by John Bucher (@johnkbucher)

Many people have been astonished by the success of The People v. OJ Simpson. However, the quality of the writing and the show in general has been no surprise to those familiar with the work of its creators, Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski. The duo has made careers out of examining the lives of men they believed to be misunderstood, but deemed evil by some segments of society. Ed Wood, Andy Kauffman, and Larry Flynt are just a few of the people they have brought to the silver screen with their stories before tackling Simpson. As with any work this nuanced, complex, and layered, story secrets can be seen once we begin digging into the show. Here are four story lessons from American Crime Story: The People v. OJ Simpson.

1. SUPPORTING CHARACTERS CAN MAKE OR BREAK THE STORY

Obviously, The People v. OJ has a basis in real events. Not only is the show based around the book by Jeffrey Toobin, the characters and events in the story actually happened – fairly recently. Since Simpson’s trial was very public, even the most minor characters involved became household names. The creators of the show, in order to do justice to the story, were faced with the task of creating a large ensemble cast, all of which needed to have their own differentiating characteristics and personalities.

While some of the characters were interesting personas in real life, all were not. The creators had to pick and choose what supporting characters were necessary to the story, which would create the most conflict, and which would most securely hold the audience’s attention. Because the supporting characters were so brilliantly captured on the page, acting talent came out of the woodwork in order to portray these iconic characters. In many ways, the supporting characters are what give the show its interesting flair. The creators have succeeded in making us feel as much empathy for many of the supporting players as we do the lead cast.

2. DETAILS MATTER

With such an epic story, it would have been easy for the writers of the show to stick to the broad strokes of the story. The more difficult route would be to make judgment calls about what moments in the story should be focused on, and then go deep in the details. Fortunately, the writers chose the second option. In many ways, the details in the Simpson case are what the lawyers used to get Simpson acquitted. If jurors had only focused on the broad strokes, it’s likely Simpson would have been found guilty.

The writers recognized this fact and made highlighting details a theme of the show. Did it matter to jurors that Simpson had a large picture of him and his mother in his home? Who knows? But that simple detail tells us volumes about who Johnnie Cochran was and how he approached defending his client. It’s always the details that reveal the most about the characters.

3. SOME CHARACTERS NEED DIMENSION BUT SOME CHARACTERS SHOULD BE FLAT

One of the most intriguing episodes of the season is Marcia, Marcia, Marcia. Building out Marcia Clark as a fully realized, multi-dimensional character has made the story compelling. The public did not get to see this side of Clark on television, so we feel we are getting an inside view of a person we all thought we knew. We needed to understand the layers that make up Marcia Clark in order to engage in the battle she faces inside the courtroom.

Certainly, Lance Ito is just as complex a person in real life. However, for the purposes of the story, his character needed to be flat. We only get a few minor details about him that inform the role he serves in this story. The writers masterfully chose which characters to dissect and which not to.

4. EVEN IF WE KNOW HOW A STORY ENDS, IT’S THE JOURNEY THAT MATTERS

There is likely not one single viewer watching The People v. OJ that isn’t aware that OJ is eventually found not guilty in his criminal trial. However, in that moment on the show, my guess is the writers will still manage to have us on the edge of our seats waiting for the verdict. This is the power of good storytelling. This is why we can watch a movie again and again and become invested emotionally with each viewing. The point of the show is not to reveal Simpson’s innocence or guilt. The point of the show is the journey – the human drama of watching all these characters move toward the same finish line.

We know that Clark and Darden lose the case, but we might not understand why. We know that Simpson walks out of that courtroom a free man, but understanding why that happens is why we watch the show. One of the most difficult things to execute in a script is not how the plot unfolds, but why it happens this way. We seek the thrill of the external journey, but it is the internal journey of the characters that causes us to remember films and television shows. In many ways, the internal journey is what it’s all about.

~

John Bucher is a writer, speaker, and story consultant based out of Los Angeles. He is the author of several books including The Inside Out Story and the upcoming Secrets of Short Visual Storytelling. He has written for entities ranging from HBO to International Ambassadors. He teaches at The LA Film Studies Center and has conducted story seminars on five continents. He can be reached on Twitter @johnkbucher and through his blog, welcometothesideshow.org.