Table of Contents
Every screenwriter must master screenplay structure.
Where you place your beats, scenes and acts determines how your audience absorbs your story. Get it right and you elevate the viewer’s experience. Get it wrong and the story becomes confusing or emotionally flat.
To understand structure, it’s not enough to think about where major plot points land on a timeline. What matters is how they connect, how they influence one another, and how they shape the story’s overall cause-and-effect progression.
In this post, we’ll explore these ideas through the structure of Tony Gilroy’s Michael Clayton, showing how traditional screenwriting principles can still shine within a shifting timeline and complex point of view.
Plot Points Don't Exist in a Vacuum
Audiences experience a story differently from how a writer constructs it. They don’t track turning points consciously. Instead, they feel the story’s rhythm as a continuous, unified journey.
Because of this, discussing plot points in isolation can be misleading. Their power comes from how they relate to one another. A plot point is only meaningful when understood as part of the full cause-and-effect chain.
When these elements connect cleanly, the audience experiences the story as a seamless whole, even when the timeline is fractured or nonlinear.
Choosing the Right Structure
A screenwriter’s job is to guide the viewer clearly through the story, no matter how complex the timeline or character web becomes.
Audiences anchor themselves in the main plot line: the chain of events sparked by the Protagonist’s desire. In Michael Clayton, although the film follows Michael’s point of view, his goals do not drive the plot’s structural spine.
Arthur Edens initially appears to offer structure, but his arc is cut short. Instead, the story’s driving force belongs to Karen Crowder, whose determination to close the U-North case at all costs becomes the backbone of the film.
Gilroy’s nonlinear approach still maintains a traditional structure beneath the surface. The shifting perspective never disrupts the underlying cause-and-effect movement created by Karen’s actions.
Inciting Incident
The inciting incident introduces or forces the Protagonist to confront a problem. It marks the beginning of the story’s main line of conflict.
For Karen Crowder, the first act establishes:
- Karen has taken over the U-North case and must close it successfully.
- Arthur Edens experiences a moral awakening and decides to expose the company.
- Karen finds Memorandum #229, proving U-North knowingly caused harm. (Inciting Incident)
- Karen hires Mr. Verne to neutralize Arthur. (First Act Turning Point)
While Michael’s car explosion appears early and has the energy of an inciting incident, its purpose is pacing rather than structural. It prevents the first act from stalling, but the true inciting event concerns the discovery of the memo.
First Act Turning Point
At the first act turning point, the Protagonist commits to solving the problem identified by the inciting incident.
Before this point, Karen has options. After it, she has made a definitive choice: she resolves to handle Arthur by enlisting Mr. Verne. This decision locks the story into its central dramatic conflict and propels us into the second act.
Midpoint
The midpoint is a crucial turning point where plot, character arc and theme intersect.
At this stage:
- Plot: Michael becomes suspicious of Arthur’s death and its timing with the U-North deal.
- Character Arc: Michael’s growing discomfort reveals a moral boundary he refuses to cross.
- Theme: The film asks whether a person can redeem themselves by defining and honouring ethical limits.
The midpoint is not a single moment but a sequence that collectively deepens the stakes and reveals new dimensions of character and theme. Even with the shifting point of view, Gilroy still uses a very traditional midpoint structure beneath the surface.
Second Act Turning Point
The second act turning point answers two questions: Will the Protagonist succeed? And how has the Main Character changed in relation to the theme?
Karen believes she has solved her problem. She assumes Michael is dead from the car bomb and that she has closed the door on any remaining threats.
For Michael, however, this moment reshapes his worldview. Surviving the attack confirms that Arthur was murdered. This marks the end of Michael’s old belief system — the idea that problems can be “fixed” at any cost.
His internal shift is more important than the plot mechanics. It prepares the audience to believe his choices in the climax.
The Climax
The climax resolves the Dramatic Question, but more importantly, it reveals whether the character has truly changed.
The audience may think they’re waiting to see whether Karen will close the U-North deal. In reality, they’re watching to see whether Michael will finally act with courage and moral clarity.
This moment tests the transformation set in motion after the midpoint and solidified in the second act turning point. Michael’s decision at the climax confirms whether he has embraced a new ethical path.
Until Next Time
Even with a nonlinear timeline, shifting point of view and an unconventional separation between the Main Character and Protagonist, Tony Gilroy builds Michael Clayton using a traditional, dependable structure.
Audiences recognise and respond to this underlying shape, even if they don’t consciously track it.
Rather than limiting creativity, this structure provides a strong foundation from which the writer can explore complexity, character depth and thematic richness.
