Thursday, September 4, 2008

Moral Premise Makes It To The Sony Lot

I've been sworn to secrecy, but I can tell you this. Last week I was flown to Los Angeles to screen a major movie in its editing stage (SEVEN POUNDS), have a couple of meetings, and write an analysis of the moral premise. Along with consultants and screenwriters Jim Mercurio (left) and Michael Hauge (right), we watched the film twice over two days on the Sony Pictures Studios lot in Culver City, CA -- once in the editing dens and then in the leather seated Thalberg screening rooms. (That was cool!) And that's all I can say. It was fun, and great to talk to Michael Hauge, whose book I quote several times in my own, after attending one of his screenplay seminars here in Detroit 15 years ago. It is satisfying to know that the audience I targeted The Moral Premise at, is finally discovering it.

I was sure to wear my MICHIGAN cap on the lot... advertising our state, now with its attractive incentive program, can't hurt. This picture was taken late in the day, but when we arrived early afternoon, the "streets" (at the North end of the Sony lot -- the old MGM studios) were busy with all sorts of folks, including small crews here and there shooting inserts for various projects.

Friday, August 22, 2008

He LIked the Book --- I Guess

HE LIKED THE BOOK... I GUESS

Hancock PosterLast month I wrote how months earlier I received a call from an assistant at Overbrook Entertainment, Will Smith's production company. Evidently, Mr. Smith had gotten a hold of my book "The Moral Premise" and wanted to talk to me. At the time I didn't know if he liked it or not. I promised to tell you if he did ... or not ... provided I found out.

Well, I still haven't talked to him... but my guess is he liked it. A couple of weeks ago Fed Ex showed up at my door here in Michigan with a couple of scripts and a non-disclosure agreement. My wife persuaded me to sign the thing and get to work. Then, after I handed in my analysis, I was invited to make a couple of trips. I guess someone at Overbrook likes the book.

So, I'll be in L.A. next week on moral premise business, and hope to have some time between screenings or afterward to visit with those of you I haven't seen in a couple of years. If you've got some time, drop me an email.

And, no, I haven't written up HANCOCK on this moral premise blog, but I loved the movie. The Moral Premise? Something like Super Indulgence produces a Super Binge, but Super Sacrifice produces a Super Hero...whether fighting crime or raising a family. Moms are super, aren't they?

Monday, July 14, 2008

Hollywood Calls... sort of

Will Smith in I AM LEGEND
A few months ago I received a call from a lady who said her boss who owned a production company in Los Angeles had read The Moral Premise and wanted her to track me down so he could talk with me. She said she had a hard time finding me because there was another Stanley Williams that kept showing up in her Internet searches. But she figured that the Stanley Williams she was looking for was not on death row in a California prison. It turns out that Stanley TOOKIE Williams III, the gangster, was executed in California a few years back, but Google gives him a lot of "hits."

When she felt it was safe (that I was not in prison) I asked her the name of her boss' company. She said, "Overbrook Entertainment". Now, that sounded familiar, but I don't know my production companies that well, and I felt kind-of dumb, but I had to ask: "So, who's your boss? She said, "Will Smith."

Well, I knew who Will Smith was, but I didn't believe it was the same Will Smith this lady was working for... until I scrambled my webrowser and looked up Overbrook. Oh yeah!

When I regained my cool I told her I'd be glad to get a call from Mr. Smith anytime, and to please tell him that I was a fan of his movies.

That night Pam and I rushed out to see I AM LEGEND, just in case he called the next day. That was months ago. No call. LOL! But it was still cool getting Tracy's call and seeing her name in the credits as Mr. Smith's Executive Assistant at the end of I AM LEGEND.

Tracey told me Smith reads "everything he can get his hands on about the business." That probably explains why he keeps making such good decisions. I've been anxious to see HANCOCK for months. If for no other reason, it looks like the first superhero movie that actually respects the laws of Physics.

I'll let you know if Mr. Smith calls. Hope he liked the book.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Oregon Bloggers Discover Moral Premise

Today (9/4/08, actually) I received this nice email:
Dr. Williams,

I recently read your book, The Moral Premise, and enjoyed it greatly! Last year I co-taught a Faith and Film class at Mosaic Church in Portland, Oregon (www.mosaicportland.org) and I taught on the narrative structure of movies and determining the message of movies. Your book was the best resource I consulted. I used the moral premise as a way to help people determine the message, or controlling idea, that the movie intended to convey.

My co-teacher, Martin Baggs, and I led a monthly Faith and Film group for Mosaic Church. For each movie we viewed and discussed, I led the group in looking at the structure and message and framed the message in the terms outlined in your book. People really responded well to articulating the message of the movie in this way.

Martin, my co-teacher, began a blog of movie reviews and referenced your materials.

http://mosaicmovieconnectgroup.blogspot.com

I also started a blog recently focused on the structure and message of stories and referenced your work also.

http://lifeofmystory.blogspot.com/

I posted a blog entry today referencing your book and explaining the moral premise. In my list of recommendations, I included your book, website and blog. I do hope that my referencing your materials encourages people to view the blog and website and hopefully by your book!

Ryan Blue
Gresham, OR
Thanks, Ryan. Your two blogs look very interesting. I'm sure to read more.

Stan

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Helen's Lost Arc in THE INCREDIBLES


My Moral Premise pen pal from Greece, Geroge C. wrote me with this very good analysis of Helen's arc in THE INCREDIBLES, thus pointing out a weakness in my book.

George, this is great work. I'm glad you understand the power of the moral premise so well.

Here's Geroge's email, verbatim:

====

Stan, You mention somewhere in your book that in ancient Athens they didn't allow works of art that were damaging to the citizens' moral values. Well, actually that is only a proposal Plato makes in his work regarding how an ideal city should be like, but there wasn't such a law in Athens. And thank goodness, cause, who gets to decide which works of art are good and which ones are bad?! In ancient Greece, the thing which I believe is the most indicative of the close bond between stories and moral premise, is that the origins of theater and the presentation of plays can be found inside religious events. It was within such events that theater and drama was first born. I think that tracing the roots of drama gives us a whole new perspective that doesn't allow us to accept the notion that movies should be simply brain candy.

Thanks for the correction, George. That's important information. (SW)

Stan, I watched the Incredibles and I discovered there's a beautiful character arc (Helen Parr's) that has escaped you! :-) And it's an arc that brings a whole new dimension to the story. You propably don't recall much from the movie right now, but if you ever happen to watch it again, I think you'll agree with me!
Actually, I've lectured on THE INCREDIBLES several times since the book came out, and enjoy showing the clips to groups. As a result, I've seen more clearly Helen's arc, which, as you point out, I did not fully understand when I wrote the book. (SW)
In the arc tables of 'The Incredibles', pg 130-133, you say: "The moral premise is that battling adversity alone leads to weakness and defeat, while battling adversity as a family leads to strength and victory." You also cite how Buddy Pine/Syndrome (the baddie) practices a distorted version of the moral premise: He and his partner, Mirage, appear to be working as a family, but in truth Syndrome just uses her and doesn't really appreciate her. When he's given the opportunity to aknowledge the importance of relying on his family, he rejects the idea and shows he's willing to sacrifice Mirage...

Regarding Helen Parr's arc plot (Mr Incredible's wife) you say that "she practices the good side of the moral premise most of the way..." And that's where I have a very different opinion: I think that Helen Parr, just like the villain, starts out by practicing a distorted version of the moral premise's virtue! Helen Parr appears to be the family's bedrock, but what she really does is suppressing the other family members. She doesn't let them be themselves! She strives for a united family, but on her own egoistic terms. And this results in misery and a dysfunctional family. Later, confronted by a moment of grace, she abandons that attitude, embraces the true virtue of the moral premise, and becomes the heart and soul of the family. I've included some story beats which I think prove my point:

We see Helen being called to the principal's office due to her son's problematic behavior at school. When she talks with her son, we find out that Dash's frustrated because she won't let him go out for sports. Dash is naturally competitive and loves sports, but Helen just won't allow it. Dash tells his mom: "You always say, 'Do your best'. But you don't really mean it. Why can't I do the best that I can do?"

Later, at the dinner table, Helen scolds Bob (her husband) for being impressed with their son's superspeed. She says "We're not encouraging this!" Bob himself is very unhappy cause he cannot be Mr Incredible, and it's because of that reason that he has trouble connecting with his family. Even Violet (their daughter) is unhappy; she has an outburst, saying that she's forced to be 'normal' although she isn't. In other words, she's forced to fit a stereotype, and she's not allowed to be real.

Later, when Bob comes home late, he and Helen have a fight. In that scene it's clear that Bob and the kids suffer because they aren't allowed to use their powers. Bob says to Helen, "You want to do something for Dash? Then let him go out for sports." And Helen rants defensively:"I will not be made the enemy here!" She's the one who tries to hold the family together and meet their needs, but she doesn't realize that by trying to make them 'fit in' and by not allowing them to be who they truly are, she sabotages her own goal. In a way, she is the enemy!

Later Helen finds out Bob's been lying to her and that he does superhero work behind her back. She starts crying when she realizes it. She goes to find him and the kids sneak in with her in the jet. There's a big moment of grace here as danger appears, and from that point her attitude becomes very different. She puts on her costume and when things get dangerous she tells her daughter to put a force field around the plane. Violet responds,"You said not to use our powers." Helen says," I know what I said. Listen to what I'm saying now!"

Helen abandons the distorted version of the moral premise's virtue from now on. There are sequences where Helen works with the family and coordinates them so that everyone's power works harmoniously in conjuction with the others. It's fascinating how Helen's character changes; she becomes a true field leader!

Later at the cave, Helen once more encourages the kids to use their powers. She says to her son, "Dash, if anything goes wrong I want you to run as fast as you can." Dash cannot believe his ears. He responds, overjoyed:"As fast as I can?!"

In the movie's final scene when a new supervillain appears, Helen doesn't prevent anyone from using their powers. In fact, she even puts on her mask before Bob does, and gives him an approving look.

Let me know what you think, Stan. Thanks again!

George

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Why Are Stories Necessary? Part 2

What follows is George Chatzigeorgiou's response (who writes from Greece) to my June 10, 2008 post, which was my (long) answer to his question "Why Are Stories Necessary?"

George's insight into the cultural importance of stories and narrative is inspiring. Yes, he's a kindred soul. But he goes beyond where I've been, and sees things I don't, and that's exciting. His writings, which I'm happy to post below, are like good myths which are retold by following generations, taking the old story and adapting it to the current times and making it again meaningful and infused with truth for the reader. Being from Greece, George speaks, reads, and writes Greek and I suspect he has a classical education -- all of which adds to the discussion.

If you want to read this thread in order, read the Feb. 10 post first, wherein he poses the question and I answer. That link is HERE (Why Are Stories Necessary?) and at the bottom of that post, there's a like to this post so you can read in order.

Herrree's George!

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

Hi Stan,

Thank you for giving such an extensive and thorough answer, and for taking the time to explain that process, the whole thing really makes sense to me now.

So, it's through this whole process of simulation, identification, cause and effect, and use of time that good stories can give us not simply wisdom, but the kind of wisdom that only first-hand experience can provide. So the reason a good story is so precious, is cause it basically gives us the opportunity to become wiser without having to pay the price of wisdom, without having to make mistakes again and again until we finally wise up, and without having to invest the tremendous time it takes for us to reach that point. (many lifetimes in my case!)

All this seems to lead me to another conclusion: A boring story, even with a solid moral premise, isn't enough; it won't work nearly as much as a story that is truly engaging. A good story has emotional effect, the proverbial "thrills and chills", and that emotional effect is absolutely essential for this whole process you describe to work. Maybe that's a deeper reason why we're searching for good movies. ('Seen any good movie lately?') Because an emotionally engaging story is much more effective in giving us the "adrenaline rush that sensitives the synapses in our brain to remember the consequence when it occurs." A boring, poor movie, however, simply won't do the job, even if it has a perfectly executed moral premise. Turns out Hitchcock had the right idea when he said, 'A movie should not be a slice of life, it should be a slice of cake.'

Still, all the attempts at creating emotional effect and all the storytelling craft in the world doesn't mean much if a moral premise isn't there to support the story's drama. It just leaves us empty and unsatisfied. I remember when as a teenager me and my brother went to see the 'Matrix'. It was one of the coolest things I'd ever seen, and we were so excited watching those fantastic action scenes, it was unreal how excited I was! But the funny thing is, when I watched the sequels I didn't like them at all, and in fact I was very put off... How strange! The concept was still the same, the story world was the same, the amazing action scenes were even better than the first movie, heck, even the stars were the same! Later, of course, I understood that the only thing missing was the most crucial one: The moral crossroads, the conflict of values which supported the first film's physical conflict wasn't there anymore. Everything was there, everything but the foundation. There was no meaning, no substance. And ultimately, no emotional effect, no 'adrenaline rush'.

The idea that part of the reason movies are so popular is cause they allow us to glimpse our divine destiny and to experience things from the perspective of God, is so simple and obvious, and yet so stunning and mind-blowing! I never thought of such a thing and I still can't say I have fully grasped it, much less its deeper implications (which I suspect are plenty). 'Going to the movies' is so much a part of our pop culture, that one hardly thinks of it as a mystical experience. And yet, that's exactly what it is! When the lights slowly go out and we watch the screen in anticipation, at that moment, right then, you can tell it's not just a feeling of 'let's have a nice time'; it's a deeper feeling, the expectation for something far more profound. And that feeling I've noticed, sometimes it spreads through the room; sometimes it's even as if I can almost touch it. We really do experience divine attributes when we watch a movie. To the five divine attributes you mention I would add one more, the attribute of IDENTIFICATION. Just as in a really good movie we deeply identify with the characters, feel what they're going through and root for them, maybe God also identifies with us (which maybe explains why He's so passionately interested in our salvation)

You write:
It is only in reliving the lives of others (from true history, or metaphor, and parables) that we have hope of that change, BECAUSE IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED TO OTHERS... in short - PROOF.
That's probably why we're so fond of having role models and need people to look up to. It's not just an interest for those people, we essentially aspire to have similar lives with them. That's why in our teenage years we desperately search for idols. What we're really searching for is some hope for our future. It's a way of saying, 'Look, this guy did it'. It is proof that we can change our lives also, and a platform of inspiration. (It just struck me,so weird, that the word "idol" comes from the Greek word "ειδωλον", which means -you won't believe this- "reflection"!
But at the heart of all morality is the INDIVIDUAL and SELF-DETERMINATION... Our choice of our future and our own self-determination is a fundamental truth about the human condition.
Curiously, that's a theme that is inherent in the structure of pretty much every story: The hero changing his own fate as well as the fate of other people, of a community, of the galaxy etc, all because he makes a choice and he's gritty enough to stick with it (self-determination). And everything hinges on the protagonist's choice... I've been reading the Proverbs lately, and there's a brilliant verse which I think conveys exactly that: "Guard your heart above all else, for it determines the course of your life."(Proverbs 4:23)

Thanks again Stan, that was extremely helpful!

George Chatzigeorgiou

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Why Are Stories Necessary? Part 1

I received the following question from my friend George Chatzigeorgiou in Greece, whose excellent input to understanding the moral premise (with respect to the movie MIDNIGHT RUN) I have posted elsewhere on this blog, HERE.

I've bolded certain phrases that George uses, because they are so well put.
George writes:

Dear Stan:

I have a question regarding the moral premise which is so basic I'm almost embarrassed to ask it. I suspect the answer must be right under my nose, so please humor me by answering it!

My question is this: We've established that the essence of story is change, or transformation if you like. We've also established that this change of fortune, whether for better or for worse, is dependent upon a moral choice the protagonist makes; and we know that this in turn leads to fundamental truths about the human condition and how best to live our lives, truths which pass on to the audience or the reader, the recipient of the story. It's also widely accepted that stories are not just some luxury of sorts, and that there's a real need for stories that is universal and begins since the dawn of mankind. So, if the ultimate purpose of story comes down to passing on some crucial and fundamental truths, then whey do you need stories to convey those truths? Why do we need the vehicle of a story to do that?

For example, if I say to you, "Battling adversity alone leads to weakness and defeat, while battling adversity as a family leads to strength and victory", why won't my communication have the same profound effect in your life as watching 'The Incredibles'? If this truth is so crucial and so fundamental to the human existence, then why don't we immediately recognize it and abide by it? Why does this truth need to be incorporated in a narrative in order to have a better chance of making an impact on our lives?

Also, do you think a good story with a true moral premise can really change people and make a difference in the world? Is there some sort of mechanism inside us that causes a good story to have such a magical effect? Is there a real logic behind thinking that good stories can really benefit the world and make a difference? Stan, is there a thoroughly convincing logical argument to support that storytellers are really able to make a difference in the world and serve a high purpose, and that they're not mere entertainers who try to convince themselves otherwise?
Well, I don't know why I just didn't bold, underline, and highlight the whole message. Didn't I write a whole chapter on this? It seems I did, but I can't find it.

So, thank you George, for asking the obvious, ubiquitous, elephant-in-the-room question.

George's question get at the heart of what it means to be human. And by human I do not mean "animal," or any other lesser life form. Human beings are different, in the very way George is observing. THEY TRANSCEND everything else in creation. They ask questions like "Why am I here?" "Why is life?" "What am I suppose to do?" and "How can I be good and not bad?" And it is in asking those questions that we touch the very essence of the human condition—we are made in God's image. BANG! We have a self-conscience. Nothing else does. We know there is something more than the moment in time we are experiencing. It is inherent in our being, and we can't escape from it. Those that try to escape end up in psychiatric hospitals. Why story? Why, indeed! Well, here's why.

ONLY THROUGH STORY CAN WE "SEE" OUR LIFE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF OUR CREATOR. (See link at end.) Our thirst for stories proves the existence of something greater than us, beyond us, looking in on us, giving us meaning, and someone who most likely put us here. The IDEA that we can KNOW what life MEANS, is evidence that a transcendent ANSWER exists.

Okay, okay, okay... forget the grand philosophy and pontificating. Here are some actual answers, which I'll give in antiphonal fashion to George's highlighted comments:

THE ESSENCE OF STORY IS CHANGE OR TRANSFORMATION

Yes! The essence of life is change and transformation (up or down). We HOPE things, life, situations, ourselves, can CHANGE and get above (transform) our current miserable life. In the Rosary prayer there's this beautiful line — "here in this valley of tears" — which points to our human need to change and be transformed. It is only in reliving the lives of others (from true history, or metaphor, and parables) that we have hope of that change, BECAUSE IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED TO OTHERS.

If you simply tell me I can change, I don't see it, understand it, or comprehend how the change can occur. But, if you tell me a story or show me the life struggles of someone who has changed, then I BELIEVE, I ENVISION, and I begin to work toward that end. I have a role model, and example, in short — PROOF.

STORIES ARE DEPENDENT ON A MORAL CHOICE JUST AS OUR LIVES ARE

I don't' have time to explain all of this, but hopefully you'll understand that achieving the change we want or need, comes only through our own SELF DETERMINATION. The current political argument about socialism and Marxism vs. democracy and self-determination is what this is all about. God has given us (personally and individually) a choice: make good decisions that are in accordance with the laws that I've put into place which allow the universe to operate smoothly, or buck them and suffer the consequences. (There is a collective decision we can make and suffer consequences, for sure, but the collective is only as good as the mass of individuals who make the decisions. The collective has no consciousness, will, or soul. Only individuals do. And that's why Marxism and Communism and Socialism ultimately fail in all their forms throughout history. )

We are thus not responsible for bad things that happen of which we made no decision that caused the thing to happen. We are inherently (by virtue of God's laws, or natural laws) ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR OURSELVES and those things that happen DIRECTLY as the result of our decisions. We can yell victim all we want, but ultimately we can control our attitude. If we are maimed by a mad man, our responsibility is our attitude toward the horrific event. Do we become bitter or forgiving? Do we seek revenge or consolation? And yet this does not marginalize or denigrate the importance of corporate decisions or the laws of a republic for the common good. But at the heart of all morality is the INDIVIDUAL and SELF-DETERMINATION -- you take that away and you'll end up like East Berlin during the cold war in very short order.

STORIES TELL US FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS ABOUT THE HUMAN CONDITION

Our choice of our future and our own self-determination is a fundamental truth about the human condition. God has written into the universe and into all human hearts certain non-negotiable rules. One of those rules is "gravity" by the way. Another is the need to tell the truth if you want to live in community with others. Obey these rules an live. Disobey them and die. (See Genesis 2:17, although we don't need the Bible to know that if we step off a cliff we're doomed to fall to our death.)

STORIES ARE NOT JUST SOME LUXURY OF SORTS

Sooooo right! Stories require time, and time is the critical element of stories that explain life. Stories are as important as time. Only stories can measure and mark time. Stories cannot exist without time. And time is only measured in terms of stories.

One of the things that points to the importance of time as it interplays with a person's life is that rich and poor have the same amount of time. The richest can not can't make more time. They can make more money, but not time. Time is the great equalizer. There is no "class" when it comes to time. Consequently the rich can understand the drama involved in a pauper's life, and the pauper can comprehend the suspense that brings the rich to their knees. Indeed death is a milestone of time and story, and both the rich and poor die.

Time is that ubiquitous "dimension" (although it has no dimension that we can perceive -- it's a zero-dimension, a dot, that moves along a two dimension line called a life's timeline. But we cannot perceived the line, only the dot.

Yet God perceives simultaneously the two or three dimensions of lines that constitutes multiple lives in multiples places at multiple times. And because we are made in the image of God, and because time and story are dependent on each other, stories allow us to look at our lives, and all history as God does. Stories allow us to time-travel, and instantly bi-locate, even tri-locate our minds across centuries and continents. Stories allow us to experience the attributes of God -- the omnipresence, the omniscience, if not also the omnipotence.

SO, WHY DO WE NEED STORIES?

What I just said... to tell time. To tell us IN time, how important decisions are.
Stories manipulate TIME and allow us to see things as God sees them...without the limit of time. We can only experience the Zero-T of time. In reality, we cannot see forward or backward along our timeline or any one else's. But if we tell a story we can move through time and explain why things are, and how they could have been. That is because DECISIONS (especially moral ones) are made in time. A decision is a milestone, a marker, that helps define time. When we decide to study hard and graduate from a school, our GRADUATION DAY marks the culmination of many moral decisions to study so that we may eventually graduate. Thus, graduation is a MARKER of our moral decisions, and the GRADUATION event TELLS us what TIME it is. Telling the story about how we graduated allows us to explore the many moral decisions that we made right so we could graduate, and the many wrong moral decisions a friend made so he would NOT graduate.

WHY WON'T MY (didactic) COMMUNICATION HAVE THE SAME PROFOUND EFFECT IN YOUR LIFE AS WATCHING "THE INCREDIBLES?"

Because didactic communication (telling me what to do) does not let me relive the decisions of others and see the consequences of those decisions. If you simply tell me to do something and explain the consequences, the degree to which I believe what you say will happen or not happen depends on a long relationship of trust between us. That trust is the result of many stories and shared experiences passing between us. But if that deep relationship does not exist then there is no realization of the consequence. But a story SIMULATES my life, convinces me that the moral decisions and the consequence have meaning. I can see what happens to Mr. Incredible when he tries to do things alone. I can see what happens to the Incredible Family when they battle adversity together. Because of the relationship with those characters in the first two acts, I IDENTIFY with them. I have established a relationship with them and I am emotionally attached to their decisions. I have lived in their time and their story. I see myself in them because I have made decisions like they have, and to some degree lived the consequences. They reinforce the pattern of my life (assuming their story was created around a true moral premise.)

Unlike didactic communication (telling), narrative communication shows, demonstrates, simulates, and dramatizes the effect of time on those decisions and consequences. Didactic communication has no power to demonstrate, show, or dramatize. You've heard the expression that "experience is the best teacher". Why is that? Because experience creates the drama of time as it relates to decision and consequence, and the suspense between those two nodes. We make a decision (and take an action) and then suspense sets in as we wait to see what the consequence will be. That suspense and intrigue create an adrenaline rush that sensitives the synapses in our brain to remember the consequence when it occurs. Movies especially, but all stories too, rely on this natural method of time, decision, consequence and help us IDENTIFY with the characters as if we were them. Because the story depends on time to work, it can create drama, which gives us an adrenalin rush, which triggers our brain to remember the relationship between a particular decision and its consequence.

Stories also allow us to see inside the mind of a character and know their motivation and moral values, thus identifying the moral good and bad of attitudes and how various kinds of THINKING leads to kinds of ACTION and thus CONSEQUENCE.

A friend used to say to our kids (his daughter and my son before they were married, although it is still true now that they are married with 4 kids of their own): "You can make any decision you want, but you have no choice over the consequence." In family matter that consequence may come from the arbitrary will of a parent. But in society that consequence may come from a policeman, a judge, a jury, or even a spouse. We can cheat on our wife (we have the freedom to make that decision) but we have no control over her jealously or bitterness when she finds out. It's one thing to tell someone "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY" but to experience it is a far better teacher. But who wants to go through ADULTERY to learn its consequences? Not anyone, really. So, what's a better way to do it? TELL A STORY. SHOW A STORY. Let people identify with the husband and wife, and learn through a SIMULATION the natural laws of the universe. And, hopefully, they won't do it in real life.

ARE STORYTELLERS REALLY ABLE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD?

They do, undoubtedly. Newspaper and novel accounts of behavior and its consequence convince far more people than didactic preaching. Movie fans that watch the lives of movie stars come and go, learn a great deal about what not do to if you want to be happy. It's one thing not to get caught with a hooker on Sunset Blvd (e.g. Hugh Grant) but I'm sure Elizabeth Hurley wish he had avoided the hooker altogether. If Hugh didn't learn anything from that story out of his life, we sure should have.

We can easily say that storytellers have value, because people spent billions of dollars each year to watch stories, or listen to them. Stories come in all forms, from the $200 million block buster to the weather report. News, magazines, gossip, parables... they all communicate the cause and effect of moral decisions and their consequences. We can't escape storytellers, because they are as important as time and morality.

ANYTHING ELSE ?

Here's a link to a short essay I wrote years ago (but reposted on this blog) that explains why movies (and stories) give us insight into our "divine destiny." That is, stories help us transcend this life and give it meaning. Transcendence, of course, is the ultimate transformation or change. We hope for a better life. Time empowers that hope. And stories tell us how to achieve it.


Link to Why Are Stories Necessary? Part 2

Monday, June 9, 2008

Stories and Movies - A Window to Our Divine Destiny

(Originally published by CatholicExchange.com April 2, 2002)

Why are good stories and movies so popular?

The last two years (2000-2001) saw movie box office revenues soar. Even in times of tragedy, movies are in style. The events of 9/11 suggested that all businesses, even the film industry, would suffer. Not so. While there was a slump after 9/11, the film business has never been stronger. Why is that?

Seeing What God Sees

Good stories and movies are popular because they give us a vision of our divine destiny. Because we are made in God's image we have a natural curiosity to experience God's attributes. Unlike any other media, movies allow us to see what normally only God sees in five extraordinary ways.

1. Good stories and movies give us a sense of God's infinite knowledge. THE PERFECT STORM taught us about the rigors of commercial fishing, THE GREEN MILE enlightened us to the horror of death row, and AMADEUS revealed the politics of culture in 18th century Vienna. While it is true that movies rarely get all the facts right, they still tell us more than we could know otherwise. Filmmakers are able to condense into two hours what one person could never absorb in a lifetime. In a movie we are treated to a glimpse of infinite knowledge presented as a unified whole in a manner we could never conceive on our own. In this way, movies give us a preview of our destiny to know as God knows.

Inside the Heart

2. Good stories and movies reveal to us what is morally true. DIE HARD is about a vacationing New York cop who battles a team of terrorist-thieves in an L.A. office building on Christmas Eve. But what the movie is really about is how true love of a man for his wife, regardless of the obstacles, trials, and terrors, dies hard. That is DIE HARD's moral premise. Research indicates that the greater the validity, or truth, of the moral premise, the greater the movie's popularity. That is because what is right and wrong in God's mind is written on our hearts; and when our hearts resonate with the truth on the big screen, our word of mouth promotion generates big audiences.

3. Good stories and movies allow us to know what is in a person's heart. In a novel the author often writes with an omniscient voice telling us what is motivating a character to do good or evil. In a movie, this is replaced with images of characters in private moments or voice-overs of their thoughts. In WHAT WOMEN WANT, the audience, along with womanizer Nick Marhsall (Mel Gibson), hears the brutally honest thoughts on the hearts of the women in his life. The filmmakers also let us know Nick's heart with the same technique. Movies can, therefore, reveal the good and evil at the core of a person's heart and we see them as God does.

4. Good stories and movies allow us to be omnipresent. In JOAN OF ARC (Duguay, 1999) the filmmakers cut between five different story lines hundreds of miles apart. Skillfully we are treated to the convergence of the mystical Joan, her peasant parents, the scheming king, a vengeful bishop, and land-hungry dukes. We are like supernatural voyeurs watching displaced storylines being woven together into a tapestry of intrigue and Providence. We feel privileged — even superior — as we witness the desperate struggling, the naive decisions, and the malice aforethought. We see everything, everywhere, as it happens, just like God does.

Perceiving Eternity

5. Good stories and movies give us a sense of eternity. In eternity God perceives time in multiple dimensions, just as we see pieces on a game board. As we can see length, height and depth, so eternity perceives the past, present and future. Movies access the times and events of eternity with flashbacks and flash-forwards. In AMISTAD, during the courtroom scenes, flashbacks are used with staggering clarity to reveal the atrocities that were inflicted upon the slaves months earlier. To people in the courtroom the scene was described with words in the past tense. But to us the scenes were shockingly real and very much part of the present. Thus, movies give us a sense of how God perceives eternity.

Stories and movies, then, are entertainment on a cosmic scale. We can sense what it is like to have all knowledge, our souls can resonate with moral truth, we can clearly understand a person's heart, we can at once witness events in different places, and we can experience the past and the future as if it was now. Just as contemplative mystics seek dark corners in which to encounter God's presence, so moviegoers seek dark theaters in which to encounter God's attributes and sample their divine destiny. That is why movies are so popular.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Midnight Run

Almost a year ago I received this analysis from a reader in Greece, George Chatzigeorgiou. My delay in moving his comment from the comments section of this blog to a main entry proves only one thing. I keep "to do" lists, and some of them are long.

I have since seen the movie, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Indeed, George's analysis is correct, although I may not agree with everything he says, there is no need for my dissection of it. What he writes stands on its own. I'm honored, George. Great job. This film has a wonderfully strong moral premise.

Stan

------

Mr. Williams:

I've been looking for ways to illustrate themes in my stories, and also studying movies that had a strong effect on me, trying to discover the techniques the writers used to make the themes work so well. I read your book, but I'm not particularly fond of any of the movies that are offered as examples in it. So I decided to test the book by applying its principles on a favourite film of mine. I had studied this film ("Midnight run") in the past, but I still couldn't figure out how the premise worked in the narrative so well. Studying the movie from the 'Moral premise' lense, I was astounded by how perfectly the book's conclusions applied to the movie. The results were amazing.
I'd written down some notes, and I decided to turn them into an essay regarding how the book's conclusions apply to this film. I think it'll be of interest to anyone who has read your book and seen the movie.

Okay, here it is: The movie's called 'Midnight run', written by George Gallo, directed by Martin Brest, starring De Niro and Charles Grodin. The plot goes like this: Jonathan Mardukas (Grodin) is an accountant who embezzled millions of dollars from a Vegas mobster, gave them to charities and then jumped bail. Jack Walsh (De Niro) is the protagonist, a skip tracer who arrests Mardukas and tries to deliver him to his boss, so that he can collect a big payment. But their cross-country trip is not that simple. The mob who wants Mardukas dead is after them, and so is the FBI. Not to mention another skip tracer who wants to steal Mardukas from Jack... So basically, the movie's about a skip tracer who tries to evade the mob and the FBI, and deliver a prisoner across country; if he does that, he'll get a big payment which will allow him to fulfill his dream of opening a coffee shop.

But what the movie is REALLY about? It's really about a guy who learns to open himself to understanding. As a result of making this moral choice, the protagonist has a new hope and embarks on a new beginning in his life.
Now let's articulate the premise that's present throughout the movie and within each character's arc:
Understanding leads to hope and new beginnings.
Lack of understanding leads to chaos and demise.

We can see that the protagonist's goal and the desirable consequences of the moral premise are related. The protagonist wants to quit his job, open a coffeee shop, and make a new beginning in his life. In William's words, the story's physical and psychological spine meet. Moreover, as the movie unfolds,the physical story metaphors the psychological story: Every time the protagonist takes some weak steps toward accepting the truth of the moral premise, there is progress. When he rejects it there are complications and problems. Finally he makes the moral choice to accept it, and achieves his goal.

Now let's see some examples on how the premise is reflected and proven through each character's arc:

Jack Walsh (the protagonist)

In his book, Williams says, 'I was tempted to write a chapter on how the Moral Premise is reflected in character names'. Well, this character's no exception. The name of our protagonist (Walsh) sounds very close to the word "walls". Jack Walsh has shut out understanding; he's the hero who raises 'walls' between himself and others. Jack refuses to understand the people around him and to let others understand him. At some point Jonathan says to him, 'You have only two forms of expression: Silence and rage.' Jack exhibits his lack of understanding by being cynical, sarcastic and condemnatory toward other people.

An important note though: These aren't Jack's only traits. If these traits were the only things we see in Jack then we wouldn't be able to identify with him and root for him, cause no one likes to root for a jerk. But that isn't the case; Jack's a complex character (for an action comedy at least). Very early in the film we realize he's an honest person. When Jonathan tries to bribe him, Jack snaps back at him, 'I never took a payoff in my life and I'm not gonna start with you.' In short, Jack is a man of integrity. Later on, when we find out what happened to him back when he was a cop in Chicago, we begin to suspect that this terrible experience he had is the reason why he has shut out understanding and why he exhibits these negative traits. So we start to sympathize with him even more and we want him to achieve his goal, despite all his character flaws.

From the very start Jack's prejudiced against Jonathan. He refuses all communication by constantly telling him to 'shut up' and is unwilling to hear Jonathan's side of the story, Every conversation starts with Jonathan asking Jack questions. As the story progresses, Jack shows some willingness to understand Jonathan and to open himself up to him, but it's a back and forth motion. Jack has shut out understanding cause he has become disenchanted with people due to what happened to him back in Chicago. Jonathan says to him, "There's good and bad everywhere, don't you know that?" Later in another scene Jonathan points out to him, "See? For every shit in the world there are six nice people."

Jack has his first moment of grace when he visits his ex-wife to ask her for money. During this subplot we see Jack resorting back to his usual sarcasm and a fight ensues. However, the emotional stress of seeing his ex- wife again makes him change his ways: "I just need some money to... and get out of this miserable business forever. Can't you understand that?" He tears down a wall and tries to be understood by his ex-wife. Because of this breakthrough Jill decides to give him the keys to her car. When Jack asks her what her husband is going to say about this, she just looks at Jack and says, "He'll understand."
As he leaves, his daughter who overheard their conversation exits and offers him her baby-sitting money. She undersatands his predicament and the suffering he goes through, although she hasn't seen him in nine years. There, Jack gets a second moment of grace by his daughter's example. She shows him the way; what he needs to learn.

Jack's still reluctant to embrace the moral premise, and more complications ensue. However, his behavior toward Jonathan gradually changes. We see Jack conversing more with him and their relationship changes. A few scenes later another moment of grace occurs. Jonathan jokes that if circumstances were different they'd still hate each other. But Jack responds, "We might've been friends..." He doesn't condemn Jonathan anymore; he respects him and is able to sympathize with him.

But due to his reluctance to fully employ the premise, Jack has Jonathan taken away from him and he also gets arrested by the FBI. This is the story's main crisis and a major turning point. It's then that Jack drastically changes his ways and embraces the moral premise. He tries to reach an understanding with Mosely (the FBI agent) and make a deal with him. This leads to success in saving Jonathan's life. Even the plan Jack comes up with is based on what Jonathan has told him; if Jack hadn't reached a level of understanding with Jonathan, he'd never know about the discs and would fail in his quest. Finally, Jack gets more money than he'd imagined, gives Jonathan the broken watch and embarks with a new hope in his heart. (By the way, it's amazing to me that this scene takes place in an airport. What better setting to enhance the idea of Jack embarking on a new beginning than an airport?)

We can see how the truth of the moral premise is consistently applied to other characters too:

Jonathan Mardukas succeeds because he practices the virtue of the moral premise. In the beginning he deceives Jack by telling him he suffers from aviophobia, but his behavior soon changes. He tries to understand Jack and get to know him; he's also eager to make Jack understand him. He explains his motives and what led him to steal money from his boss and give it to charities. Understanding is essentially the feeling of shared suffering; the knowledge that suffering's shared by everyone. Jonathan senses Jack's suffering. Early on he asks Jack, "What happened to you?" He's also totally honest with him. He even says, "Sooner or later I'm gonna have to give you the slip." When Jack chuckles, he says, "I'm glad you find it humorous." The fact that Jonathan practices the moral premise's virtue is very important because in the end he succeeds thanks to his virtue. If Jonathan had succeeded by practicing the vice, the moral premise wouldn't be consistent.

Alonzo Mosely, the FBI agent, practices the vice. When he first meets Jack he's critical toward him and doesn't try to come to an understanding with him. As a result, not only he loses his badge, but also fails throughout most of the movie. It's only when he listens to what Jack has to say and decides to strike a deal with him that Mosely gets his man. When he and Jack plan on how to nail Serano, we can clearly see how strikingly different is both men's attitude toward each other than it was when they first met. They no longer look down on each other; they both practice the virtue of understanding. Mosely appreciates Jack's ability ("Get a wire on this man"), and Jack respects Mosely's responsibilities as an FBI agent.

Jack's employer, Eddie Mascone, (Mask-Con, a name of significance if there ever was one) has shut out understanding by being deceitful and dishonest. He has no qualms about lying to his associates if he thinks there is something to be gained. He practices the premise's vice through the whole movie, and in the end he loses the bail bond and he's out of business. Nobody respects him, not even his assistant who secretly works with the gangster's goons. On the phone, we see Eddie yelling in frustration, "Everybody's tellin' me to go f..k myself!"

Whereas Eddie shuts out understanding by being two-faced, the villain Jimmy Serano (Sir-no) has shut out understanding by being arrogant and disrespectful toward even his closest associates. He disregards his lawyer who advises him not to go to the airport. When he goes and meets Jack, he practices the premise's vice by being sarcastic, critical and by trying to hurt and humiliate Jack. He's somehow a mirror image of how Jack was before embracing the virtue of understanding.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

The Double Moral Premise

Almost a year ago, a screenwriter (known to me only as PopcornFlix) wrote me the following email, and we had a couple of follow-ups, that I will try to post as part of this one long post. (I'm sorry I haven't posted anything in such a long time. I've been involved in a start-up company, and I've been heavily absorbed in marketing duties.) But here is the email that I find very intriguing, and obviously worthwhile else I would not have held onto it for so long, and finally posted it. My delay, believe me, had nothing to do with questioning it's validity.

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

Dear Stan,

I bought your book, and found it useful. I'm a long-time pro screenwriter, so I've read my Egri. You added some interesting distinctions that were worth a ponder.

Your analysis of THE INCREDIBLES sent me back to the DVD, and I discovered something very interesting that prompted me to write this note.

THE INCREDIBLES has, in fact, TWO Moral Premises: The first, as you described, is "working alone" vs. "working as a family." The second, no less articulated is "using your talents authentically" vs. "denying who you really are."

It's particularly interesting that the second Moral Premise uses the same structure as the first. Syndrome uses a "distorted virtue" to gain his success. His talent is inventing things, and he uses his talent to become rich and powerful. Then he turns to vice (being something he isn't) by staging a robot attack so he can pretend to be a superhero, his robot destroys his control technology and he loses.

The signs are very clear in the movie. When Buddy Pine first bothers Mr. Incredible, he says "you always say, be yourself, and I've decided who I am." Then he explains that even though he doesn't have powers, he invents things. Later, when superheros are outlawed, we get to see Bob Parr's conflict between trying to be ordinary (inauthentic) and a superhero (his true self). Dash complains that he's not allowed to use his abilities to compete. "You always say 'do your best,' but you don't mean it." There's also the catch phrase and call back: "If everybody's special, then nobody is."

It seems very obvious to me that THE INCREDIBLES has two Moral Premises, and they each function as they should, complete with Moments of Grace. This raises the question of WHY, and in what narrative situations is it of benefit to have dual Moral Premises?

I started looking for other examples of Dual Moral Premises. JURASSIC PARK has one premise about family vs. single life, but another about nature vs. technology. It's also worth noting that nearly all the technology-supporting characters get killed by the dinosaurs. (Dr. Grant, the hero, is introduced as a man in tune with nature who feels that machines "have it in for him.")

TERMINATOR 2 has the Moral Premise about "sacrificial love," as you mentioned, but it also has a second Moral Premise about fate vs. free will. "The future is not set, fate is what we make." is the mantra of that premise.

MATRIX also seems to have Dual Premises. First, there is "faith vs. skepticism," which is articulated in Neo's journey to believe he is The One. The second premise has to do with "free will vs. fate." There are numerous moments in the film where the premise is discussed. The real world vs. the Matrix is a metaphor for free will vs. fate. To be in the Matrix is to accept fate. To choose to unplug into the real world is to claim your free will.

The easy examples are from sci-fi movies. I'm interested in finding examples in other genres, figuring out how the second premise functions, and what benefit it brings. I do notice that the examples so far are big hit movies, which makes this even more interesting.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

Thanks, PopcornFlix.

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

So, I wrote back & told him I liked his theory and suggested some further tests. Here are my questions to him, and his responses.

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

Stan,

Glad you like it. I really want to crack this. Let me know if you can think of any other examples.

Let me break down the Second Moral Premise of THE INCREDIBLES: "Use your talents to be who you really are."
[STAN: Each moral premise must have: a. Two opposing psychological values.]
Be your unique, authentic self vs. force yourself to be something you're not.
[STAN: Each moral premise must also have: b. Two opposing physical consequences that are logically connected to the values.]
Being authentic leads to victory, heroism and love, vs. being something you're not leads to anger, strife, humilation and failure
[STAN: There must be a true-to-life relationship between a. and b.]
The lawsuits force the Parrs to renounce their authentic selves and pretend to be ordinary. Their inauthentic lives are filled with conflict and misery because all of them are straining to be themselves.
[STAN: There must be a Moment of Grace where the Moral Premise is accepted or rejected (even if only subliminally).]
Bob never gave up being a super, he just hid it. When Syndrome offers him a job using his powers, he accepts it.

Helen gave up her authenticity for the family. When her family is threatened (Bob the breadwinner is in trouble), she calls in the old favor and becomes Elastigirl again. Edna gives her the Moment, and she takes the suits.

Syndrome is subliminally give the MP because governments have been buying his inventions, and he's rich. But he refuses to embrace his Bill Gates-like success. Instead, he squanders everything (including his life) trying to use his technology to pretend to have superpowers, and then to give his technology away to eliminate the specialness of the Parr's authenticity. Syndrom is the symbol of eliminating the authentic life.
[STAN: d. All main characters decisions and consequences are in sync with the moral premise's predictions.]
The Parr's become successful when they embrace their true identities as THE INCREDIBLES. Frozone becomes successful when he insists on his superhero identity and gets his super-suit from his wife, who wants him to be ordinary so she can have a night out.

Syndrome uses his gifts to pretend to be something he isn't, and his robot attacks him. He is stripped of his false powers -- be he doesn't learn.

In the epilogue, he uses his false powers to pretend to be a supervillain and steal Jack-Jack, who is a symbol of pure innocence and authenticity. Before he can get away, Jack-Jack uses his real powers to slow Syndrome down, and Bob makes him drop Jack-Jack by throwing the car into Syndrome's jet -- the authentic powers overcoming the inauthentic. But Syndrome is killed by his pretension; his cape kills him. If he had been a real superhero, with real powers, he would have had his costume designed by Edna, who knew the dangers of capes. Syndrome dies because he has refused the Moral Premise.
[STAN: M. I think your analysis of The Incredibles with the Moral Premise you came up with is better than the one in my book. You've also reinforced what makes a good story great— the reinforcing of themes and values on multiple layers, as I suggest in the Preface of the book.]
I'm still looking for patterns in the Dual Moral Premise (DMP). In INCREDIBLES, JURASSIC PARK, MATRIX and T2, there's an obvious fantastic element, and the second MP seems connected to it.

For example, MATRIX is about the nature of reality, and its SMP is "free will vs. fate" JPARK is about cloning dinaosaurs, and its SMP deals with "nature vs. science." T2's SMP is also about "free will vs. fate," but its fantasic element is time travel -- which also connects to fate.

My hypothesis is that in stories that have sharply separated A & B stories (superheros+family life = INCREDIBLES) may be prime candidates for DMP. I suspect that it may be useful because the stories are so thematically separate that they each need a theme to connect with the audience. The question then becomes where is the trigger point for adding the SMP? I'm not sure about this yet, just a hypothesis.

Let me know what you think.

PopcornFlix

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

Well, P.F., I think that any good story construction is well served by its creators trying to make sense of what the story is really about on as many layers as possible. I don't talk about it in the book, but one of the best structured movies is Rubin and Ramis' GROUNDHOG DAY (1993). I recall in a screen writing workshop diagramming the movie using the THREE ACT structure, and then the 12 STEPS OF THE MYTHIC HERO, and then over lapping ALLISON FISHER PURCHASE FUNNEL (used in romantic comedies) , and finally the FIVE STAGES OF GRIEF. And guess what THEY ALL FIT. For everyone of those models the story had turning points. It was amazing. And that's why the movie works, because it worked on so many subconscious levels. So, I see the Dual Moral Premise the same way. The more TRUE moral premises a movie has the better chance it has of working, and making sense to more people.

Now the big problem I'm sure many writers have with my book and this whole idea is whether or not it's a "good" idea to start with the moral premise, as I suggest, and from it construct a story. I definitely support that process in the book, and I guarantee it will eliminate writer's block. As to whether it will create a block-buster story, I have no vote. Chapter 4 talks gives aa few examples of how genius works, and coming up first with the moral premise IS NOT necessarily one of the factors. But coming up with at least ONE moral premise is definitely necessary, whenever it is done.

So, thanks, P.F. for the great post.

Much blessing, and I hope you all let us know when your movies are on the big screen.

Stan

Friday, April 20, 2007

The Prestige (2006)

Virtue to Extremes is Vice

Christopher Priest - Author
Jonathan Nolan - Screenwriter
Christopher Nolan - Screenwriter
Christopher Nolan - Director

Hugh Jackman - Rupert Angier
Christian Bale - Alfred Borden
David Bowie - Nikola Tesla
Michael Caine - John Cutter
Rebecca Hall - Sarah Borden
Scarlett Johansson - Olivia Wenscombe
Samantha Mahurin - Jess Borden


(I am gong to try to write less by assuming that you, dear reader, have seen the movie and understand it's physical premises.)

The Prestige offers an excellent opportunity to examine how virtues such a passion for excellence and self-sacrifice can become horrific Faustian examples of destructive obsession.

Self-sacrifice is often considered a virtue when that sacrifice is for another's good.
But self-sacrifice is also what obsessive people do for something that they selfishly want but don't need.

Here are some examples of he sacrifice that they risk and experience for the sake of their art.

Angier and Borden are assistants (plants) for another magician for which Cutter is the engineer. They go to a Chinaman's magic performance to discover the fishbowl trick. They see the man acting crippled afterwards getting into a carriage. They surmise that he's totally devoted to his craft.
BORDEN: This is a performance. This is why no one can detect his methods…total devotion to his art. A lot of self sacrifice…the only way to escape all this (reality).
The concept of sacrifice is evident in the very next scene when Borden assists for The Great Virgil. In the small audience is a lady (Sarah) and a little boy (her nephew). When Virgil smashes the birdcage hidden under a cloth, the little boy cries: "He killed it!" speaking of the bird. Of course, Virgil reproduces the bird. When Borden approaches the boy, and shows him the live bird, the little boy asks, "But where's his brother?" Borden considers the boy for a moment and says "He's a sharp lad." … and later it is Borden that must discard the very smashed and dead bird hidden in the table's false top.

This dramatically foreshadows the sacrifices that both Borden and Angier will make in their attempts to rise to fame.

In showing a coin trick to the lad later, Borden advises never to show how the trick works because as soon as he does he'll be "nothing to them. Nothing." Notice here that PRIDE is the motivation. Borden says, "The secret impresses no one. The trick you use it for is everything."

In the next flashback scene Borden recalls how he used the trick to sneak into Sarah's apartment. But, telling her how he did it would not have impressed her. Being there, nonetheless, does.

Fallon (Borden's twin in disguise) is leaving Borden as Sarah comes in.
Borden tells his expecting-with-child and very worried girlfriend how he does the bullet catch.

There is a key exchange in this scene at 29:44:

BORDEN: Don't worry. Don't worry. Because, I not going to let anything happen. Every thing is going to be all right, because I love you very much.
SARAH: Say it again.
BORDEN: I love you.
SARAH: Not today.
BORDEN: What?
SARAH: Well, some days it's not true. And today you don't mean it. Maybe today, you're more in love with magic than me. And I, being able to tell the difference makes the days it is true mean something.
Indeed we begin to see that the love for magic and craft create a dysfunction in Borden's life.

Next we find Angier, in disguise, aiming a loaded gun at Borden and asking, "Which know did you tie?" Borden catches the live bullet, taking off two of his fingers.

Days later, when dressing the wound, Sarah can't believe the wound is still bleeding just as it first did. Of course, this is the other twin, who with the help of his brother, has chiseled off the same two fingers. Self-sacrifice for the trick. Passion for excellence or obsession?

Cutter returns to Angier to keep working. They both know that Borden's mistake and arrogance killed Julia. Angier changes his name to The Great Danton. As they prepare the climax bird trick this exchange (35:34):
ANGIER: Cutter the bird cage can't be our climax, everybody knows it.
CUTTER: Not like this, they don't.

ANGIER: I don't want to kill doves.
CUTTER: Then stay off the stage. You're a magician, not a wizard. You've got to get your hands dirty if you're going to achieve the impossible.
(and the dove nods its head)
Hinting at the Faustian pledge that Angier will eventually kill far more than just a dove, getting his hands dirty with more that dirt and the blood of a bird.

The bird trick goes wrong when Borden shows up to "fowl" it. This is payback for his fingers and the loaded gun. Although Angier wants revenge now.

Angier gets an audience with Tesla. Tesla shows him the effects of alternating current. Angier wants Tesla to make a "real" machine for him, not a trick.

Angier's Moment of Grace - Part 1 (51:27)

Tesla warns Angier to drop his obsession because of the cost (51:27). "No good will come of it." Angier thinks Tesla is talking about money, but Tesla isn't. Tesla admits that good came from his obsessions at first, but he has followed his obsessions too long, and now he is their slave…and one day "they will choose to destroy me."

Angier's Moment of Grace - Part 2 (52:35)

Olivia tries to get Angier to drop the obsession of revenge by suggesting that they are now even. He explodes:
ANGIER: Even? My wife for a couple of his fingers? He has a family now, and he's performing again. Borden is out there living his life, as he always intended, as if nothing has happened. And look at me. I'm alone, and no theater will touch me.
OLIVIA: Us. You're going to need a better disguise.
In both of these Moments of Grace scenes, our tragic protagonist rejects the grace he is offered by first the scientist and then his lover. He is given an out, a way to live in peace. But he rejects it and embraces the obsession of his craft and the obsession of his revenge.

Olivia's line "you're going to need a better disguise" foreshadows the disguise he has to come up with, not just to sneak into Borden's show, but to come up with a "better trick," and how he disguises his "double." Angier will need a better solution than just a twin. "Better trick" is in quotes because in terms of a true moral premise "better" in this case is "worse" and "trick" is not a trick but a "real" Faustian event.

As the story continues, Angier's revenge gets out of control—a counter point to Cutter's remark that Angier rejects: "We don't do tricks we can't control."

Indeed, Angier soon makes it clear to Olivia that he doesn't care about his wife's death, but getting his hands on Borden's secret.

Tesla "perfects" his cloning device, but warns Angier that the box will only bring him misery. Tesla's advice is to drop it in the deepest ocean. The box, of course, the physical object of Angier's pursuit, is a metaphor for Angier's psychological obsession with revenge, which should be dropped into the deepest ocean, as well.

But Borden is as much involved in the obsession, at least for his craft. Sarah pleads with Borden, who is probably the evil twin:
SARAH: I want you to be honest with me. No tricks, lies and secrets. Do you love me.
BORDEN: Not today, Love.
Distraught at their dysfunctional relationship, Sarah goes to Alfred's workshop, looks at the birds that are mostly destined to death, and then hangs herself. She's a bird, who is willingly sacrificed (by the Borden's) for the sake of the ultimate trick (which she does not understand). Her hanging sounds like the fatal snap of the birdcage.

In the end, after Borden is scheduled to die by hanging, his little girl, Jess is brought by Lord Cordlow to visit before he dies. Borden looks at Lord Cordlow, it's his nemesis, Angier, as it has always been. Borden tries to tell the guards that he's been tricked and that the man that just walked off with his daughter is the man he's accused of killing. But no one believes him.

Cutter delivers Angier's devices to Lord Cordlow and is shocked to see Angier.

Borden says goodbye to Fallon, who will live on for both of them. Borden says he's sorry for a lot of things. He wishes he had left Angier to his trick.

As Borden mounts the gallows, above the trap door that will kill him, just as the trap doors killed Angier's clones, Cutter and Lord Cordlow push the Tesla's box to end of a dilapidated theater warehouse. Cutter explains that his earlier description to Angier about the sailor who almost drowned who said drowning was like he was going home, was a lie. Cutter says to Angier that the sailor said, "It was agony." Angier dreadfully looks in the tanks holding his dead clones...100 of them. He reminds himself: "No one cares about the man in the box."

He hears a noise. Is it Cutter? No, it's Fallon, who throws the rubber ball at him -- the rubber ball that symbolizes the transportation of a man from one place to another. Angier, distracted, picks up the ball, and Fallon shoots him, just as Borden says "Abracadabra!" and is hung.

Then Fallon/Borden explains the trick, to the dying Angier.
BORDEN: Sacrifice, Rupert, that's the price of a good trick. But you wouldn't know anything about that would you?
Angier: It took courage not knowing if I'd be the man in the box or the Prestige. You never understood why we did this. The audience knows the truth. Their world is miserable, solid, all the way through. But if you could fool them, even for a second…then you cold make them wonder….it was the look on their faces.
Pride. Lord Cordlow dies, next to 100 of his clones that he has killed.

In retrospect we might figure out that Angier sets up his death during the 100th performance, by luring Borden back stage, and then Cutter, not knowing the trick, and Angier not appearing that night as The Prestige, is able to pin his own murder on Borden to get revenge.

The Moral Premise

In consideration of the moral premise we typically have a vice that leads to some physical detriment; and a virtue that leads to some greater good.

But in a tragedy, such as The Prestige, you have the two prongs of the moral premise that both descend. That is, a vice that leads to some physical detriment; and the vice's extreme that leads to some greater detriment.

Thus, our tragic moral premise can be stated this way:
Obsessive Pride leads to dysfunction; but
Obsessive Revenge leads to destruction…100 times over.
If you have additional insights or a contrary opinion, let me know. Add a comment.

Monday, April 9, 2007

FINDING FORRESTER (2000)

Director: Gus Van Sant
Mike Rich - Written by
Sean Connery - William Forrester
Rob Brown - Jamal Wallace
F. Murray Abraham - Robert Crawford
Anna Paquin - Claire Spence
Busta Rhymes - Terrell Wallace


STUDENTS: If you're a student would you please post a comment and tell me where you're from and what class you're writing for? And, if you can I'd love to see what you're writing for those English and Story classes, or what kind of form you had to fill out for the assignment that sent you here. I'm collecting these. Send them to stan@moralpremise.com   Thanks.  If you'd like a FREE BOOKMARK with writer's helps printed on both sides, send a SASE to "The Moral Premise, PO Box 29, Novi, MI  48376." Here a link to more information. (Scroll down to the bottom of the page linked to see the bookmark.)

Finding Forrester takes place in the Bronx where William Forrester, a white, recluse novelist, makes an unlikely friendship with, and mentors, a black 16-year old boy who is gifted at both basketball, literature, and writing, Jamal Wallace.

Finding Forrester (FF), however, is really about finding hope by venturing into the unknown. We make assumptions about the unknown that become legendary prejudices, urban myths, which in turn reinforce our unfounded fears. When chance, fate, or Providence breaks down the barriers, and if we open our heart, we are given new life, and can face the ultimate unknown, death, with peace.

Physical Goals: Jamal Wallace wants to be accepted by his urban peers and so excels at street basketball, purposely hiding his intelligence behind a C average. He secretly writes in notebooks, something he's done since his father left home. His standardized test scores, however, indicate a brilliant mind. He's recruited by Mailor, a private and somewhat exclusive Manhattan school that needs help on its basketball team. Jamal's physical goal is to be accepted by those around him for what he's capable of doing. But he's held back by his own prejudice toward his peers and the prejudice of others that a black kid from the Bronx can play basketball but nothing more.

William Forrester, also a kid from the Bronx, however, wrote a famous novel 50 years earlier that is still creating a wait list at the New York Public Library. He only wrote the one novel, however because he was offended at the crack reviews, and because the deaths of his brothers and parents sent him into a long depression. Forrester, says screenwriter Mike Rich, like many other famous novelists, wrote for themselves, and not the public. Forrester wants to "get out" but he's afraid of what the public and the world outside have in store for him.

In FF, Jamal has to fight his way into Forrester's life, onto the Mailor basketball team, into the acceptance of his literature professor, Robert Crawford, and into the broader culture of Manhattan.

Forrester has to fight his way out of his top floor Bronx flat where he's quadruple locked himself in -- at the door -- but leaves his window, accessible by the fire escape, unlocked . Although his former life involved mountain treks in search of rare birds, now his outside adventures are limited to sticking the top half of his body out the window and sitting on the still to clean the pane's exterior. The clean window allows him to watch Jamal and friends play basketball, and occasional videotape the stray bird from the park.

The Moral Premise. FF can be summarized in this moral premise statement:

Ignorance and avoidance of the unknown
leads to fear, isolation, and despair;
but Knowledge and embrace of the unknown
leads to faith, friendship, and hope.
Expanding on this premise, FF is about how to achieve our dreams that are out of our present reach. The movie suggests that to extend our reach we have to enter territory that often appears dangerous.

This moral premise is ubiquitous in many metaphoric and didactic ways.

A. Fear of the Unknown. The opening rap is about how the force of will allows us to make decisions which allow us to achieve our dreams, even in the face of an establishment that wants to hold us back. In this case the reference is the "white" establishment holding back "blacks". The story, however, isn't as much about racial prejudice, as it is the greater prejudice toward people that are unlike us in a multitude of other ways, white or black. This affinity of keeping to our own kind is one of those mental roadblocks that takes on, unnecessarily, racial identity. FF does a good job of revealing that such prejudice is much deeper than race, and that race becomes the scapegoat. One of the reasons racial prejudice will never go away is because there is a deeper and broader distrust of anyone that is not exactly like us in a hundred other ways — race, yes, but also culture, class, language, height, weight, fashion, intelligence, language, business affiliation, school affiliation, and social standing. It is the fear generated by ignorance of these different categories that leads to false assumptions, which in turn breeds fear.

B. The Raven. Ironically, Jamal's public high school literature teacher asks the students if they are familiar with Edgar Allan Poe's The Raven. A cursory examination of The Raven suggests that Poe's poem was Mike Rich's inspiration for FF. In the poem, Poe is distracted from his depression and grief over the death of "the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels named Lenore." In the poem, an ebony raven comes rapping at Poe's window. In the movie it's Jamal who enters Forrester's window (first) and door (second). When Poe, the recluse writer, lets in the insistent Raven, it perches upon a bust of Pallas, the Greek God of wisdom. Similarly Jamal comes into Forrester's recluse life in search of wisdom. This reference is doubled in the movie when Forrester, a bird watcher, videotapes a bird outside his window that has "strayed from the park" as Jamal has strayed from his urban culture into Forrester's. Poe's raven is a symbol of sadness and depression that will not go away, because the hope that love has offered has gone away. Rich's screenplay explores what would happen if the raven, which enters the sad writer's life, were to renew hope, rather than reinforce sadness. The connection to the moral premise, here, is Poe's (and Forrester's) reluctance to mount the courage to leave the land of destitution and enter the land of hope.

C. Entering the Lion's Den. On a simple dare, late at night, Jamal enters Forrester's flat via the fire escape and unlocked window. It's a "rickety" entrance that reveals Jamal's willingness to explore uncharted territory. The first thing Jamal does in the flat is unbolt and open the entrance door. It is a practical move that allows him to quickly escape if found-out (which is he), but it also foreshadows his goal for Forrester, and where the story is leading. Jamal is spooked by Forrester and runs out of the flat, leaving his pack behind. Forrester finds it, reads his "notebooks" and marks up his writing with red highlighter, asking at the end of one of the notebooks, "Where are you leading me?" It's a writing instructor's rhetorical question that also moves the story forward. Indeed Jamal is leading Forrester out the front door, now, figuratively unlocked.

D. Questions Point to Unknown Fear. In an early discussion between them, Forrester says to Jamal:
There's a question in your writing about what you want to do with your life. That's a question your present school cannot answer for you.
This comment suggests that Jamal needs to brave the unknown in order to find a way out of the urban parking lot metaphor that his brother, the parking lot supervisor, as succumbed to.

E. Forrester Fears Discovery. After Jamal discovers who Forrester is, he confronts him and wants to tell Forrester what he thought of his novel, Avalon Landing. Forrester wants nothing to do with Jamal's opinion, and is sacred that Jamal will reveal Forrester's whereabouts. Forrester has been invaded and he's scared. He's been found out. His life is no longer private, and he gets Jamal to promise to keep the secret from others. Jamal promises this if Forrester helps him be a better writer. Here we see Jamal forcing Forrester into a constructive confrontation with the outside world, in exchange for gaining wisdom about his inside world. (43 min)

F. Playing by the Rules. Shortly after Jamal starts at Mailor, he has trouble opening his locker. Along comes the chairman's daughter, Clair Spence, who bangs on the locker to make it spring open. "At least they look good," she offers. It's small, but it's a metaphor for the moral premise, nonetheless. The locker door presents a barrier to the unknown. How to cross its threshold requires unconventional methods, and even a little confrontation. We're afraid sometimes to go places when the methods are not our style. So Jamal tells Forrester while watching Jeopardy,
If you're going to play the game, then you need to know the rules.
You don't enter the new world using techniques from the old world. On the otherhand, Jamal's courage is the opposite of conformity. He refuses to run from things that others would fear.

Following the rules, in an unknown world" is also metaphored to us during Jamal's early visit to Forrester's flat. This is a literary lion's den, as the DVD chapter title suggests. It is not a basketball court. Jamal, a basketball always at the ready, absently mindedly starts to dribble the ball in Forrester's flat. Forrester stops correcting Jamal's essay and looks uneasy at him. Jamal stops dribbling. The rules for playing the literary game are not the same as playing basketball. Jamal puts the ball aside.

Again, we see this play out in two scenes were Jamal first avoids a confrontation with Professor Crawford and later when he confronts Crawford and beats the old man at his game of pity quotations. In the first instance, Jamal avoids Crawford's wrath because he played by the game rules of the new environment. But later he incurs Crawford's wrath when he plays by rules not suited for Crawford's lion's den. The lion threatens to eat Jamal. In all these instances of playing or not playing by the rules, Jamal demonstrates his resolve of not being restrained from his dream. He shows us that bravery is necessary for claiming the hope that we all desire.

G. Avalon Landing. Forrester's (one) wunderbook, Avalon Landing, is referenced by Crawford as the great 20th century novel, which suggests how life never ever works out. It describes Forrester's lament and fear of breaking out of the despair that surrounded him after the war and the deaths of his brother, mother and father. Rather than bravely entering the new world offered to him, Forrester retreats from the unknown and lives a life of isolation and fear.

H. "The Season of Faith's Perfection" is a New Yorker article that Forrester wrote about the Yankee's World Series pennant race in 1960. Forrester's family rarely missed a Yankee's home game played in the Bronx at the stadium Babe Ruth built. But in 1960 the Yankee's lost the championship to the Pittsburgh Pirates in the last half of the ninth inning of the seventh game. The article's title is a metaphor of how there is a season where faith can take hold and produce hope, even in the midst of grave disappointment.

I. The Unknown of the Blank Page. About half way through the movie (at about 53 minutes) Jamal faces the unknown...a blank page stuck in a typewriter. Even though Forrester demonstrates how to cross the barrier into the unknown, Jamal is not sure how to pursue his dream. Forrester tells him to write from his heart, and use his mind later. But Jamal is still stuck. Finally Forrester retrieves his 1960 New Yorker article (above) and tells Jamal to re-type his words until he finds his own. Jamal musters the courage and starts in -- tentatively. Forrester yells at him to "PUNCH THE KEYS". Shortly, Jamal does, and in so doing embraces the moment of grace to write from his heart — the strong sounds of the punched keys resonate throughout the flat. At that, Forrester yells in Jamal's street vernacular, "Yes! Yes! You're the man now, dog."

J. What is the Scarlott Tanager? Jamal and Forrester are watching Jeopardy on TV and the question for the answer is: "What is a scarlet tanager?" Forrester quotes a James Lowell poem about a scarlet tanager "Thy duty, winged flame of sprig, is but to love and fly and sing," and explains to Jamal how the poem is about "the song of the tanager, a song of new seasons, new life." Indeed, the moral premise even on Jeopardy.

K. Street Courage. Later, as Jamal walks home, he demonstrates his comfort, if not courage, in an environment that others would run from. He shuns what would seem like the safer sidewalk and walks down the dark street's center, even as: a police cruiser (lights flashing) passes him closely checking him out, a car burns on the other side, and then it downpours. Jamal is aware of all this, but walks steadily on, offering no defense, or courtesy to any of the elements. This shot could be interpreted as Jamal's comfort in the Bronx neighborhood, but it also underscores his embrace of the moral premise by summing-up the bravery to confront unflinchingly that territory that robs mankind of hope.

L. Under the Outer Worlds. When Jamal and Claire spend an afternoon together at a museum, they have the courage to discuss the budding romance between them and the difficulties implied by their different backgrounds of class, culture and race. He also asks her about how she happened to go to Mailor, which only a few years ago was an all boys school. The conversation occurs under oversized models of the outer planets of the Solar System that hang from the glass ceiling. The scene again reinforces the dream of mankind to venture into the unknown in order to uncover our hope for the future.

M. Getting Out. On Forrester's birthday, Jamal persuades him to get out and go to a baseball game. But Forrester gets lost in the crowds and cowards in a corner of the stadium's belly. They leave, and Jamal, with the pull of his brother, takes Forrester to the pitcher's mound of old Yankee stadium in the Bronx. The evening is the beginning of Forrester's finding himself and leaving the confines of his self-imposed prison. He finally shares with Jamal the ghosts that have kept him holed up during the past years, and in so doing finds hope for the future. Jamal quotes him his own words,
The rest of those who have gone before us, cannot steady the unrest of those to follow.
In other words, to find peace, to find ourselves, we must each summon our own courage to enter the unknown future.

N. The Challenge of Integrity. Jamal is accused of plagiarism on an essay entered in the school's writing contest' he has quoted Forrester but doesn't cite him. It is the essay that begins with Forrester's title and first paragraph of "A Season of Faith's Perfection." Not knowing that the article was previously published, Jamal doesn't know he could cite the article from the public record, but rather fears that to reveal his source would force him to break his promise to Forrester. When Jamal confronts Forrester about the problem of possibly being kicked out of school and they discuss the bitter prejudice that Crawford exhibits toward Jamal, Forrester offers an explanation:
FORRESTER: Do you know what people are most afraid of?

JAMAL: What?

FORRESTER: What they don't understand. And when we don't understand we turn to our assumptions.
In other words, our fear comes from ignorance of the unknown, and our inability to enter the unknown with courage.

O. Writing From Your Heart. Another important scene that reinforces the moral premise is the city championship basketball championship at Madison Square Garden. The game comes down to two foul shots that Jamal is given to shoot, with time already run out. If he makes them both, they win. But Jamal has just been offered an illicit settlement in the supposed plagiarism scandal. As he stands at the free-throw line, he realizes that he will be defined by what happens here, not only to the school and Crawford who looks on, but by himself. He doesn't want to graduate from Crawford and be pushed through the academic system simply because he's a jock. He wants to be acknowledged for all that he is. He faces a dilemma but makes the decision that requires the most courage of his young life. It's been clearly shown that Jamal never misses a free throw, and under pressure can shoot 50 consecutive. But on this night, he will define his life for the future. He misses both shots.

This is a huge barrier that takes an immense amount of courage. He is entering unknown territory, but he is determined not to be restrained from his dream as the opening rap foreshadows like a Greek chorus. He will claim his dream to be a writer, and a man of integrity. Making those two shots, would define him as a jock from the Bronx who cheated his way through school and probably cheated on his essay. Jamal faces Forrester's earlier challenge of "writing for himself" and not to write for others. Forrester's exile was in part because he let the opinion of others define him. Jamal was going to be the defining process, not the crooked board of directors who just wanted the school to win basketball games.

That night, after the game, he writes Forrester a letter at the New York public library. Forrester cleans his windows — it's time to see more clearly, even at night. Forrester seemingly knows that Jamal has chosen to define his life for himself and not for others. Finishing the windows, Forrester pumps up the flat tire on his bicycle and rides freely, happily, and without fear through the Bronx streets.

Jamal's ultimate act of self-honesty and integrity, free both him to define what others will say about him, even as it frees Forrester.

P. Forrester's Return. With his new freedom from fear, Forrester has the courage to go to Mailor and defend Jamal during the writing contest. With a surprise visit that is honored by Crawford, Forrester reads a paper that Jamal has written, although Crawford doesn't know it at the time and praises Forrester for what he assumes are the old writer's words. The essay is about both Forrester and Jamal and their fears. What we hear of it is this:
"Losing family obligates us to find our family. Not always the family that is our blood, but the family that can become our blood. And should we have the wisdom that would open our door to this new family, we will find that the wishes we once had for the father, who once guided us..."

The only thing left to say will be 'I wish I had seen this, or I wish I had done that or I wish...

Q. A Peaceful End. At the end of the movie, Jamal, three years later, learns that Forrester has died of cancer in Scotland. In a letter to Jamal, Forrester makes it clear that had it not been for their friendship, Forrester's dreams of returning to Scotland would not have been fulfilled. Jamal gave Forrester the courage to make the decision to end his exile from society and go home before it was too late.

There are other elements in the movie that reinforce the moral premise for each of the main characters, including Professor's Crawford's embrace of the vice side of the moral premise. But, we'll save that for another time, or your own essay. Or, perhaps, someone else would like to write that for posting here. Anyone?

UPDATE 4.25.2015 - MORE ON THE OPENING RAP

Jimmy Bobbitt
Here is a link to the opening rap lyrics and a collection of very good discussion questions.
OPENING RAP LYRICS AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
My thanks to the Highline Schools literature teacher for compiling this PDF. It's very useful. (Who are you?)

A reader asked for an interpretation of the rap. I hint at it earlier when I write:
The opening rap is about how the force of will allows us to make decisions which allow us to achieve our dreams, even in the face of an establishment that wants to hold us back. (section A)
That is true of both Jamal and Forrester. And,...
Jamal AND Forrester are entering unknown territory. Jamal, particularly, is determined not to be restrained from his dream as the opening rap foreshadows like a Greek chorus. (section O second paragraph)
To see the "clarity" of the rap, which is ladened with poetic slang and metaphors, read it over, a-loud several times....slowly. As you do, look for clauses and juxtapositions that:

A. Pertain to Jamal's dream of breaking out of the destructive prejudices he's grown up with against education as if it was only a white man's sport. The very first line tells you this: "Yo, nothin' can keep me detained."  Also: "feast when I release the beast within," and "the reapers twin."

B. Remind one of the end they will received if they persistent in this prejudice against education and mentors (of any race or class) that can help us fully actualize our calling. The last line of the first stanza depicts that: "you should bear witness to the end of your existence." There are a number of metaphors that point to a tragic end to those that persist against an education than can elevate: e.g. "body outliner," "red juice," and "up the block."

The style of the rap does seem to waft between the two voices that battle within Jamal (and Forrester), one that tells them to escape the hopelessness of their situation, and the other voice that tells them they can't escape... that defeat is inevitable. A better understanding of the slang, which I don't have, would explain this. Ultimately, however, poetry purpose is to give pause to reflection, not explain things to perfection.

Do you want to know more about how movies like Finding Forrester connect with audiences? You can get more out of the movies you watch if you understand how good stories are constructed. The Moral Premise: Harnessing Virtue and Vice for Box Office Success is a book that will explain it to you, and make watching movies more enjoyable. Order it at the link above and the author of the book and this blog will be happy to autograph it for you.

DVD
VOD