Simplifying the Moral Premise

This post from George Chatzigeorgiou, a moral premise fan from Greece whose material I have posted before.

 =====

While watching films and noticing how the moral premise works in them, I've found that in many good films, although there is a moral premise, it doesn't have the fully realized structure that is presented in the book, mainly plot arcs and moments of grace for main characters besides the protag. For example, the kind of films some call "character study" do not have full arcs for secondary characters ("Taxi Driver" for instance).

Thus, I've compiled a set of general rules which I think can be applied in just about any film with a good moral premise. I find these rules very freeing, cause they help me apply a moral premise without feeling confined by a highly rigid, "idealized" structure that serves well as a general guide and as a general template, but I don't think it's necessarily meant to be fully realized. So let me know what you think, will you? (In my general rules I've also included Blake Snyder's advice that the movie's theme should somehow be stated through dialogue during the set up.) I also think that these rules serve as a simplified summary of what the moral premise's all about.

Summary of the rules of a good moral premise:

1) Have a moral premise as the movie's thematic core structured as: [Virtue] leads to [success], but [vice] leads to [defeat].

2) Make the theme crystal clear by including a distinctive theme statement (preferably in the set up), by infusing the movie with "moments of grace" (beats which awaken in the minds and hearts of the audience what the movie is really about), and by exhibiting both sides of the moral premise, as well as each side's consequences.

3) Keep the moral premise consistent throughout the movie and don't betray it. This, in short, means that any character choosing to practice the virtue side should ultimately experience success, while any character choosing to practice the vice side should ultimately experience defeat.

George

Top 10 Secrets of Successful Screenplays

As I was preparing for TIGER'S HOPE, CBS organizers asked me to present a talk at a local film production expo—Michigan Makes Movies EXPO. My workshops are based on my book: "The Moral Premise: Harnessing Virtue and Vice for Box Office Success", that Will Smith says is "the most powerful tool in his new toolbox." When I gave the organizers the title of my talk, they weren't sure they wanted to use that title, because it would confuse people. "What is this guy doing talking about a moral premise at a film expo? I mean it's Sunday, but isn't morality for Sunday morning at a Church?" So, I changed the title to "Top 10 Secrets of Successful Screenplays." Of course, the content was identical, except I put ten magenta and yellow numbered buttons throughout the presentation. "There's more than 10, here." I blurted out.

The organizers were hoping for 500-600 to show up. Instead 1,500 crammed the aisles of the Rock Financial Showplace in Novi, just 3.6 miles from my driveway. It's closeness to my home was good, because time got away from me (we went to a late Mass), and I found myself rushing to the site and the "greenroom" trailer, flying a "Welcome Guest Speakers". When my handler (Steve) guided me through the hall for my 3:30 talk, I could hardly find a place to walk for all the people in line behind several of the breakout room doors. (!). They set me up with a room that had crammed into it about 120 chairs. Be the time I started all the chair were filled, and 1/2 way through the SRO crowd were turning people away.

Now, I don't think this SRO crows was "me" or my particular presentation (there were numerous presentations all at once)... although I took notice that no one was sleeping at least by falling out of their chair. I think the crowd was more evidence that the film industry in Michigan has the potential of popping out all over. There is a raw enthusiasm here for filmmaking.

The day of the expo I read a web news report of a man at a fair nearby, who was impersonating Robert DeNiro. Guess what, the man was no impersonator. About every other day that I'm out on the road I pass a movie trailer or make-up trailer.... with California plates. And when we decided to use the RED camera on Tiger's Hope (the latest technology that Hollywood has embraced) I was surprised to discover a supply of perhaps 12 in the city for rent. That's really significant. (But I think the cheapest rates are still in CA

There's a thirst for knowledge, and the Expo this past Sunday was one of those great events where for $20 attendees could gain a huge amount of knowledge in a very short period of time. The best students are enthusiastic and hungry students. And they were in large supply on Sunday.

At the end of my one-hour talk (the workshop is actually 16 hours, so these 1 hour gigs are a challenge, especially with the multiple movie clips I use to demonstrate the moral premise) I announced that the books were available on line at Amazon.com or MoralPremise.com, and that I had a box of books with me, but I wouldn't be able to sign them personally until after the next session in which I was scheduled to appear on a pitch panel. Well, before I could unplug my laptop, 18 books disappeared from the box and $20 bills were being stuffed into my hands or Steve's. After the second session on pitching, I had a line up of people to talk to, and a few more books to distribute, and when I left the building, the green room was being towed out of an empty parking lot.

The Dramatic Center

Recently I was asked by two editors to write a chapter for "their" book — a book written by others, but with the editor's names on the cover. I've never thought this was a very good idea. And sure enough, this was one time when the more I discussed the chapter with them (by email) the more I felt they were typical charlatans. What tipped the scale for me was when the chapter that I wrote for them for free, they refused to allow my book's website URL in my bio. Enough. A couple of the values I value are fairness and generosity. The editors and I had a conflict. The essence of all good stories. So I told them: "End of story. No, you can't use my essay."

So, here it is, I'm at least generous, but not a sucker.

----

The Dramatic Center - the Conflict of Values

The dramatic center of any story is the conflict between two opposing values. Discovering what those values are, which drive your protagonist and antagonist against each other, is critical to knowing what your story is about, and how it begins and ends.

When writers come to me for help because their story doesn’t resonate, often it’s because the conflict is not centered around a central opposing pair of values. Many writers will construct a story around a physical conflict, but fail to realize that for the story to organically connect with an audience the physical conflict must be rooted in opposing psychological mind-sets or moral values. Never forget that all physical or visible action begins with a psychological decision, and that decision is rooted in a value. Stated another way, no action can occur without first being motivated out of moral ideals.

Consider that 9-year old Toby wants a dog, but his mother has said, “No!” The explicit premise or physical storyline might be: “Toby tries to persuade his Mom to let him have a dog.” That’s what the movie is “about.” But what is it “really about?” What are the values that Toby and his Mom each hold that cause them to be in conflict? Is it that Toby loves dogs and his Mom hates them? Not likely. You have to go deeper and examine the human conflict in terms of universal values, or the things people hold true regardless of culture.

For example, Toby and his Mom may be in conflict over the difference between slothfulness and orderliness. Mom knows Toby pretty well and she doesn’t think her son will pick up the backyard after a dog’s droppings, and Mom, in the same backyard, is trying to hang clean laundry on the line to dry. Yikes! Or, perhaps the story is about keeping promises vs. breaking promises. Toby promises to take care of his messes, but Mom always ends up picking up after him.

The other dimension of such conflicts is that society, in general, will value one of these traits as morally good (cleanliness or keeping promises) and the other as morally bad (slothfulness or breaking promises). The values that allow society to make progress are called virtues, and those that degrade society are called vices. Thus, the story of Toby and his Mom is really a story of moral values, or to be precise it’s about a moral premise. While the physical or explicit premise is about taking care of the dog, the psychological or implicit premise is about taking responsibility. And it is those psychological values that drive the protagonist and antagonist to conflict and thus create drama.

Once you figure out what the essential conflict in values is, you’re story will write itself. Suddenly you will know what Toby’s character flaw is (he’s a pig pen and he loves it) and what Mom’s character virtue is (she keeps a clean house and she loves it). And now you can write out what is called the story’s moral premise around which every creative aspect of the story will flow. It could be something this simple as this: Slothfulness leads to Loss; but Orderliness leads to Gain. And the question for your plot is this: Does Toby’s values change or do Mom’s values change? And what are the physical consequences?

Understanding the heart of the moral conflict in your story, and how the consequences flow from the virtues and vices involved, will forever liberate you from writer’s block.

EXERCISE

Let’s look at one of those great stories you’ve started but could never finish. Take one out of that dull gray filing cabinet in the corner, and let's see if we can fix it.

Process the following steps iteratively. That is, repeat them until the answers to each step are in sync with the others, and when repeating the questions your answers do not change.

1. Revisit a story that you’ve given up on. Scan enough of it get it fresh in your mind.

2. Write down the protagonist’s physical goal. Make sure it’s something the audience can visibly see and root for, or against.

3. Write down the value that is driving the protagonist toward that goal. Note, if the protagonist is a “bad guy” the value is likely a vice.

4. What is the value opposite the value you wrote down in No. 3? Your answer to this question should be the motivating value of the antagonist. Is it? If not, fix it.

5. Write down the physical consequences that naturally (in reality) follow the practice of the values you identified in Questions 3 and 4. Is your story consistent to this “truth and consequence?” Or is the consequence contrary to the vice or virtue practiced?
Now, a word of caution on this point. Understand the difference between your voice as the screenwriter or filmmaker and the voice of the story. They are not necessarily the same, especially when it comes to ironic endings. CHINA TOWN is a good example. The story’s voice says that evil wins, but the filmmaker’s voice rejects the evil, and claims the movie a tragedy.

6. After thinking about the story you’ve dragged out of the dust pile, see if you can create a true moral premise statement for the story that you want to tell. It should be structured like this:

[a moral vice] naturally leads to a [detrimental consequence] but
[a moral virtue] naturally leads to a [beneficial consequence].

Formulating such a statement will tell you everything you need to know about your story and the motivation of all its characters.

8. Repeat these steps until they are in harmony. Now rewrite the screenplay. You’ll love it.

The Moral Premise in Burbank

This is silly, but I just got an email from professor and author Drew Yanno who partnered with me during a recent story consulting job with Will Smith. See this post.

Here's what Drew, who authored "THE 3RD ACT" wrote:

One of my former students who lives in Hollywood now sent me the attached picture that he took with his cell phone in the Barnes & Noble in Burbank.

He didn't know about the book shown two away from mine. I told him he better read it before he writes his next script! Hope all is well with you.

Drew

I told Drew that unfortunately neither his book nor mine were going to sell as many as the book between ours titled "Cool Million: How to Become a Million-Dollar Screenwriter" -- although I just noticed on Amazon that "Cool Million" is only selling for $1.86. (Says something.)

Kalamazoo Moral Premise Workshop

This spring I wanted to give another free full day seminar on The Moral Premise. Yet, various projects and consulting on other films has kept me too busy to even plan one. I'm sorry. But I've agreed to give the following, and hope to see you there.

Overview of The Moral Premise (90 minutes)
Kalamazoo Animation Festival International (KAFI)
Saturday, May 16, from 1:30 to 3:00 PM
Kalamazoo Valley Community College
Center for New Media Building.
The Festival Website

I will be around all day Friday and Saturday morning in the exhibit area at the Michael Wiese Books table providing free advice and signing books. Hope to see you there.

Morals vs. Ethics

My friend, Jim Lichtman (author of WHAT DO YOU STAND FOR and blogger at www.ethicsStupid.com) and I were discussing how the ins and outs of "moral vs. ethical" principles. Since he lectures and writes a lot on the topic of ethics, I asked him some questions and he provided me with the following answers. I'm posting them here with his permission. I'll not indent it, but here it is verbatim. The questions are mine. Emphasis is Jim's. My comments in [brackets].

=======

How would you explain the relationship between the terms "ethics" and "moral principle"?

Traditionally, there is little difference between “ethics” and “morality” or “moral principle” and “ethical principle.” Although both have a basis in “right” conduct, “‘morals,’ my teacher Michael Josephson points out, “tends to be associated with a narrower and more personal concept of values, especially concerning matters of religion, sex, drinking, gambling, etc.”

When we speak of “ethical values,” we refer to a set of universal values of “right” conduct irrespective of one’s religion or cultural background. Although there may be differences in “morals” I don’t believe I can find any culture or religion where someone does not wish to be treated with respect, honesty, compassion, etc.; which are all considered universal, ethical values.

Josephson says that “Moral duty refers to the obligation to act or refrain from acting according to moral principles. Moral duties establish the minimal standards of ethical conduct. Moral duties require us to do certain thing (be honest, fair, accountable) as well as to not do other things (harm others, treat them disrespectfully).”

Whereas, “Moral virtue goes beyond moral duty to a higher level of moral excellence (generosity, bravery). Moral virtues are aspirational rather than mandatory. We ought to be charitable, temperate, humble and compassionate,” Josephson says, “however, it is not unethical if we are not, so long as we do not violate the obligation not to harm others.”

There is a difference, as you suggest in your question, between values and principles. “Values” refers to the general belief about something. “Principles” are rules of conduct. i.e. Honesty is an ethical value. It becomes an ethical “principle” when we translate into something like: Tell the truth; Don’t lie, cheat, deceive another.

“Moral relativism” and “Moral absolutes.”

Don’t you remember that scene in The Incredibles where Mr. Incredible explains to Buddy Kant’s Categorical imperatives: the moral character of an action is determined by the principle upon which it is based, not the consequences it produces? [I didn't remember the scene, so Jim told me this was a joke. oh.]

Buddy argued that he could justify his actions based on his own “relative” set of moral values. Thus, whenever a projected consequence did not suit him, he would change his own rules. He wanted to fight crime with Mr. Incredible who turns around and says, “I work alone, kid!” So, Buddy becomes a “bad” guy, instead.

(I think this scene got cut from the final film.... too long on dialog.)

However, Kant contends that ethical obligations are “higher truths” or “moral absolutes” which must be obeyed regardless of the consequences. i.e. Always tell the truth! On that basis, if the Nazis come knocking on your door (assuming you’re not a Nazi) asking where Ann Frank is and you know, you have to tell them. Self-righteousness is a form of “moral absolutism.” [I grew up calling Jim's "moral absolutism" legalism. It easily could have turned me away from Christianity, but I saw the problem as man's selfishness, not God's grace to give us laws that were good for us. More at the bottom of this post.]

“Moral relativism” places all the cards on one side of the table, and allows whoever holds the cards, to change the rules to suit their own needs.

Both are extremes to be avoided.

According to the Josephson Institute’s Ethical Decision-Making Model:

• All decision must take into account and reflect a concern for the interests and well-being of all stakeholders.
• Core ethical values and principles always take precedence over non-ethical values.
• It is ethically proper to violate an ethical value only when it is clearly necessary to advance another true ethical value which, according to the decision-makers conscience, will produce the greatest balance of good in the long run (for the majority of stakeholders, NOT just your own interests). i.e. A friend can’t ask you to lie out of a duty to loyalty.

Now, I’m the one going on too long!

Hope this helps, Stan. Stay in touch.

---Jim

[The question of the Nazi looking for Anne Frank was interesting. I asked a Catholic theologian. He wrote back the following:

The first edition of the CCC, in no. 2483, would have allowed the deceiving of Nazi soldiers because it stated that "to lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has a right to know the truth." In this case, misleading the Nazis about hiding Jews in your house would not be lying because the Nazis do not have the right to a truth which will result in someone's murder. The second edition of the CCC (of 1997), however, revised no. 2483 by dropping the part about "who has a right to know the truth." With this revision, directly lying or deceiving the Nazis would be difficult to justify. Instead, it would be suggested to use evasive speech.

I noticed that 2483, and 2484 both end with the qualification "...to lead into error." It seems that lying to a Nazi looking for Jews to kill, thus preventin the killing, also prevents the Nazi from being led into error.

Purchase Pyramid

On the Amazon.com Moral Premise site one reviewer asked what the Purchase Pyramid story structure was. Here's my short explanation and a couple of graphics (copyrighted 2006 Stan Williams. If you copy these graphics, please give me credit and link to this post).


The "Inverse Purchase Pyramid" model of story telling is based on Allison Fisher's Purchase Funnel. It is upon this model that most romantic comedies are based. You can use this instead of the three Act model, but most effective screenplays overlay the pyramid model on top of the 3 Act model. Imagine an upside down pyramid with the widest part at the top. Divide the the pyramid into five sections with four horizontal lines. Label each area with the five stages that follow. The pyramid breaks the story into the following sequence segments: (1) AWARENESS during which the buyer needs definition of what's for sale; (2) FAMILIARITY during which the buyer needs additional information peaking interest; (3) CONSIDERATION during which the buyer narrows the alternatives for purchase; (4) TRIAL during which the buyer tries out the product; (5) PURCHASE during which the buyer commits. Now apply that to both the guy and the gal as they go through those stages of romance and you've got a winning structure. Here's an emotional roller coaster diagram of how the "5 Acts" might play out: