The Hero's Arc - SAVING PRIVATE RYAN

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998)

STEVEN SPIELBERG - Director
ROBERT RODAT - Writer
TOM HANKS - Captain Miller
TOM SIZEMORE - Sergeant Horvath
EDWARD BURNS - Pvt. Reiben
BARRY PEPPER - Pvt. Jackson
ADAM GOLDBERG - Pvt. Mellish
VIN DIESEL - Pvt. Caparzo
GIOVANNI RIBISI - T-4 Medic Wade
JEREMY DAVIES - Corporal Upham
MATT DAMON - Pvt. Ryan

Heroes have arcs. They change. But they don't change like protagonists.

In a brief post on Nov 5, 2016, with the assistance of Christopher Vogler, I explain the difference between a Hero and a Protagonist. I promised to write a bit more about that topic by examining SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (SPR) and Capt. James Miller's (TOM HANKS) arc. In SPR Miller is the hero not the protagonist.

To most viewers it will not appear that Capt. Miller changes. If we compare Miller to a common protagonist, I would agree that he does not change...much.

From the Hero and  Protagonist post here's the relevant comparison.

A. The protagonist will start off with an obvious weakness or vice that (in a redemptive story) for example, will arc toward the polar opposite strength or virtue.  

B. By comparison, a hero, at the story's beginning, will almost epitomize a strength or virtue, but have a subtle flaw, which, in the course of the story will arc in the same direction, not the polar opposite. That is, the hero will find a way to increase his strength and deepen his virtue. 

In both cases (the protagonist and the hero) the Moment of Grace (the story's mid-point scene) will clearly fulcrum around the hero's motivational challenge. We might normally ask (for SPR's story question): "Will Captain Miller successfully rescue Pvt. Ryan?" But the question at SPR's Moment of Grace is refined: "Will Captain Miller successfully rescue Pvt. Ryan for the right reason?"

Doing the right thing for the wrong reason, is sometimes the story question in tales about heroes. One of the best known stories that deals with this theme is T.S. Elliot's play, "Murder in the Cathedral" that portrays the assassination of Archbishop Thomas Becket in Canterbury Cathedral in 1170.  It's fairly clear form the beginning that Becket is going to be murdered. The question remains, however, if he will seek it for the glory of martyrdom (a sin), or allow himself to be killed for what is morally right.

Captain Miller, while not seeking martyrdom, believes from the beginning that the mission (to save Pvt. Ryan's life) is NOT worth the lives of the 8 men he takes with him. And yet, Miller is a good soldier, although he has already lost over 90 men under his command in the 3 days since they landed on Omaha, Beach.

We get an opportunity to understand Capt. Miller's attitude early in Act 2 (at 41 minutes). As the men are walking through the countryside, they gripe -- indirectly -- about the orders they've been given. They discuss the senseless purpose of their mission—"for the sake of a mother." Griping is what solider's do. But Miller is a Captain for a reason. He says, "Reiben, pay attention. This is the way to gripe! Continue, Jackson." At which Pvt. Jackson (BARRY PEPPER), the sniper in the group, gripes (about their mission) in a very high-minded, hopeful way.

JACKSON: What I mean, sir, if you put me and this rifle within one mile of Adolf Hitler with a clear line of sight, sir... Pack your bags, fellas. War's over.

Then we get to the heart of what Miller is thinking. Notice the subtext. The dialogue is not on the nose. It's good script writing, and for reasons like this example, Robert Rodat's screenplay was nominated for an an Oscar.

REIBEN: So, Captain, what about you?
You don't gripe at all? 

MILLER: I don't gripe to you, Reiben. I'm a captain. There's a chain of command. Gripes go up, not down. You gripe to me, I gripe to my superiors and so on. I don't gripe to you or in front of you.

REIBEN: I'm sorry, sir, but, uh...Let's say you weren't a captain. What would you say then?

MILLER: Well, in that case, I'd say this is an excellent mission, sir, with an extremely valuable objective, sir,
worthy of my best efforts, sir. Moreover...l feel heartfelt sorrow for the mother of Private James Ryan and will lay down my life and the lives of my men, especially you, Reiben, to ease her suffering.

A  moment after a few of the men sarcastically congratulate their Captain for his clever answer, there is a THUNDER CLAP, and a FLASH OF LIGHTING.  These are alerts to the audience to pay attention...for what Miller has just described sarcastically, will indeed be the case of his mindset at the end. It is a foreshadowing of Miller's arc.

Before we're half through, another of his men's lives is taken. And why he is killed is important, for it underscores the moral premise of the story. For not taking the mission seriously and disobeying orders,  Pvt. Caparzo (VIN DIESEL) opens himself to sniper fire. For a moment he ignores their mission and does something he deemed more noble — ironically trying to save the life of a village family's daughter. Caparzo believes saving this young girl's life is more important than saving Pvt. Ryan's life. And for that mistake Caparzo is picked off by a sniper and dies.

NOTE the experience here that Miller and his men learn from: Children of parents are important. The mother and father had asked for the soldiers to take their daughter to the better protected village up the road. This is exactly the same thing they've been asked to do by General Marshal, for Pvt. Ryan. They don't see this immediately, but it adds to the subtle evidence of the argument for the audience. If you're willing to die for a young girl, why not a brave soldier?

There are other moments about such relationships. One instance is Miller's discussion with Captain Hamill (TED DANSON) who also has a brother in the war and understands the importance of Miller's mission. Hamill tries to encourage Miller of the mission's importance. But Miller is silent, unconvinced.

At 1:05 into the  film we come to Captain Miller's MOMENT OF GRACE. You're going to see how he changes, not by changing his value system, but by reinforcing his willingness to follow orders. As a leader of men in a war, Miller has done a suburb job up to this point, but his mind is about to be changed...and he will become more deeply committed to saving Pvt. Ryan as will the rest of his men.

The Moment of Grace scene occurs moments after Miller talks with Hamill and Pvt. Caparzo is killed. The men are holed up for the night in an abandoned church. Some men sleep, Jackson copies a blood stained letter that Caparzo had written to his parents. (Note by this action how Jackson shows that he understands the important relationship between son and parents.)  Before he died, Caparzo asked Jackson to copy the letter on clean paper, because Caparzo's blood is on the original...which would be a great shock to Caparzo's mother.

In the Moment of Grace scene, the dialogue and visuals, although they seems to bounce off the walls, are really about ONE THING...the relationship of the men to their parents...and how much the parents care for their children, and how much the children (these men) care for their parents, and how Miller has to embrace that reality of Natural Law. ALSO NOTE: Don't miss the analogy of Capt. Miller as the "parent" for the men in his squad.

I've edited a transcription from "Springfield! Springfield! (movie script website) for this MOG scene. I will interrupt it from time-to-time with comments to point out how the events and dialogue in the scene change Miller's attitude about the mission.  I have also broken up scene into sub-scenes, which I will denote with hyphen separators. (I've left nothing out.)  Each section represents a propositional statement (or premise statement in the argument) that Capt. Miller needs to believe in his heart what he sarcastically intoned to his men minutes earlier in their discussion about griping.  Remember, he said:

MILLER: ...this is an excellent mission, sir, with an extremely valuable objective, sir, worthy of my best efforts, sir. Moreover...l feel heartfelt sorrow for the mother of Private James Ryan and will lay down my life and the lives of my men...

Of course, this is exactly what Miller comes to believe in this scene, which the DVD labels "CHOICES."

-------------------------------------
Scene Begins

Miller's hands shakes uncontrollably.

HORVATH: What's with your hand?

MILLER: l don't know. It started when they brought us down for embarkation. It comes and goes. 

Although Miller TELLS us that his hand was shaking at embarkation (and we do see a moment of it after he's landed on the beach), we SEE it in the close up of the shot that begins this scene. Spielberg and Rodat SHOW us that there is something inside Miller that is unsure of their mission. At no time does Miller say, "I'm nervous and unsure about the invasion but also Saving Pvt. Ryan."

HORVATH: You may have to get yourself a new job. This one doesn't seem to agree with you any more.

The "job" here refers both to Miller's occupation as a soldier, and their current mission. NOTE the subtext.

----------------------------------------

(Miller chuckles) 

HORVATH:What? (beat) What? 

MILLER: Nothing. What was the name of that kid at Anzio? He was always walking around on his hands, and singing that song about the man on the flying trapeze? 

HORVATH: Yeah, Vecchio. 

MILLER: He was a goofy kid. Remember he used to pee 'V' on everybody's jacket, for Vecchio.

HORVATH: For victory. 

MILLER: Vecchio. He was so short. Wasn't he a midget? How did he become a Ranger? 

HORVATH: Got shot in the foot once. 

MILLER: He could walk faster on his hands. He could run faster on his hands than... (trails off.) (Beat) Vecchio. (Beat) Caparzo.

Miller reflects.

We, with Miller, reflect too...about how similar Vecchio is to Caparzo. They are both Rangers. Miller as a "parent" is grieving the memory of both. Both got shot. Both find a place in Miller's heart...something he is not supposed to allow to happen. He is not suppose to "care" for his men, even someone as crazy as Vecchio. (Remember this: Miller does not respect Vecchio; he can't understand how Vecchio became a Ranger.) That Miller does care for his men....like a mom cares for her children causes a problem for him. How can he lead his children to their death if he cares for them? (As we'll see in a moment, these jocular comments about Vecchio are poignant. Don't cast them aside as filler. Nothing in a good movie is filler. )

We're beginning to see some conflict in Miller over this dilemma. So, what does Miller do? He rehearses what he's been taught by his superiors. He vocalizes the paradox that he is struggling with. He can't shake it off. 

-------------------------------------

MILLER (cont): You see, when...you end up killing one of your men, you tell yourself it happened so you could save the lives of two or three or 10 others. Maybe a hundred others. Do you know how many men l've lost under my command? 

HORVATH: How many? 

MILLER: 94. (beat) (quiet sarcasm) But that means I've saved the lives of 10 times that many, doesn't it? Maybe even 20, right? 20 times as many? And that's how simple it is. That's how you--rationalize making the choice between the mission and the men. 

HORVATH: Except this time, this mission is a man. 

Thus we see that Miller's mission conflict with everything he's been taught about leading men...don't care for them so much. Do not worry if they are killed. Carry on. BUT RYAN must not die. Miller's mission is to bring him back alive.

MILLER: This Ryan better be worth it. He'd better go home
and cure some disease or invent a longer-lasting light bulb or something. I wouldn't trade 10 Ryans for one Vecchio or one Caparzo.

NOTE: Do you see Miller's attitude, which is now expressed not just on the nose, but on Miller's sleeve?  Miller does not believe in this mission, and he's not willing to give his life for Ryan. Miller considers crazy Vecchio (a man who should not have been a Ranger) more important and Ryan.

HORVATH: Amen.

And his men clearly feel the same way.

-------------------------------------

(Miller's hand shakes.) 

MILLER: Look. There it goes again. 

HORVATH: Sir...are you all right? 

MILLER: Look, we're gonna move out in two hours. Why don't you get some sleep?

Interpretation: "Don't start caring for me, Horvath. It's against our constitution as soldiers."

CUT TO one of the men sleeping soundly.

PVT. REIBEN: I don't know how he does it. 

SOLIDER 1: What's that? 

PVT. REIBEN: Falls asleep like that. Look at him. He's lights-out the minute his head's down. 

SOLIDER 2: Clear conscience. 

The shot of the soldier sleeping is reminiscent of a child sleeping, safe in his bed at home. The men looking over him subliminally reminds us of parents...a mother...looking in on her child.

SOLIDER 3: What's that saying? 'If God's on our side, who's on theirs?' 

CORPORAL UPHAM: 'If God be for us, who could be against us?' 

SOLIDER 3: Yeah, what did I say?

MEDIC WADE (transcribing Caparzo's letter): Well, actually, the trick to falling asleep is trying to stay awake. 

ANOTHER: How is that, Wade? 

MEDIC WADE: My mother was an intern, she worked late nights, slept through the day, so the only time we got to talk was when she'd get home. So I used to lie in my bed and try to stay awake, but it never worked 'cause the harder I tried, the faster I'd fall asleep.

More mother-child remembrances...and Miller hears all this.

PVT. REIBEN: That wouldn't have mattered in my house. My ma would've shook me awake, chatted till dawn. That woman was never too tired to talk.

ANOTHER: Probably the only time she could get a word in.

PVT. REIBEN: Funny thing is, sometimes she'd come home early, and I'd pretend to be asleep. 

ANOTHER: Who? You...your mom? 

PVT. REIBEN: (ZOOM IN) Yeah. She'd stand in the doorway
looking at me. And I'd just keep my eyes shut. I knew she just wanted to find out about my day, that she came home early... just to talk to me. (tears) And I still wouldn't move. l'd still pretend to just be asleep. I don't know why I did that. 

This line by Reiben is significant to the director because we see a very slow zoom in on Reiben as he delivers it, tears come into his eyes, and the filmmakers milk the moment for every frame of emotion. It's the love of a son for a mother, and the love of the mother for a son. NOTE: Contrast this moment with the ridicule we heard earlier in the griping scene when the guys griped about getting Ryan back "for the sake of a mother." Their attitude now, in this moment of grace is pivoted 180 degrees.  Will Miller also shift? Will the hero change?

-------------------------------------

(silence - contemplation) 

MILLER: We only got a couple hours. Go to sleep.

This line is instructive for two reasons: (a) it reminds us that Miller is paying attention, and (b) he's uncomfortable with the topic and wants it to end.

But the filmmakers are not done. Miller is not yet convinced. So, we pile on more evidence for the argument that Miller needs to be willing to risk his life for Ryan, and truly believe the mission is important.

CORPORAL UPHAM: Captain? Sir? 

MILLER: Corporal?  How you doin' there? You all right?

CORPORAL UPHAM: Yeah, I think this is all good for me, sir. 

MILLER: Really? How is that? 

CORPORAL UPHAM: (quiet reflection): 'War educates the senses, calls into action the will, perfects the physical constitution, brings men into such swift and close collision in critical moments that man measures man.' 

MILLER: Yeah, well, I guess that's Emerson's way of finding the bright side. 

CORPORAL UPHAM: You know Emerson, sir? 

MILLER: I know some. 

CORPORAL UPHAM: So where are you from, Captain? What'd you do before the war? 

MILLER:  What's the pool up to? 

CORPORAL UPHAM: (taken back) You know, I think it's around 300, sir. 

MILLER: Well, when it gets up to 500, I'll give you the answers and we'll split the money. How about that? 

CORPORAL UPHAM: : Well, sir, I feel it's my duty under your command to suggest we wait until it gets to a thousand, sir.

MILLER: What if we don't live that long? 

CORPORAL UPHAM:  500? 

MILLER: 500 would be good, yeah. 

CORPORAL UPHAM: Yes, sir. 

MILLER: Yeah. Get some sleep, Corporal.

CORPORAL UPHAM: Yes, sir.

Those are the last spoken lines in the scene. But it continues for another 40 seconds as Miller walks off by himself and thinks, we suppose about Emerson's lines. Miller has to decide:

• If war will educate his sensitivities.
• If he can exercise his will, and not just those of his commanders.
• If he has the physical disposition to do what is right for the right reasons.
• If when critical decisions have to be made swiftly in close combat, he will measure up to his ideal of a man.

The camera zooms in and the swift light of explosions that bring sudden death illuminate his profile.

During the rest of the film, we see example of example of how Miller and his men come to see their mission with renewed dedication. There is no more griping, and many of them men give their lives willingly for the cause.

In the end, Miller willingly gives up his life to protect Ryan, acting out the sarcastic description early in Act 2.. As he lays dying on the bridge approach Miller tells Ryan: "Earn this! Earn this!" 

At the end of the movie,  an elderly Pvt. James Ryan comes to the graveyard at Omaha Beach to pay his respects to Captain Miller. He finds Miller's marker, and with tears in his eyes, the humble man, who probably didn't cure a disease or invent a longer lasting light bulb, delivers this soliloquy to Miller's grave:

OLDER RYAN: My family is with me today. They wanted to come with me. To be honest with you, I wasn't sure how I'd feel coming back here. Every day I think about what you said to me that day on the bridge. And I've tried to live my life the best I could. I hope that was enough. I hope that, at least in your eyes, I've earned what all of you have done for me.

Ryan's elderly wife, joined by their children, come up behind him, and tenderly grasps his shoulder. She sees he's been crying.

RYAN'S WIFE: James? 

OLDER RYAN: Tell me I've led a good life. 

RYAN'S WIFE: What? 

OLDER RYAN: Tell me I'm a good man. 

RYAN'S WIFE: You are.

NOTE: That although Pvt. Ryan (MATT DAMON) and his elder self Older James Ryan (HARRISON YOUNG) take up very little screen time, Ryan's life also has an arc...a hero's arc. At the bridge PVT. RYAN refuses to go with Miller and leave his platoon who guard the bridge. When the Germans show up and Miller is shot, Ryan experiences his Moment of Grace. Before he dies, Miller pleas with Ryan: Earn this. Earn this.

And evidently Ryan has earned it. Indeed it seems clear that Ryan has, everyday of his life, relived that Moment of Gerace on the bridge, and rededicated his life to strengthen the virtues for which Miller died. 

Therefore, the moral premise for SAVING PRIVATE RYAN seems to be:

Griping about one's mission in life, leads to questionable manhood and purpose; but

Devotion to one's mission in life, leads a man to a good and purposeful life.

Please know that your comments are welcome. 

You'll find a great deal of good instruction and come closer to mastering your storytelling skills by making use of my on-line Storycraft Training. Housed at Vimeo's VOD site, it can be accessed from http://storycrafttraining.blogspot.com/  Your rental or purchase of the training helps to fund my continued research and writing of essays like this. 

May your writing continue to Vanquish Fear, and Bestow Hope.

Stan Williams

This picture has nothing to do with this post, but I have admired this man all my adult life. It was fabulous to meet him and help introduce him at a film conference in Los Angeles a few years back. 

Moral Premise Story Memes

Beats - Turning Points - Sequences - Pinch Points

One of my on-going challenges as a story consultant has been to clarify terminology and minimize the equivocation in terms. (Thus the recent post Protagonist vs. Hero with assistance from Chris Volger). Clarifying terms was a motivation behind writing the The Moral Premise regarding what others were calling various things like "the Controlling Idea," "Theme," "Premise," and so on.

The Story Diamond (link to PDF of Diamond) was not original with me, but I saw the opportunity of layering other story  concepts onto it and thus demonstrating how the wide variety of terms used in our niche industry, are really all about the same thing.

So, this post is another attempt at that...with hopefully some nomenclature consistency. It was prompted by the last several posts by Michael Hauge over at StoryMastery.com. Michael has made the turn from calling every sequence and turning point a "beat" to differentiating between the different kind of beats as "turning points" and story "stages".  This solves an on going problem. I would tell my clients that some beats are "moments" (a single scene) and others are "sequences" (numerous scenes.) Yet the connotation of "beats" still sounds  instantaneous...which is confusing since half of the beats are not moments at all.

So, taking this hint from Michael, I offer up the following and the Story Diamond has been updated to reflect this subtle shift in labeling conventions.

As a further update, the 8 stages can also be called Mini-Movies, which reflects the ideas of Paul Gulino (Screenwriting: The Sequence Approach), and Chris Soth of ScreenwritingU.

Recall that our goal is to create an emotional roller coaster effect for our reader/audience. That end goal demands a regular (up and down) progress of scene sequences and turning points (or beats) or pattern over which we can apply our story elements and plot.

The latest PDF of the Story Diamond is HERE.

The latest PDF Annotated NOTES document for The Story Diamond is HERE.

Symmetry

If we refer to the Climax of Act 3 as a turning point (which is clearly is in redemptive stories where the protagonist makes his/her biggest change) we then have a wonderfully symmetrical story system.  There are 4 Turning Points, and 4 Pinch Points, and they alternate, helping to create the roller coaster effect we're after. MORE ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLLER COASTER AND STRUCTURE AT THESE  POSTS.

Plus, the Sequences alternate with the Points, for a deeper symmetry and a satisfying roller coaster ride.

1. (Prologue)
2. Sequence 1
3. Pinch Point A (Inciting Incident)
4. Sequence 2
5. Turning Point 1 (Act 1 Climax)
6. Sequence 3A
7. Pinch Pint B
8. Sequence 3B
9. Turning Point 2 (MOG)
10. Sequence 4A
11. Pinch Point C
12. Sequence 4B
13. Turning Point 3 (Act 2 Climax)
14. Sequence 5
15. Pinch Point D (Final Incident)
16. Sequence 6
17. Turning Point 4 (Act 2 Climax)
18. Denouement

A full explanation of the Story Diamond is presented in my On-Line Storycraft Training series.

The Storyteller's Task

Hero vs. Protagonist

Thanks to Christopher Vogler for his contributions to this post.

What's the difference between a hero and protagonist; or for that matter the anti-hero, villain, antagonist, main character or POV character?  Like many concepts it's easy to lapse into equivocation because of the varied way these terms are used.

While I have no serious issue with using "hero" and "protagonist" interchangeably, it can make sense to use them differently. Below are a few suggestions for all these terms.

An underlying assumption (and a big one) is that the audience has a working moral compass and knows what behaviors are to be rooted for or deplored. This may not work in a morally ambiguous universe, but for general audiences that comprise a cross section of society, a movie's popularity will correlate to natural law, which is a fair basis for moral certainty.

MAIN (POV) CHARACTER...

...is the character with the most screen time. This may or may not be the hero, anti-hero, one of two kinds of protagonists, anti-hero, antagonist, or villain. It is almost always the Point of View (POV) character, or the perspective of the storyteller.

HERO... is the character that

• nearly epitomizes the virtues or strengths of the moral premise, but still 
• is subtly flawed. 
• will change (arc), but subtly and always in the same direction. The hero's values will not change direction or polarity, but at the Moment of Grace will get stronger and deeper. 
• actively pursues a physical and visible goal that audience can root for.
• will be a good guy with desirable traits.
• may often give up his life to achieve the goal.

Example: Captain Miller in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. See detailed post at link.

ANTI-HERO... is that character that:

• epitomizes the vices or weaknesses of the moral premise, and thus 
• is significantly flawed.
• will change (arc), but subtly and always in the same direction. That is, the anti-hero's values will not change direction or polarity, but at the Moment of Grace will get stronger and deeper. This is the same as the HERO.
• actively pursues a physical and visible goal that audience can root for, just like the HERO.
• will be a good guy with undesirable traits

Example: Travis Bickle in TAXI DRIVER

VILLAIN... is that character that:

• epitomizes the vices or weaknesses of the moral premise, and thus
• is significantly flawed
• will change (arc), but subtly and always more dark. 
• actively attempts to prevent the hero or protagonist from reaching the goal.
• will always be the bad guy.

Example: Hans Gruber in DIE HARD

PROTAGONIST (Redemptive)... is that character that:

• at first, embraces vices or weaknesses of the moral premise, and is therefore,
• clearly flawed, but
• will change (arc) clearly toward the virtue or strengths of the moral premise.
• actively pursues a physical and visible goal that audience roots for.
• is usually a good guy in the end.
• and lives to see another day, even better.

Example: Bob Parr in THE INCREDIBLES

PROTAGONIST (Tragic)... is that character that:

• at first, embraces vices or weaknesses of the moral premise, and is therefore 
• clearly flawed, but
• will change (arc) clearly toward darker vices or greater weaknesses of the moral premise.
• actively pursues a physical and visible goal that audience roots against
• is usually a bad guy in the end. 

Examples: Charles Foster Kane in CITIZEN KANE, and
Tony Soprano in THE SOPRANOS

Test Question: Do tragic protagonists always sit at table with a wine glass half-full, chin down, eyes up, and glare off screen camera right...."as if the answer to their dilemma were over there" (CV).

ANTAGONIST... is that character that:

• embraces either vices/weaknesses or (not both) virtues/strengths of the moral premise, and is therefore 
• clearly flawed, or clearly virtuous,
• may or may not (arc) clearly toward the opposing value, but if arc occurs will be cogent with the moral premise
• actively opposes the physical and visible goal of the hero, anti-hero, or protagonist becoming the catalyst for change (arc) in the hero, anti-hero or protagonist.   
• may be the good guy or the bad guy

Example: The Angels in "Touched By An Angel"

Stories as Simulations

Things to Remember about Story Structure

A collection of Moral Premise Instagrams.

TABLES from The Moral Premise for Kindle Readers

Reader Christopher Pratt made this valuable suggestion for Kindle (and perhaps other tablet readers) who can't make out the sense of the large tables from The Moral Premise. I had nothing to do with the book's conversion to Kindle et al...nonetheless I'm sorry for the problem. So, here's a solution to those that can find this blog post. If you click on any of the images below you'll get an even larger image very readable on your screen. These images are from my original manuscript to the publisher and not the final format manuscript. So, they should be easier (even more so) to read. Let me know. Thanks for reading. I hope your writing is getting better.

Orphan, Wanderer, Warrior, Martyr

Jason Holborn is a fan of The Moral Premise and independent filmmaker residing in Toronto, Canada. A while back he came across The Story Diamond on my writing aids page and how it demonstrates the coincidence of various story structures.

[A full explanation of the Story Diamond is presented in my On-Line Storycraft Training series.]

The latest PDF of the Story Diamond is HERE.

The latest PDF Annotated NOTES document for The Story Diamond is HERE.

The structure that caught his fancy was Jeffrey Schechter's interpretation of Carol S. Pearson's archetypes explained in her earlier book THE HERO WITHIN. (Jeffrey's book is MY STORY CAN BEAT UP YOUR STORY! and I discuss Carol's latest effort in a recent blog on AWAKENING THE HEROES WITHIN.)

The structure that Jason vamped on in a blog back in 2013, but which I just came across, is Orphan, Wandered, Warrior, Martyr.

Jeffrey's take, which I have used in The Story Diamond is very simple and yet profound. The four archetypes identify the protagonist's primary mode of operation in each of the four equal acts of the movie.

1. In Act 1: ORPHAN...lost...needing a quest.
2. In Act 2A: WANDERER...chose the quest...but unsure how to achieve it.
3. (stick in here a MOMENT OF GRACE (MOG) where S/He discovers what the story is really about)
4. In Act 2B: WARRIOR...having discovered through the moral premise how to actually get what he needs.
5. In Act 3: MARTYR for what he and his village back home needs.

Jason has contributed something very valuable, here. He's analyzed a number of films and described for us the above structure in them. Thank you, Jason, for permission to reprint this.

Immediately in the next paragraph, is Jason's post...

Carol Pearson's 12 Archetypes and their Moral Premise Statements

 Carol S Pearson, Ph.D. continues her contribution to human psychology and story telling structure in her 2015 book "Awakening the Heroes Within: 12 Archetypes to Help Us Find Ourselves and Transform Our World."  Somewhere in my library I have her earlier work, "TheHero Within: Six Archetypes We Live By."  The 12 Archetypes project... is a further development of the 6 Archetypes effort. Both valuable...for storytellers.

While she gives credit to the seminal work of Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung for her understanding of the human condition, it's interesting that her suggested 7 uses for her 12 Archetypes book includes clinical psychological diagnostic interventions (et al) but does not include those of us in the story telling industry. But then, as we writers know, we are very much a part of the psychological diagnostic intervention business...not just for our characters, but for the audiences that identify with our characters.

Light and Shadows
Pearson does a great job of articulating each of the 12 Archetypes as both positive and negative forces in a character's life. Here's a quick summary. You will see the clear connection to the moral premise statement's virtue and vice (strength/weakness) dipoles that control motivations and drive action.

Archetype Strength [Archetype Shadow]

1. INNOCENT [Denial of reality]
2. ORPHAN [Irresponsibility]
3. WARRIOR [Compromised Principles]
4. CAREGIVER [Guilt Manipulation]
5. SEEKER [Commitment Avoidance]
6. DESTROYER [Addictive compulsions]
7. LOVER [Seductive sirens]
8. CREATOR [Obsessive distraction]
9. RULER [Tyrant]
10. MAGICIAN [Evil Sorcerer]
11. SAGE [Heartless judge]
12. FOOL [Without dignity or self-control]

[Update 9/2/16] The above list is a bit "innocent" and does not clarify the Archetype Strength. The confusion lies in the common understandings of some of the terms. For instance, "Destroyer" and "Creator" are commonly thought of as opposites. But here they are on the same team. So let's try this:

Archetype	Fear	Strength	Weakness/Shadow
Innocent	Abandonment	Fidelity/Trust/Optimism	Denial Reality/Seek Rescue
Orphan	Exploitation	Process pain/Interdependence	Irresponsibility
Warrior	Weakness	Fight what matters/Courage/Discipline	Compromised Principles
Caregiver	Selfishness	Give to others/Compassion/Generosity	Guilt Manipulation
Seeker	Conformity	Be true to self/Autonomy/Ambition	Commitment Avoidance
Lover	Loss of Love	Follow your bliss/Passion/Commitment	Seductive Sirens
Destroyer	Annihilation	Ability to let go/Humility	Addictive Compulsions
Creator	Inauthenticity	Self-acceptance/Individuality/Calling	Obsessive Distractions
Ruler	Chaos	Take responsibility/Control/Order	Tyrant
Magician	Evil Sorcery	Align with Cosmos/Personal Power	Evil Sorcerer
Sage	Deception	Enlightenment/Wisdom/Nonattachment	Heartless Judge
Fool	Nonaliveness	Trust process/Joy/Freedom	Without dignity/No Self Control

Heroic Myth Index
The depth of her research into her understanding of the personal human journeys is an extrapolation of Campbell and Jung, of course, but also of the Myers-Briggs Type theory...from which she's developed her Heroic Myth Index (HMI)...which is included in the Appendix of the 12 Archetypes.
While Pearson intends the HMI as an exercise to helping the reader in self-evaluation, we fiction writers and story creators will also see its immediate value in fiction character development.

Orphan, Wanderer, Warrior, Martyr
As in her earlier work (The Hero Within), much of her system is directly applicable to story creation such as how four of her archetypes (Orphan, Wanderer, Warrior, Martyr) directly correspond to the four equal divisions of a traditional screenplay: Act 1, Act 2A, Act 2B, and Act 3.   Jeffrey Alan Schechter brought this to my attention in MY STORY CAN BEAT UP YOUR STORY and I incorporated it into the Story Diamond...which is discussed in my Storycraft Training Series and accessible on The Moral Premise's main Writing Aids page. 

Moral Premise Statements
But what I want to focus on in this blog post is the reworking of a table that appears early in her 12 Archetypes and give the table a moral premise practicality. This can be done easily with the above  table of Archetypes and their Shadows. But Pearson goes further, although it's a bit uneven, which forces me to attempt a leveling. (I'll not reference her book, forcing you to buy it. It's well worth the read.)

DISCLAIMER:

In constructing the following moral premise statements 

I have NOT carefully considered their universal truth. 

A proper and effective moral premise statement must be universally true. 

Imagine each of these archetypes as a best descriptor for your protagonist. As Pearson explains,     each archetype is tempted by virtues and vices (i.e. strengths and weaknesses) to motivate their actions. Her book, of course, goes into more detail.

INNOCENT

Denying danger leads to abandonment, but
Discerning danger leads to safety.

or

False Optimism (misplaced trust) leads to abandonment, but
Fidelity to reality leads to safety

ORPHAN

Ignoring reality and embracing victimization and pain leads to exploitation; but
Facing reality and taking responsibility for pain leads to safety.

WARRIOR

Battling everything in our path leads to loss and weakness; but
Having discipline to battle what matters leads to winning and strength.

CAREGIVER

Coarse selfishness leads to puts one's self in harms way, but
Generous compassion leads to care for others in harms way. 

SEEKER

Reckless conformity to the status quo leads to a false self-respect and unhappiness, but
Autonomous initiative leads to a deeper self actualization and a better life. 

LOVER

Fear of commitment leads to loss of love, but
Pursuit of your passion leads to bliss. 

DESTROYER

Draconian arrogance leads to annihilation; but
Humility leads to metamorphosis.

CREATOR

Stifling our natural creativity leads to inauthenticity, but
Cultivating our natural creativity leads to vocation.

RULER

Autocratic recklessness leads to chaos and disorder, but
Autocratic consideration leads to order and structure.

MAGICIAN

Ignoring the cosmos* leads to evil sorcery, but
Alignment with the cosmos* leads to righteous transformation.
(* natural law)

SAGE

Material attachment leads to dark deception, but
Transcendence leads to enlightened truth.

FOOL

Playing tricks on reality leads to walking deadness (non-aliveness), but
Letting reality playing tricks on us leads enjoyment, joy and freedom. 

Story Break by FaceTime

Nothing new here, just a fun time breaking a story with Brian Shield's LUMEN ENTERTAINMENT FILM CAMP via FaceTime. I'm in Novi, MI, they're in Jacksonville, FL. It felt they were right across the table from me and the story cards spread between us. I used Post-It stickies on my 26" Mac display screen to write their names. Now that they have a good story, let's see if the can execute it. I guess my image was displayed on a iPad hung above the table with with a C-stand. Waiting on a picture of that.

Man, Nature & God

Humanity lives on

Stories

   backstories 

       plots 

          subplots

Imperfectly human

Striving for 

    perfection

        happiness

            peace

Our condition confounds

Tragedies and horrors lay waste

    Terrorist acts

        all intended, all unjust

   War acts

         some intended, some not

         some just, some not

   Accident acts

       all unintended, all just

Afterwards only

    Forgiveness

        from God—always

        from Man—sometimes

        from Nature—never.

Characterization and The Moral Premise

As with everything in a story or script, the arc described in the moral premise needs to be present especially in each character's characterization. Not every element of characterization needs to arc, but arc'ing a few would strengthen the story. My online Storycraft Training Series (click on the link to access the training) teaches you how to do this in many ways. As an extension to that valuable training, here is a description of characterization and how it adds to the elegancy of the moral premise method of storytelling.

You can categorize characterization in the following ways:

Appearance. This refers to wardrobe, mannerisms, and hygiene. Do your characters look like, act, and dress like who they really are? Is this correlation obvious, obscured, and ironic? Do they dress down because of their humility or are they hiding something? Do they dress up out of arrogance or to compensate for a sense of inferiority? Do they refuse to care for their health because they hate who they are? How does their appearance change or not during the course of the story? A good writer will plan this arc, and it's clarity (or it's obscurity), to subliminally reinforce the moral premise of the story.

Action: This refers to their decisions to choose one course of action vs. another normally associated with the turning points of a plot (or subplot). What does the character do? What don't they do? What do they consider doing...or not doing? Is there an indication that they would like to do something but they turn from it, or that they don't want to do something but they do it anyway? While this is easy to describe in a novel with internal monologue, it's a bit more of an art in a screenplay where you only have physical actions to describe in the action paragraph or in the nonverbal of dialogue.  (Yes, you can explain it in dialogue, but don't.) A good writer will plan this arc (as they plot the action), to explicitly reinforce the moral premise of the story.

Appearances in a movie are an important
part of characterization. Above, Chris Hemsworth
prepares for his role in HEART OF THE SEA.

Dialogue: How does the character speak in use of grammar, confidence, dialect? How do these elements contrast and compare to other characters? Can we distinguish who is talking if there are no character tags above each dialogue line? While you may think these characteristics may stay constant throughout a story, the best stories find a way to arc this element. In real life, once, during a flight from Michigan to California, I sat next to man who felt obliged to communicate a particular persona to me through a distinct pattern of speech. As we talked during the four hour trip his speech slowly changed to that of normal midwesterner. As we said our goodbyes in the LAX terminal, he had morphed into an entirely different character than the one I sat next to leaving DTW. I thought, if this can happen that quickly in real life, then such a change in a 120 minute motion picture is not unrealistic. And, if those speech patterns are logically connected to the moral premise' weakness and strength, you have a reinforced arc that will connect emotionally with audiences. A good writer will imbue this into their characterizations. 

Arc: This refers primarily to the main turning points of the main plot and multiple subplots. How does the character moral decision making change throughout the story and how does that change relate to whether they are a good guy or a bad guy? The assumption is that a good guy will always get better and a bad guy will get his comeuppance. This reflects audience expectations of characterization in a broad overall sense. But irony plays an important role in keeping an audience's attention. Can you make a character more interesting my plotting their action in a way that "stings" the audience? Does your protagonist fake her own death, but not let the audience in on the trick? Do they appear to tell the truth, but are in fact lying? Do they take actions that seem malevolent, but turn out to be merciful? Keep your audience guessing by thus enriching your character's characterization. But never, EVER, be irrational about the character's arc. Natural Law is your friend, because the turning points of a story, while perhaps manipulated by the character's values, will always arc back to nature in the end. To do otherwise will cheat and irritate your audience. 

Internal motivation/values: This refers to what drives all the action of every story. It's what the character's believe above all else will bring them happiness. While this element is mostly hidden in a screenplay, it's important that the writer have this firmly in their mind so the subtleties of writing and the choice of words and the length of sentences and dialogue and everything else subtly reflect who the character is and what he/she hope to be. Characterization originates from the character's most intimately held values....those articulated in the moral premise statement. Those values control everything they are, think and do. For characterization to ring true to your audience/reader, you must never violate the natural law connection between a value, and when acted upon the physical consequence. The consequence may be delayed, thus encouraging a vice/weakness the character has, but ultimately their internal motivation will reward them—good or bad. It is in this manner that the physical consequences (what we "see" in the story) become metaphors for the character's true self. Characterization is how we see that trueness, oftentimes before the consequence hits. A good writer will have this figured out ahead of time, or (if you're a pantser) do it by instinct. 

Introduction: In a screenplay, the introduction of a significant character is that one sentence allowed the screenwriter to tell us who the character really is...or at least at that moment who the screenwriter wants the reader to think the character is. The introduction is explicit, omniscient characterization. The writer is allowed to describe the internal motivations and values of the character hopefully by connecting it to some physical and visible element. Example: "A debonair young man whose mind was always in the gutter."  "A mindless beauty who was totally innocent of her affect on the opposite sex." "A woman whose intentions were always good but who's affect was always unwelcome." "Jacob was the syndicate boss who ordered the death of hundreds but secretly he wanted to be a weekend preacher and save souls  especially his own." Novelists have much more leeway to use a whole scene, of every chapter, to flesh out such characterization. The good writer will carefully manipulate this description to set up the character's values, arc, and appearance to entrap the reader's emotions as the story unfolds. 

Hopefully evident in those last examples (and should be evident in all the other characterization elements) is the concept of irony. "It was the best of days it was the worst of days, they were the best of people but they were entirely flawed." I think more than anything else the natural, organic incorporation of such irony in characterization is what makes people and characters interesting to an audience.