This exploration of the opening episode of Sally Wainwright’s award-winning crime drama trilogy Happy Valley reveals 4 story threads, a 5 act structure, multiple antagonists, blurred boundaries and how the structure follows the journey not of trilogy protagonist Catherine but of the season antagonist Kevin. Dive in and discover.
I asked chatgpt how does Jimmy McGovern structure episode 1 of Time. This was the response.
In Episode 1 of Time, Jimmy McGovern skillfully structures the episode to immerse viewers in the harsh, tense environment of a British prison while introducing the complex inner lives of the main characters. McGovern, known for his gritty, character-driven storytelling, uses a dual narrative approach to introduce the two main characters, Mark Cobden (played by Sean Bean) and Eric McNally (played by Stephen Graham), and to establish the emotional stakes that drive the story forward.
Establishing Characters and Context: The episode opens with Mark, a former teacher, who is sentenced to four years for causing a fatal car accident. The narrative dives directly into his vulnerability and isolation as he enters prison, giving viewers a raw look at the fear and guilt he feels. In parallel, we meet Eric, a seasoned prison officer, whose moral integrity and deep care for the inmates contrasts sharply with the brutality of the prison environment.
Conflict and High Stakes: McGovern quickly escalates tension by throwing Mark into confrontations with fellow inmates, exposing the brutal reality of prison life. He also creates immediate tension for Eric, who is forced into a moral dilemma when a gang threatens his family. This dual conflict (Mark’s survival and Eric’s integrity) drives the episode’s structure, balancing empathy and suspense.
Developing Themes of Guilt and Redemption: Throughout the episode, McGovern interweaves themes of guilt, redemption, and justice, exploring these through the contrasting lives of Mark and Eric. Flashbacks and dialogue subtly reveal Mark’s remorse, highlighting his emotional journey, while Eric’s ethical struggles reveal his vulnerability, adding depth to the narrative.
By ending the episode on cliffhangers for both characters, McGovern effectively hooks viewers, leaving them invested in the fate of these two men whose lives are irrevocably intertwined within the brutal confines of prison.
Having analysed Happy Valley season 1 episode by episode, act by act, I decided to write my TV pilot in 5 act structure.
I am using the same colour code as I used in my HV analysis, with an extra colour as I am working with two protagonists (my first time attempting this).
I am certainly not expecting a perfect result from this first attempt at a TV pilot but hopefully something which I can continue to work on when the MA has finished and something which I can submit with an element of confidence that it will pass.
Here is the way I have colour coded the first act, inspired by my analysis of the structure of Happy Valley.
What about you? Are you colour-coding your outlines?
Having looked at the previous 4 episodes, we are now on to episode 5.
It is actually really interesting to see the colour codes change.
Whereas in episode 1, act 5 is colour-coded mostly blue – dealing with the A story (season) main plot, as we near the season finale of episode 6, act 5 of episode 5 is mostly red – dealing with the A story (trilogy).
So, as we near the end of season 1, writer Sally Wainwright is preparing the ground for the season trilogy.
Here are the 5 acts of episode 5.
Colour codes as follows:
Interesting to note that act 1 is completely focused on A story for the season – Ann’s kidnap plot.
Act 2 gives us mostly season plot scenes but 3 family scenes inserted as well.
In Act 3 we see the writer bring us back to the main plot of the trilogy with splashes of red mixed in with the blue (season plot) and green (family).
In Act 4 we start to see the trilogy become more pronounced with red trilogy scenes outweighing blue and green. There is also one scene which ties one of the season antagonists to the background issue of drugs (colour code: brown) from where Happy Valley gets its name.
Finally, to kick us into the finale that is going to be Episode 6, we have the last act of Episode 5, which, with the exception of the first scene, is completely focused on Catherine, Ryan and Tommy Lee Royce and the deceased Becky.
SPOILER ALERT
In scene 52 Catherine explains to her grandson Ryan that she is crying because she misses his mum – Becky – who committed suicide after being raped by Tommy Lee Royce. This storyline will play out over the next two seasons, culminating in Episode 6 of Season 3. And in a twist of genius, the final scene of season 3 pays off the opening scene of season 1, even though season 1 and season 3 were made 8 years apart.
If you have any interesting notes about Happy Valley please let me know on Twitter @screenwriteorg
Warning – contains spoilers, crude language, and sexual references.
Introduction
Having watched four of Sorkin’s films over three days: A Few Good Men, Moneyball, Steve Jobs, and Molly’s Game, I learned that Sorkin has a style which is not immediately apparent. That he writes snappy, humorous dialogue is undisputed. However, the underlying idiosyncratic skill he has as writer, is evident in the parody of himself in 30 Rock when Sorkin states: ‘Listen, Lady (a gender I write extremely well if the story calls for it )… ’ (0.44)
Sorkin portrays conflicting attributes to his characters. Perhaps this is why his screenplays are so successful. Yet there is a hidden elixir in his writing to be shared.
All four films have a plot which we are aware of, on the surface. However, the writer asks us to look more closely, and dig a little deeper to a play within a play. Underneath the plot, is the theme, the message Sorkin wants us to think about, go away with, learn from – the elixir of our viewing journey. This theme is not immediately apparent. I believe if we are to learn from Sorkin, and share the elixir he presents to us, we must discover the treasure that lies between the lines, below the surface, the subtext. Maybe it is there we will find Sorkin’s true value as a writer; the reason for his success, and why he may have been the catalyst for a cultural shift in favor of the way in which screenwriters are perceived.
In order to search for the elixir to share, I watched Molly’s Game first, followed by Moneyball. When I realised both shared a father-daughter theme I was eager to watch Steve Jobs, thinking to myself that it must deviate from the theme. There is no way Steve Jobs can be a father-daughter story in the way Molly’s Game and Moneyball is. It’s Steve Jobs. It’s about Apple. So, I watched it and learned… guess what? It’s a father-daughter story! I wonder how much screen time is dedicated to Job’s relationship with his daughter and his personal life goal of being a good father, in comparison with his work goal of selling 1 million computers in 90 days.
I have noticed that in all four films the theme is parental love and specifically, father-daughter (in A Few Good Men: father figure – daughter.) The plots have their own trajectories. Yet I believe the message Sorkin wants us to take from each of these stories – the theme – is the value and importance of parenthood. The plots are simply wallpaper in which to tell the real story – which is the theme. Let’s face it, what’s more important? Selling a million computers or having a good relationship with your daughter? As Phoebe Waller-Bridge says to Daniel Craig: “The mission’s not the real story, the relationships are.” (Spitting Image S2 E03). Let’s look at the four films one by one.
1. A FEW GOOD MEN (1992) directed by Rob Reiner, screenplay by Aaron Sorkin.
The first thing we should notice about this story is the oxymoron between title and poster image. One of the ‘few good men’ in the image is a not a man, but a woman. Notice how both men look us in the eye. The woman looks somewhere else -a visual metaphor, perhaps. In the film, Lieutenant Commander Joanne Galloway (Demi Moore) is subjected to sexual harassmentfrom both her younger protege Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) and her superior officer Colonel Jessup (Jack Nicholson).
Galloway, the only female in this story world, acts as mentor to Kaffee, inspiring him to take his work seriously and fight for justice for the two young men accused of murder. Kaffee is hired by the Navy for his reputation for plea bargains. Galloway wants Kaffee, rather than enter a plea bargain, to search for the truth and fight for justice. In John Yorke’s vernacular, by the denouement, Kaffee has assimilated Galloway’s quality of truth-seeking. What is the truth that lies behind the lines of Sorkin’s writing? And can we handle it?
First, when Galloway briefs Kaffee on the court case he ‘jokes’ that he’s “sexually aroused”. Next, Jessup is in the Officer’s Mess with Kaffee, Kendrick, Markinson, other lawyers and Joanne Galloway. As well as having the opportunity to be a father-figure / mentor / role model to Tom Cruise’s character – Kaffee, Jessup also has the opportunity to be a role model to Galloway – a mentor or father-figure to a young, brilliant, smart female officer. Tragically, he bypasses this opportunity in favor of bravado, machismo and sexist banter in front of a group of men. Jessup chooses not to serve and protect but to humiliate the female officer under his command with crude, salacious, offensive language:
JESSUP
(to Kaffee)
There is, believe me gentlemen, nothing sexier on earth
than a woman you have to salute in the morning…
Promote ‘em all I say, cause this is true:
If you haven’t gotten a blow job from a superior
officer, well, you’re just letting the best in life pass you by.
Sorkin achieves two things with this dialogue. Firstly, he highlights the issue of sexual harassment women are subjected to in the workplace, in this case, by state actors (US military personal). Secondly, he evokes our disgust and creates enmity between the audience and the story’s main antagonist.
2. MONEYBALL (2011) directed by Bennett Miller, screenplay by Steven Zaillian & Aaron Sorkin
Moneyball is ostensibly about Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) GM of a baseball team, and about his relationship with a young economist, Pete (Jonah Hill), who creates a winning team based on statistics. However, let me draw your attention to the scene, on p128 in the screenplay, where Billy and Pete are in Billy’s office, and Billy is frantically calling teams trying to do deals on players. At one point it’s a wide shot, and Billy (Brad Pitt) kicks back in his chair, and spins around so he’s side on, and the scene goes still and quiet, as Billy thinks and waits for a phone call. This space and time with nothing happening allows us, the viewer, to take in the details mise en scène. And what do we see?
Three photos: two of his daughter, one of him and his daughter, and a mug – obviously a gift from his daughter – which says ‘Daddy.’ This happens again, and the actor, writer, director, gives us time to assimilate the details. This scene portrays the theme: father-daughter parental love.NB – a word of warning – only the dialogue is in the script. There is no action stating “Billy kicks back revealing photos of his daughter and a mug with the word ‘Daddy’ on.” This leads me to believe the screenplay is a transcript. When we write screenplays, we are writing what is on screen. We describe the whole screen / scene. If something is on screen, it should be in the screenplay, right? If not, we would just have a close up of Brad Pitt, thinking! But Brad turns away from the camera and kicks back, doing nothing, saying nothing, giving us space and time to assimilate the important information intended – relating to the theme. I suggest the only reason this scene exists is for us to witness Billy’s office, to see the photos he has of his daughter, to see the mug on his desk saying ‘Daddy.’ The trade deals, the baseball, the phone calls are plot. The photos, the mug saying ‘Daddy’ are theme.
Earlier in the story, Billy and his colleague visit an injured player Scott Hatterberg (Chris Pratt) to offer him a contract. It’s late. Here’s an excerpt from the screenplay:
HATTEBERG’s YOUNG DAUGHTER comes down the staircase in her pajamas, having just woken up in the middle of the night.
BILLY
Hello.
HATTEBERG’S DAUGHTER
Hi.
SCOTT
That’s our youngest daughter.
BILLY
Great.
SCOTT
Do you have kids?
BILLY doesn’t like to share personal lives with the players, but he covers well–
BILLY
–yeah, I have a daughter.
Brad Pitt, aware of the utmost importance of this line as it relates to the theme, basically shrugs off the question before getting back to business. Next we witness Billy in a guitar shop with his daughter, Casey (Kerris Dorsey). She sings a song. Billy brings his hand to cover his face in total shock. He cannot believe how beautiful his daughter is. Tears fill his eyes. Later, when Billy’s team are about to break the record of 20 wins in a row, he’s driving away from the stadium because he can’t bear the pressure. He receives a phone call from his daughter. Casey advises her father to turn around and head back to the stadium. Billy listens to his daughter and turns around.
Then, just after Billy has been offered a contract with the Boston Red Sox as the ‘highest paid GM in the history of sport’, the screenplay states:
EXT. FREEWAY – DAY
BILLY’s driving along and listening to the continued DRONE of talk radio criticism. BILLY keeps listening a moment, then reaches in the glove box and pulls out a CD marked “Dad’s Mix”.
BILLY slips it in the CD player.
The sound of the radio immediately snaps off and the momentary silence is soon broken by CASEY’s VOICE–
CASEY (V.O)
Hey, Dad. I picked these songs out just for you.
And then the first track on the CD comes on…
And BILLY smiles.
We know that for the whole movie, with all the buying and selling of players and talk of baseball, Billy has been thinking about his daughter.
3. MOLLY’S GAME (2017) written and directed by Aaron Sorkin (in his directorial debut).
Molly’s Game frequently flips back to Molly’s childhood.
In this scene (p61) Sorkin has us witness Molly (Jessica Chastain) at home as a teenager with her emotionally abusive psychologist father (Kevin Costner):
The FATHER looks at MOLLY then throws his fork down on his plate with a frightening clang.
FATHER
Don’t disrespect me like that at the table.
GIRL
I wasn’t disrespecting you, I was disrespecting Freud and it’s a kitchen table, it’s not the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
FATHER
And I’m a professional psychologist, not a quack.
GIRL
I never said (you were a)–
FATHER (over)
Yeah you did and don’t do it again and don’t ever use that language again.
GIRL
Okay, ignore my teachers, watch my language and respect the kitchen table. What else do I need to do before I’m allowed to disagree with you?
FATHER
Make your own money so you can live in your own house and eat your own food.
Later, Molly’s agent, Lois (Joey Brookes) makes a flippant comment which causes Molly’s regression, evoking this painful childhood memory.
LOIS
Millions or nothing. Go big or go home and
go live with your mother. For the rest of your life.
Sorkin writes:
This is excruciating for MOLLY…
In Act 3, Molly is visited by her father in New York, in a redemption scene. Her father admits that his anger was misdirected. He was angry at Molly because when she was 5 years old she had seen him in a car with another woman. Molly can’t remember this, but her father does. He held this shame – expressing itself as anger towards Molly – throughout her childhood and teenage years, alienating him from his daughter until this moment.
What is tragically ironic about Costner’s character is the fact that he is a psychologist and psychotherapist. He is trained to see defence mechanisms of the psyche, such as transference, misdirected anger etc. in others, yet he did not recognise it in himself until years later. This irony is played out in the final scene between father and daughter when he tells Molly he’s going to give her three years of therapy in three minutes. He gives her three minutes of therapy yet it took him many years to admit his own flaw to his daughter, the reason for his estrangement from her. It was this ‘moral self-revelation’ (Truby) which brought him back to her. Realizing his need he was able to achieve his want – to be in relationship with his daughter. Costner’s character has a strong character arc. We are able to forgive her father as Molly does. Again, the plot is the poker games, the FBI, the court case. This father-daughter subplot relates to, what I believe is, the story’s main theme: parental love.
4. STEVE JOBS (2015) directed by Danny Boyle and written by Aaron Sorkin.
Ostensibly the main plot of Steve Jobs is Apple and the launch of the iMac (Job’s work goal), yet his relationship with his daughter and his character growth as a father runs alongside the main plot as another main plot – a personal life goal. So Jobs has two goals: a work life goal and a personal life goal.1. In the next paragraph I will explore gender balance in screen time in Steve Jobs.
In conclusion, I believe Sorkin’s value lies between the lines, underneath the main plot, and is related to theme. Furthermore, in my opinion criticism for gender bias towards Sorkin in his stories is unfair. In fact, when I watched the four films I had no idea of this criticism and I was shocked to discover it because after watching the four films I was impressed by Sorkin’s clear stance as an advocate for women’s rights.
Beneath the main plot of A Few Good Men, Sorkin was raising an issue in women’s rights which is still causing problems, even today. Thirty years later, we still face the same issues. Even today here in the UK we read of police officers colluding with a convicted rapist and murderer with sexist comments in a misogynistic whatsapp group and The Guardian has reported on sexual harassment in the UK armed forces. Janet Hills, Chairperson of the Metropolitan Black Police Associationhas been speaking out recently regarding her call for zero tolerance on “sexist police banter.” Recently, the British TV and Film has followed the US #metoo movement / cancel culture (Noel Clarke), making it fiercely clear that misogynistic behaviour, in word or deed, will not be tolerated.
Doesn’t Sorkin’s raising of these issues raise an eyebrow to anyone excoriating him with negative gender bias criticism? In fact, if Sorkin is responsible for the cultural shift in the way the world perceives screenwriters, perhaps it’s fair to say that is a consequence of the way his films illuminate gender bias issues notwithstanding the strong female characters he creates.
My advice to anyone wishing to imitate Sorkin’s writing style is to look beyond the dialogue to discover what is happening between the lines, on the screen, relating to theme, to invest thought and time in reflecting issues relating to women’s rights, to create conflicting characters, consider male characters with personal goals, to think about character arcs in all of the main characters and finally, to write female characters “extremely well when the story calls for it.”
Let’s look at the structure of Episode 1 and see how writer Sally Wainwright weaves the 4 story threads together:
NB: The A story (trilogy) refers to the story overarching the entire 3 seasons. A story (season) means the story which expands throughout Season 1.
Episode 1 seems to be written in 5 acts, and follows the actions of the season protagonist (Kevin) rather than the trilogy antagonist (Tommy Lee Royce).
The end of each act is a turning point instigated by the actions of Kevin.
The final shot of the 1st act also reveals the trilogy antagonist Tommy Lee Royce.
Because of this, I have broken the episode into 5 acts:
Episode 1 opens with Catherine’s day to day – police procedure – not related to either A story (season) or A story (trilogy).
The following scene after the opening credits starts off the A story (season).
Scenes 4/5/6 refer to the A story (trilogy).
Midway through Act 1 Catherine kisses her ex-husband – already with someone new – referring to her personal life. She still has a thing for her ex-husband.
Then, we’re back into the Season story.
Next, trilogy story.
Season story.
Trilogy story.
Then 2 scenes which set up the season story (the inciting incident)
The final scene of Act 1 cleverly weaves together both A story (season) and A story (trilogy) around antagonist Tommy Lee Royce.
Act 2 opens with conflict between Ryan and Catherine – A story trilogy.
Next 2 scenes A story season.
Then 2 scenes C story.
Finally, A story season.
Act 3, the central act of the episode, begins with A story trilogy telling us the reason for this Protagonist / Antagonist battle – an immensely powerful scene where Catherine tells Ryan’s teacher the entire backstory of her daughter Becky, Lee Royce’s violent sexual assault and Becky’s consequent suicide.
We might call this the midpoint.
The following scene takes us to Catherine arranging to meet ex-husband Richard. I have included this as A story trilogy, as opposed to B story (family) because it leads up to Catherine’s expression to Richard of her absolute hatred of Tommy Lee Royce.
The next 3 scenes are dedicated to A story season.
Act 4 is completely dedicated to A story season.
Scenes 38/39/40 focus on A story season.
Scene 41 refers to police protocol as Catherine tells an amusing story to Kirsty about drugs.
Then, she spots Tommy Lee Royce, midway through the final act.
The final 4 scenes of act 5 all represent the season A story.
Ashley (JOE ARMSTRONG), Kevin (STEVE PEMBERTON), Lewis (ADAM LONG)
We can see that this episode is structured very differently from Episode 2
Like Episode 2, let’s explore in 5 acts.
Again, as previously, the 4 story threads are colour coded as follows:
Let’s start.
As you can see, unlike Episode 2, (we will do a comparison in another post) the entire act is dedicated to the A story (season) and the cop-murder of Kirsty.
Actually, this storyline could have its own colour code as an episode storyline, I decided to keep blue because the murder of Kirsty is a consequence of Ann’s kidnapping: A story (season).
The act is a furiously tragic depiction of the murder of Kirsty: emotional, brutal, shocking. It’s a terrific opener to Episode 3.
Many of these scenes are quick fire editing between the four characters: Kirsty, Lewis, Ann and Tommy Lee Royce.
The act break is clear, as Tommy Lee Royce leaves the body of Kirsty dead on the floor and the lights of her police van flashing.
Again, Act 2 is dedicated to the A story (season) with a slight nod to the C story of police, drugs & corruption.
The act again is clearly marked as a dramatic sequence and follows Catherine dealing with the crime scene.
Again, Act 3 is almost fully dedicated to the season A story – the kidnapping of Ann.
Again, there is a slight nod to Catherine’s day to day world of police protocol. Actually, these two scenes (44/45) depict Catherine dealing with anti-police hate speech.
Act 4, right up to minute 40 (scene 54) deals with the A story (season) the kidnapping of Ann.
Scene 54 is the first time in the entire episode we have seen any C story – Catherine’s personal life, with a slight nod to the A story of the trilogy – Ryan’s relationship with his dad Tommy Lee Royce.
Act 4 ends with a shocking line from Clare which brings Catherine crashing back to hell and hooks us to the A story for the trilogy:
“On the plus side… ” says Clare, “at least it (the murder of Kirsten) has taken your mind off Tommy Lee Royce.”
Act 5 is also dedicated to the A story of the season – the kidnapping of Ann.
Only the final scene brings us back to the A story for the trilogy – Catherine V Tommy Lee Royce.
SPOILER ALERT. Please do not read if you have not seen Happy Valley Season 1.
We explore this episode in 5 acts.
Please note – Happy Valley is a trilogy: 3 seasons with 1 main overarching story.
In this post we will look at the various story threads, and how writer Sally Wainwright weaves them together.
We can observe four story threads:
The main story which runs through the three seasons is about Catherine and her grandson Ryan and his relationship with his father – trilogy antagonist Tommy Lee Royce. I have called this the ‘A’ story (trilogy).
Next, there is the season story: the kidnapping of Ann Gallagher by Kevin, Ashley, Lewis and Tommy Lee Royce. Let’s call this the ‘A’ story (season).
We can see immediately how the two A stories – season and trilogy – intertwine around the character of Tommy Lee Royce (the trilogy’s main antagonist).
Thirdly, we have Catherine’s extended family: her sister Clare, her ex-husband Richard and her son Daniel. Let’s call this the ‘B’ story.
Fourthly, we have the theme of drugs, police procedure, and corruption. Let’s call this the ‘C’ story.
The different story threads are colour coded.
Let’s look at Act 1.
So, here we can see the episode opens with the C story, followed by opening credits.
It is interesting to note there is no B story.
Immediately following the credits we are into the season A story – the kidnapping.
Next, we are nudged into the A story for the trilogy – Catherine (protag) V Tommy Lee Royce (antag).
The next two scenes introduce Catherine’s day to day of busting small time drugs gangs so represent the C story.
The act finishes focusing on the A story (season) of kidnapping with season victim Ann whimpering, bound and gagged, to carry us into Act 2.
Now let’s check Act 2. Again, no B story.
Here we can see that Act 2 focuses only on the two A stories, expertly interweaving the season story and trilogy story.
The act again finishes with Ann (season victim) and her ordeal, propelling us into Act 3.
Act 3 finally gives us some insight into Catherine’s personal life.
In fact, Act 3 blends all 4 storylines.
This central act opens with a scene introducing Daniel, Catherine’s son, inviting her and her sister Clare to dinner (paid off in Act 4 Scene 32.)
The next scene, 17, interweaves the C story, drugs and corruption, with the B story and the A story (trilogy).
The next 4 scenes, 19-22, focus on the season A story.
Scene 23, which we might call the midpoint of the episode, points to the A story of the trilogy.
Again, the act ends by focusing on Ann and her ordeal.
Act 4 steers away from the A story for the trilogy (Catherine / Ryan / Tommy Lee Royce) and opens with a 4 minute scene which references drugs and corruption, the C story.
The next scene, 27, foreshadows Kirsty’s death.
Scenes 28 / 29 focus on the A story (season).
The central scene of Act 4 brings us back to the C story: drugs and corruption.
Scenes 31/32 revolve around Catherine’s son, ex-husband and grandson – B story.
Act 4 ends with us focusing again on the A story for the season (33/34).
Act 5 opens with B story, with a powerful moral conflict between Catherine and Richard discussing the consequences on their family of dealing with bringing up a child who was born to their (deceased) daughter as the consequence of a rape.
The rest of this final act is equally split between A story (season) and A story (trilogy) – expertly separated by one scene, 38, which glues both stories together and brings protagonist and antagonist (almost) face to face.
Catherine has yet to meet her trilogy antagonist, but here, we the viewer – in privileged superior position – know that only a wall separates her from direct confrontation with her arch enemy Tommy Lee Royce. Dramatic irony at its finest.
The final 3 scenes draw us back into the A story for the season to propel us into the next episode.
Do you agree with this analysis? Please let me know your thoughts.
Cinematic Storytelling Across Film, Television & Brand Identity