn’t know this, though, and she will spend the entire Foundation Finale planning her rosy future with the strange man in room 118. She won’t discover that she’s in The Foundation Finale until the cops come banging on her door. Even Sol, who committed The Climax, believes that he’s still in The Foundation Funnel—that is, he believes that he still might be able to prove Molly innocent—up until the time that he puts that glass against the wall. Only then does he realize that the gig is up, and only then, should he choose to, can he trace his destiny back to The Climax.

Once The Question of the Play has been answered, the characters are faced with the task of establishing a new Foundation. That is, how will life continue in light of everything that just happened to them? As the characters break ground upon the construction of their new Foundation, our play may end.

We can now take a look at our final evolution of the structural map and the core functions on pages 72–73.

Exercise #12: The Five-Minute Play

It’s time to get it all up on its feet by improvising a complete play in five minutes. The First Significant Event should happen at about one and a half to two minutes in, and The First Significant Repercussion should happen at about three and a half to four minutes in.

Have fun!

TIPS FOR SUCCESS:

When first getting started with this, it’s important for at least one player to sit out and observe. That player should look for the dramatic landmarks of the structural map as the play unfolds and take notes. The players on stage should focus mostly on spontaneity and exceptional improvisation and not so much on the structural map. After the five-minute play, the note taker should analyze the structure of the play for the cast. Following this analysis, a group conversation should raise and answer the following questions:

• Did the play hit each of the dramatic landmarks?

• Do the players on stage have an analysis of the play that differs from the note taker’s?

• Who was character #1, character #2, and character #3?

• Were the players on stage consciously making choices to fulfill certain dramatic landmarks or were they acting completely instinctually?

Be sure to rotate the position of note taker, as that position is as essential to the learning process as being in the play. Even if the show has a director, it is a good idea for the players to rotate out and take notes.

Remember, this is going to be hard! The first number of tries is likely to be confusing and frustrating. Let that be the case. Accept that this is a new and difficult skill that will take some time to master.

	STUCTURAL MAP,
	THIRD EVOLUTION	CORE FUNCTION
Beginning	Foundation	The central characters’ normal routine, in the world of the play, is established.
	First Significant Event	Character #1 breaks the routine by committing a specific action, on stage and in the present, directly upon character #2. The Foundation crumbles.
Middle	Foundation Focus	Robbed of their familiar Foundation, the characters struggle to survive as they encounter ever-increasing risk in their new and unknown world. Material from The Foundation is reincorporated and refocused in such a way as to continuously raise the dramatic stakes of The First Significant Event.
	First Significant Repercussion	Character #2 commits a specific action, on stage and in the present, directly upon character #1. The First Significant Repercussion is the logical conclusion of the Cause and Effect chain of events that comprise The Foundation Focus. It throws the entire weight of the dilemma squarely upon the shoulders of character #1 and it raises The Question of the Play.
	Question of the Play	The question regarding the fate of character #1 and character #2 that is brought into awareness by The First Significant Repercussion. It crystallizes the central dilemma that the rest of the play must endeavor to resolve. It is phrased according to the following specific formula: Will character #1 either do something to or have something done to her by character #2? It can always be answered either yes or no.
	Foundation Funnel	The characters quickly fall into two main groups, those that want the answer to The Question of the Play to be “yes” and those that want the answer to The Question of the Play to be “no.” They all take actions in an effort to achieve their desired answer.
	Climax	This is the final action of The Foundation Funnel. It is committed by character #1, on stage and in the present, directly upon character #3. It sets into motion the chain of events that eventually answer The Question of the Play.
End	Foundation Finale	The chain of events initiated by The Climax plays itself out, The Question of the Play is answered, and the characters begin to build a new Foundation on which to live their lives.

*When I first created the Story Spine, it didn’t have a name. I simply called it “Once Upon a Time . . .” It was Kat Koppett, formerly of Freestyle Repertory Theater, who dubbed it the Story Spine. Kat has used this exercise to great effectiveness in her innovative corporatetraining techniques. She writes about this in her excellent book Training to Imagine.