All Good Stories Contain a Mystery

We've all heard the story about how Sir Isaac Newton supposedly discovered gravity by virtue of a falling apple.

Recently I finished David Berlinski's wonderful little book Newton's Gift: How Sir Isaac Newton Unlocked the System of the World.

I like to read physical books because I like to write in the margins.  On page 3, I wrote this at the top of the page: 

Berlinski quotes Newton's biographer, William Stukeley, who in 1662 after dinner with Newton, retired with Newton to the garden and drank tea under the shade of some apple trees. Berlinski quotes Stukeley:

Amidst other discourse, he told me he was in the same situation [sitting in the garden under the shade of the apple trees] when the notion of gravitation came into his mind. It  was occasioned by the fall of an apple as he sat in a contemplative mood. Why should that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground, thought he to himself. Why should it not go sideways or upwards, but constantly to the earth's center?

Berlinski then writes:

I have always understood the apple to have fallen on Newton's head with an invigorating boink; but I may have been misinformed. Stukeley clearly has Newton looking at the apple as it fell; but the charming thing about the story...is that like all good stories, it seems to contain a mystery at the core of its narrative marrow, the falling apple followed by a thought-inducing boink still retaining all of its old and troubling suggestiveness. An apple? Falling? Yes, but why downward? 

Why did the apple fall down and not sideways or up? Such a question is the mystery at the core of all good narratives. It's the story question. In Newton's case the answer changed the world of science, mathematics, philosophy, and industry.

---

The answer to the mystery at the core of your story must also change the world...not just for your protagonist, who has changed most dramatically, but also for your audience.

Can a farm boy from a desolate planet save the galactic rebels from an evil empire?

How can a young man save his mermaid girlfriend from the murderous government?

Can a devoutly religious, conscientious objector serve in Hitler's army?

Can a spider save a pig from slaughter?

Of course, these are all known too as story hooks...and the answer should be enlightening as well as ironic and intriguing. 

This reminds me of Gerry Mooney's Gravity poster, which I've cited before. 

Just as Isaac Newton's Law of Gravity cannot be ignored without negative consequences, so a storyteller cannot ignore the law of an intriguing and ironic story hook with a reasonable answer that changes the world of the protagonist and audience. 

Finally, as an apple passes before us, Newton's gravitational FORCE that causes two material objects to attract each other, and which keeps the moon in orbit about the earth, and the earth in orbit about the sun, et al...that FORCE, which is an intrinsic characteristic of all material objects, is not material itself. As Berlinski reminds us, 

Newtonian forces cannot be grasped at all. They act invisibly; they act at a distance; and they act at once. It is only their trace in matter than can be detected...we cannot directly observe or measure the force that controls them. That remains a real but inaccessible feature of the world.

The same is true of the emotional forces (moral values) in a story that motivate people (your characters) to say and act as they must do to create drama. Characters do not really battle against other human beings or even against the physical forces of nature. Oh, they do in an explicit way, but what causes them to move and act are not material forces, but the forces of moral values that cannot be grasped at all. Moral values act invisibly; they act at a distance; and they act at once. It is only their trace in matter (the lives of others, for instance) that can be detected. That remains a real feature of the world of narratives, and is what makes stories connect with audiences. 

Mystery, Muse, and Motivation

 "The mark of a true writer with inspiration from God...voices in your head...visions in your mind." 

That's what Pam, my wife, wrote to a screenwriter friend of ours in Los Angeles who thought she had "lost it." The screenwriter had written to us: "I'm back!" after having difficult over the last few months "feeling" her characters' emotions, or "hearing" their conversations. "I wasn't able to 'watch' the film," she explained.

But she was back and being productive again. 

As a writer of narrative fiction you definitely have the need to psychologically engage with your characters and the story’s diegesis (the created world of your story) before you begin to write. How one gets to that point I suppose is a mystery. You may call it inspiration or intrigue. Perhaps it's a personal tragedy, or a deep unrest about a value that you see is out of balance with society that you want to change. That of course gets back to the conflict of values and the moral premise concept. It involves a desire that is rooted in your moral values to communicate some ideal that grows out of a disturbing personal experience.

Such an emotion gives you the power and imagination to write. The mechanics of ow that happens may be a total mystery to you, that is you can't always recreate the motivation at will. Some writers, however, do understand the source of their motivation and are able to channel it into a work. Others are motivated for reasons they cannot articulate, but nonetheless get to work. 

Maya Hawke as Flannery O'Connor in
"Wildcat" directed by her father, Ethan.
I loved the movie, which is as intriguing as narrative
cinema as Flannery's stories of the South. 

An example comes to mind. I am reading the Complete Short Stories of Flannery O’Connor right now. I’m about halfway through the thick book. Twice I have read her collection of essays on writing titled Mystery and Manners (M&M). There, she is explicit about her motivation, which is definitely a mystery to her.  Unlike most writers, she told her frustrated publishers, “I cannot outline a story. I do not outline. I do not know what’s going to happen until I write it.” Consequently, her stories are often a mystery in themselves. I usually must read several pages of her short stories before I understand what's going on. Some of the stories begin in such an obtuse way you can almost see how the plot is unclear even in Flannery's mind and how it slowly develops and becomes concrete...to the writer. Her stories rarely contain a logical through-line or conventional plot. Thus, some of her stories feel inefficient. Other times they are deeply intriguing. As depicted in the movie Wildcat by daughter and father (Maya and Ethan Hawke), it seems obvious that Flannery would see a strange person (a one-armed man) and be inspired to write a story based on her imagination of such an different person who lived in the south in the 1920s, 30s, or 40s. She had a creative affinity to people she labeled "freaks," no doubt because "To the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind you draw large startling figures." (M&M) In M&M she writes that to Northerners such stories were "grotesque," but to Southerns they were simply "realistic."  Thus, her inspiration came from observation of real life that intrigued her, which then caused her to research, investigate and write something that satisfied her gothic, Catholic, Southern muse. 

Of course, the whole concept of a muse is mysterious, isn’t it? Going back to my book, The Moral Premise, I believe a writer's muse is ultimately motivated out of an imbalance between our personal moral values and what we see around us that does not reflect what we think is important and we want to change it and we believe that writing a story is the best way to communicate our ideal. I am sure that is not true of every writer. 

There's a YouTube clip of George Carlin talking about Native American Indians. Of course it’s funny. But the comedic tenor of the clip is rooted in the contradictions he's noticed between the words we use and historical reality. That contradiction comes out of his values of wanting to tell the truth.  Telling the truth, of course is related to goodness and beauty. And so the historic trilogy of goodness, truth, and beauty are ultimately the motivations a writer uses to do their work. 

OK that’s enough. I need to get out of bed and get to work. 

Elements of Valid Propositions and Arguments

This post was motivated by recent experiences in the comment threads of social media on Instagram. While this blog is mostly about long-form narratives in movies, plays or novels, social media posts and their related comments apply.

Why?

Because, all human communication is some form of storytelling, which I argue in The Moral Premise is intended to communicate moral values from one generation to the next.

For me, this means all communication enters into the arena of persuasion ... and necessarily involves the presentation of propositional statements (or premises). Such premises are often in the form of opinions intended to support or oppose a conclusion, which ultimately is a moral value or moral premise. 

In this post, I want to argue that such propositional statements or premises (in the form of opinions) will be more persuasive if they are supported by established facts, substantiated evidences, and logical reasons. 

Opinions without the support of established facts, substantiated evidences, and logical reasons are useless fodder ... in my opinion,

Was that opinion useless fodder? Let me provide some "reasons" that I hope you'll accept. 

 ---------------

Social Media comment threads (e.g. Instagram, Twitter, or Facebook) are the worse place to conduct meaningful discussions, especially when the original post articulates an idea that is seemingly uninformed and unsubstantiated. 

Here are some helpful suggestions for for making such territory less "worse" as long as the  platform allows more than 260 characters, which eliminates X. 

1. Restate the sentence or idea posted earlier to which you are replying.  Assume that whoever reads your reply or comment did not see what came before. Your reply should stand alone since it's not likely to follow chronologically on the thread.

2. Always substantiate your opinions with reference citations.  Let us know the origin of your idea or opinion. Help us validate (or invalidate) your comment by providing the facts, evidences, or reasons for your comment.

3. Do the research (e.g. work) to ensure your citations reach back to their original source, and are not just the opinion of another person later in time. For example, when arguing about the practices of a historical institution in the first century, such as the Catholic Church, find and cite the institution's charter from that time or an explanation of the practice or belief from one of the founders, or someone who lived at the time such as an Early Church Father (plenty of their writings are on-line).  Quoting or citing an original source document from 70 A.D. or 389 A.D., is better than citing an author or theologian in the 19th or 20th century. 

4. Use your real name, not an obscure label. This will enhance your credibility and help dismiss the idea that you're a bot from a Korean social media farm that exists for the sole purpose of gaining likes or followers. Be authentic. 

The following four critical points are drawn from T. Edward Damer's books (multiple editions)  Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 4th Edition. This book played a critical role in my doctoral research and my subsequent Hollywood story-structure book The Moral Premise: Harnessing Virtue and Vice for Box Office Success which this blog is about. 

Damer's Good Argument Four Criteria

5. THE RELEVANCE PRINCIPLE. The premise, data, or information you propose in support of your conclusion must be directly and clearly related to the issue at hand. 

6. THE ACCEPTABILITY PRINCIPLE. The premise, data, or information you propose should attempt to use reasons that are mutually acceptable to your opposition. 

7. THE SUFFICIENCY PRINCIPLE. The premise, data, or information you propose in support of your conclusion should attempt to provide reasons that are sufficient in number, kind, and weight to support the acceptance of your conclusion. 

8. THE REBUTTAL PRINCIPLE. Your argument should attempt to  provide an effective rebuttal to the strongest and most serious challenges from the opposing side. 

In Conclusion:

Doing all of this will be difficult if not impossible this side of a book-long treatment. But all valid attempts to follow these suggestions, even in social media com boxes, will improve each  of us and society as a whole to think reasonably and reject unfounded ideologies 

Ethan and Maya Hawke - Movies for Dads and Daughters

 I'm looking forward to Ethan and Maya Hawke's movie about Flannery  O'Connor, WILDCAT. Letterbox asked them to interview each other and talk about the movies they watched together as Maya grew up, and what they liked and learned from them. The episode is only 21 minutes long (it's been tightly edited) and is immensely watchable. I liked it very much. Their excitement and learning from movies is palatable.  (LINK BELOW)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vH0YshPRRA

Also, with a deep, deep dive into the meaning behind the movie WILDCAT here is a wonderful, and long, interview with Bishop Barron...Understanding Flannery. Link below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5syAnrbYC0

ALIENS IN THE ATTIC: Diluted Hero

ALIENS IN THE ATTIC (2009) PG

I would appreciate your telling me of typos or confusing paragraphs. 

A group of kids must protect their vacation home and the world from invading aliens.

Director: John Schultz
Writers: Mark Burton and Adam Goldberg
Producer: Barry Josephson

Budget: $45M
Gross US: $25M
Gross WW: $57M

STARRING
Carter Jenkins (Tom)
Austin Butler (Jake)
Ashley Tisdale (Bethany)
Ashley Boettcher (Hannah)
Doris Roberts (Nana)
Robert Hoffman (Ricky)
Kevin Nealon (Stuart)

A filmmaker friend asked my opinion of Aliens in the Attic (AITA), so Pam and I watched, then I watched it again taking notes and timings.  

First Impressions

AITA was an expensive effort at creating a fun family fare...or flick...a sci-fi comedy that no doubt took inspiration from Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Signs, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and a host of alien invasion stories. 

I was most amazed at the editing, the shot coverage, the propping and sets. 

Bethany and Hanna hid from Dad, but not really

Thematically, AITA focuses on the importance of family, authority, and teamwork. The film attempted at digs at people who were addicted to computers, game boys, and other electronic devices, but it failed.  The father, Stuart Pearson, wanted to re-establish relationships with his children because computers et al got in the way. So he forces them on a family to leave Illinois for a vacation to Michigan (the movie was shot in New Zealand) to get away from all the electronic garbage. But irony gets in the way. It was his children's and nephew's skills at game controllers that saved his family and the world from invading space aliens. (That is not a spoiler.)

Robert Hoffman, Bethany's egocentric boyfriend was goof-ball amazing—a new Jim Carrey, I suppose. 

But I was at a loss to find a consistently applied moral premise that kept the story together about one thing. 

Why AITA Failed to Connect?

This post goes along with my other critiques of Failed B.O. Movies although it has a lot going for it—budget, interesting characters, good acting (for a comedy), direction, photography, and digital effects and computer animation matched with live action.  But here is the short list of failures that audiences require if word of mouth marketing is to succeed:

L-R: Tom, Art, Lee, Hannah, Jake, Bethany

1. There is no central protagonist or hero with whom the audience can emotionally invest, although the movie begins from Tom's POV and we are told in dialogue that Tom is the team's leader. Rather the group of kids are promoted as multiple protagonists. And yet they don't transform as protagonists should.

2. But Tom's nature is mostly passive. His goal is often distracted, and Jake takes up the cause. In fact, Jake at times tells Tom what to do. 

3. We are told through action and dialogue that Tom is somewhat of a genius and a mathlete. Early on Tom hacks his school's computer to change his grades, but Tom does not use his skills at math (i.e. higher intelligence) to defeat the aliens. 

4. The actions that prevent the invasion mostly do not originate from Tom (the "brainic,") but come from his proactive cousin Jake, his much younger cousins, twins Art and Lee who master game controllers, his younger sister Hannah who's good at relationships with strangers, and at the very end by the rookie alien (Sparks) who is the one who chases off the invading spaceships. Thus, any emotional investment we make in Tom is diluted by other cast members who often do the heavy lifting and initiate the reversals. The story thirsts for a MacGyver who we can root for.

5. Tom's transformation is sudden at at the very end. From the middle's Moment of Grace we should see Tom struggle with obstructions that slowly transform his attitude, and thus allow him to slowly achieve the goal.

Alien controls Ricky's mind and body

6. The goal is a negative goal...to prevent the aliens from invading the earth. The problem with negative goals is legendary—they are fulfilled at the beginning of the movie, thus movie is over. In the case of AITA, the aliens NEVER invade earth. A positive goal would be to overturn the alien occupation of earth. With a positive goal the audience can see the progress and cheer at every milestone toward the end. But with a negative goal, the audience cannot cheer at any point for there are no milestones as there are clearly evident with positive goals. 

7. The structural staging and turning points are weak (7-14). AITA begins well with a well developed and concise LIFE BEFORE. The INCITING INCIDENT (ideally at 12.5%) is at 17% when the aliens land on the roof of the house and the TV goes "haywire." Shortly there after Tom REJECTS THE JOURNEY to repair the TV dish or defend his siblings or parents from the aliens, whom he meets on the roof. But at 31% into the story, the cross over into Act 2, Tom reasons that the non-adult children (Tom, Jake, Art, Lee, and Hannah) are "the only option, although it is the twins who makes the point that the mind control darts don't work on kids, and it's Jake that concludes: "But we can still fight back."  

8. There may be a Moment of Grace. After that, however, there is not clear Moment of Grace for Tom where he has a revealing awareness of what they're battling (a value that changes their efforts) that is different than what they already know. Although as a gang, Hannah discovers at 54% that Sparks is friendly and that changes her attitude, and eventually everyone else's, and it is Sparks that chases of the invasion. This definitely acts as a MOG but not for the POV character, Tom.

9. There is a weak Act 2 Climax (Near Death or Faux Ending). No one actually is physically near death, but after Nana and Ricky fight and destroy the hall, Stu arrives and reprimands Tom and the kids for destroying the house and sends them upstairs. It's that  that Tom says, "I'm sorry, guys. It's over...an entire fleet of those guys are about to invade." 

Nana Zombie battles with Ricky Zombie

10. The Dark Night of the Soul is all too sort as Hannah, Art, Lee (and Bethany, now) encourage Tom to still be their leader. He agrees with a zoom into his face and a music cue, which establishes a Resurrection Beat. But it's weak because it doesn't come with any NEW revelation that gives them new hope. And it follows with Tom venturing into the basement with Spark's potato gun (not the potato gun that Tom made, but one made by someone smarter, an adolescent alien. No cheers for Tom. )

11. The Final Incident is strong. It's exactly where it should be at 87.5% when the normally small aliens are able to transform into gigantic aliens. 

12. Preparations for the Final Battle and the Final Hand to Hand Combat well occupy the last 12.5% of the movie, except the story and action only partially focuses on Tom. Clearly it was the writers' intent to create an ensemble protagonist, which dilutes our emotional connection to a single personality. 

13. The Act 3 Climax is anything but a climax although it is perfectly situated at 95%. The spaceship fleet arrives and descends to earth. It is distant and just a collection of pretty white lights. The hand-to-hand combat that we might expect is conducted by these distant lights and Spark's small squeaky voice "Retreat. Retreat. The machine is destroyed. We have been outsmarted by the humans." 

14. The Denouement is also perfectly positioned at 97.5% when the adults are clueless about the battle in the backyard and think all the lights in the sky was the meteor shower, and finally Ricky makes a fool of himself at Annie's house, because Tom and Bethany control him from the scrubs. Finally the credits begin with a show reel of Robert Hoffman

15. Deus Ex Machina a la Game Controller.  There was a bit of Deus Ex Machina with the kids manipulating people with the game controllers. As opposed to using human ingenuity. Note the game controllers the kids used were from the aliens, not humans. Thus, the story used electronic gadgetry that was, more improbable than possible. Socrates speaks eloquently about how in stories a probable impossibility is better than an improbable possibility. Of course, there's a fine line between those two options. It's up to the writer's craft to show the depth, cleverness and intelligence of the human species. I thought the movie was missing a great deal of human potential, and while funny at times, it’s improbable that electronic gadgetry is going to save the world. It’s more likely that sacrificial human endeavors using gifts, intuition and values that are inbred in the human DNA is going to save the day. So the game controllers end up being the deus ex machina that drops down out of the sky improbably to save the day. 

AITA's reference to M. Night Shyamala’s  movie Signs and the aliens' weakness in that story of water,  was a weak attempt at giving AITA some gravitas. The gravity of water in Signs is the whole idea of "Baptism that saves us" from damnation (1 Peter 3:21)...aliens of a fourth kind. The human element involved in Signs is the Bo's (Abigail Breslin) intuition of putting water glasses around the house because she has a premonition that water is important. [Side Note: the similarity of Bo (Abigail Breslin) in Signs to Hanna (Ashley Boettcher) in AITA, and how Bo discovers the salvation of water, and Hanna discovers the salvation found in her friendship with Sparks.] 

Of course, Signs is clearly a faith story because Rev. Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) is struggling with a loss of faith. The genesis of Hess's character and the water stems from Shyamalanem’s  Catholic education as a child,  although I am sure he did it unconsciously as few of his other stories make any theological sense. I assert that the simple element of water in a glass (no technology) is more human than a game controller.  It might have helped if Tom were to  reprogram the game controllers (with his math and technology skills) so that his siblings and cousins could operate them to control the aliens, and putting Tom and his human DNA at the behest of the story’s resolution. 

16. No clear oversight of a true and consistently applied Moral Premise.  The Moral Premise of a story is a two-sided statement that explains what the story is about at a motivational level. It assumes that all external, physical action is motivated by internal, moral values. That is, the value motivations of the antagonist and protagonist conflict and create the battle. Often the antagonist's values remain the same or turn to a darker vice, but such vices force the protagonist to change values, and seek something better by the end. In AITA the aliens do not change, except for Spark, but the persistence of the humans, and transformation of Sparks (to see the humans as nice), saves the family and the planet. Thus, Sparks transforms, as does Hannah and the others toward Sparks. But there is no transformation of Tom which aids him (or the others) in defeating the aliens. 

Jake and Tom consider their options
with the potato gun.

Oft times in stories, it's the vice the protagonist embraces at the very beginning of the story, that opens the door for the antagonist to attack at the Inciting Incident.  There's no clear indication that the aliens come as a result of Tom's lame attitude about the vacation. Although, a slightly different script might have portrayed the aliens as a personification of Tom's "lame" attitude, and thus the aliens became a metaphor for changing Tom's attitude. That is the epitome of a vice can repulse a protagonist form the vice toward a more virtuous attitude.  But that is not what happens in AITA. 

Instead, the need for the audience to see Tom's redemption ends up as...

17. Gaslighting the Audience

Another way of looking for the Moral Premise is to ask more specifically, "What could be the virtue and vice conflict in AITA?" and how might they be articulated in a moral premise statement? Or, what transformation is evident in the characters from vice to virtue? There are transformations. 

At the very end Tom tells his father, Stuart, that Father Knows Best ("Dad, let me save you the lecture. You were right and I as wrong," and Tom decides to enjoy fishing with the family. But there is no slow, observable, learning or transformation. Tom's change is sudden with the fixing of the tangled fishing reel (a repeated metaphor motif of the family's situation). 

And there's no logical connection between his father's desire to get Tom away from technology, when in fact it was technology that saved the family and the world. So Stu could not have been right. Stu was in fact wrong. It was the kids' knowledge of technology (and game controllers) that saved the family. By telling Stu he was right, Tom sanitizes the plot, lies to the audience, and patronizes the "family" movie critics. 

Subliminally, audiences are not gullible enough to such a gas pipe (gas lighting, as Jakes makes such the passing reference about Ricky "What a gas pipe.") 

Thus, Tom's sudden transformation at the end rings hollow, and audiences "feel" a cognitive dissonance. It's just not true. Based on the story alone, not reality or natural law, Dad was wrong about technology, Ricky, fixing Ricky's car, the relationship between Ricky and  Bethany, the thermostat, and Tom's guilt at wrecking the hallway. There are times was Stuart and his wife Nina were very aware of what the kids were up to, and were right, but they were ever clueless about the aliens and the battle for what was right.

Based on the first few minutes of the movie, the Moral Premise could have been:

Human technology destroys family relationships; but sanitized human interaction heals relationships.

But that is not what the movie proves. Instead AITA suggests the truth (a false truth) is this:

Human technology destroys family relationships; but alien technology saves it

...or something like that. 

Another theme that might resonate as false with the audience is:

Advanced technology can save the world; but gaslighting can save the family.

You see, at the end, Tom has become like Ricky...the bad boy. Tom is gaslighting his Dad, patronizing Stuart, telling him that Father knows best, when the audience knows just the opposite it true. But the attitude, tone, lighting, music, all other aspects of the Father-Son talk on the steps, give evidence that the filmmakers are gaslighting the audience by sanitizing the ending, and telling a lie.

That's just another reason why AITA failed at the BO.

 

 

POV: An Emotional Suture in Screenplays and Novels

(found on the web)

The most successful stories create deep emotional empathy between readers (or audiences) and the story's characters. A critical skill for writers, therefore, is making and maintaining that emotional connection. One important technique for accomplishing this connection is the clear and consistent use of  POV (Point of View). 

Unfortunately, I continue to see published writing that ignores or incorrectly uses POV. Such misuse leads to cognitive dissonance (which takes the reader out of the story long enough to figure out what the writer intended).

Properly used POV creates a "suture" between the audience and the characters. In medical practice a suture is the stitching together of an open wound that allows separated flesh to fuse and grow back together, hopefully without a scar.  "Suture" therefore, is a good metaphor for the use of POV in narratives as the writer stitches the reader emotionally into the story without leaving a scar.

IN SCREENWRITING a proper POV technique requires three shots.

1. A closeup of the POV character who looks, stares, or glares off screen in wonder, disgust or shock. (CUT TO)

2. What the POV character sees from their perspective, as the character's eyes are replaced by the camera's lens. (CUT TO)

3. Return to the POV character who emotionally and physically reacts to what is seen.

Shots 1 & 3 visually communicate the character's emotion (the effect), which is explained by shot 2 (the cause). 

You've seen this sequence is every film you've watched. BUT what is often missed in the scripts I see is how the writer portrays the sequence. Too often a script will skips shots 1 &  for the sake of supposed efficiency, e.g. "Doug sees Mary wink at Jake and becomes jealous."  Doing this robs the reader of emotional connection with Doug and his wonder, disgust, or shock.  It also confuses the reader as to who is jealous, Doug, Mary or Jake? 

IN PROSE (e.g. novel) establishing the POV character is a bit more involved, but the same three "shots" or lines of text, are necessary if we are to connect with the intended character.  For example, in the following three paragraphs everything is experienced from Peter's perspective (i.e. POV):

1. Peter, hearing Melody's scream, entered the kitchen and was greeted by his irate wife and a pile of chaos on the floor. His heart fell and his knees shook.

2. Stacey, their three-year old daughter sat on the floor in a pool of chocolate syrup she had squeezed from a bottle she held upside down, high over her head. Her blonde hair, face, and romper drooled with the sweet goo. She smiled with pleasure.

3. Peter took a deep breath and stepped carefully backwards, his flailing hands groping for the door handle to the wet mop closet.

Note:  We use 3 paragraphs because each paragraph directs our attention to a different subject in a location different than the one before. Putting these in one paragraph suggests our view is in the same direction for each. But our view changes, thus three paragraphs works better than one, and the white space breaks up the page for easier reading. (Do I follow this rule? Ah...well...not when I'm trying to cut down on the page count.)

Often, however, what I see in prose is this, in one paragraph:

"Come see this mess. Right now!" Stacey, very pleased with herself, was on the kitchen floor in a pool of chocolate syrup. It tasted sweet and yummy. Very disappointed he shook in anger and grabbed a mop.

Now this paragraph is much more efficient. But it involves three points of view and not a little confusion:

"Peter! Come see this mess. Right now!" is someone's POV but we're not sure who. In context we can assume it's Melody, Peter's wife, if Melody was in the kitchen moments before.

Stacey, feeling pleased with herself... it tasted sweet and yummy..." is Stacey's POV. It's telling us what's inside Stacey's head.  

 Very disappointed, he shook in anger and grabbed a mop...is Peter's POV or Universal POV.

This causes the reader, in one short paragraph, to jump between three perspectives and thus dilutes any emotional empathy the reader might have for any one of the three. 

Jumping POVs can also happen across three paragraphs. For example here is an abbreviated and edited cold opening for a book I was recently asked to review:

I will never forget when the father and his young son arrived at the clinic. Both were battered and bloody. The boy's eyes were swollen nearly shut and he had a chest wound from which fluid pumped with every breath he took. 

Nearly dead, Muhammed looked up at the strange medic sticking a tube into his chest. He feared for his life because the medic was white and he had been taught that white people hated him and wanted to kill the children in his tribe.

When not wearing scrubs the medic was a soldier in the U.S. Army who had been warned to avoid contact with the locals.

These abbreviated paragraphs force the reader to disconnect and jump emotionally from the medic's POV, to Muhammed's POV, to a universal POV. Each jump dilutes if not disconnects emotional involvement with the characters, and lessens the impact of the story.

It would be better to write those three paragraphs from one POV and build up the emotional connection.

I will never forget when the father and his young son arrived at the clinic. Both were battered and bloody. The boy was nearly dead. He had a chest wound from which fluid pumped with every breath he took. As I inserted the chest tube into the boy's wound and began pumping fluid from his pleural cavity, he looked up at me from swollen eyes with fear and not a little trembling. I had heard that his tribe had been taught that white people, like me, wanted to kill their children. How sad. I wanted so badly to keep this child and his father alive. What would he think, I wondered, if he discovered I was a soldier in the U.S. Army?

One final hint about POV writing.

In all storytelling I think it's best to write each scene from ONLY one POV. When you change scenes you can change the POVs perhaps to the most ironic and unpredictable character in that scene. And when you do change scenes and POV, the VERY FIRST IMAGE or WORDS should be the IMAGE or NAME of the character that is going to tell the story of that scene—the POV character, thus explicitly shifting the reader's perspective.  Then, stick with that character's POV until the scene ends. 

There is no short cut to clear and consistent communication. 

I follow these rules in all my writing (or so I claim) and have received consistent and congratulatory feedback particularly for my use of POV. It allows readers to get deeply into my characters and understand their motivations and souls. In my historical fiction epic (of a true story) WIZARD CLIP HAUNTING, there are 7 Parts, 54 chapters, and multiple scenes in each chapter. This gave me tremendous flexibility to enter the heads of both heroes and villains (one scene-at-a-time), and explore the motivations for their despicable and noble actions. The results were what I had hoped: 

"...From the very beginning the characters sprung to life. I laughed, celebrated and mourned with the characters. I was there with them, and I cried..."  —Kathy M.

"...The character development is excellent..." — Betty  S. 

"...wonderful character development and page turning plot..." — Hope S.

"...skillful portrayals of the cast of characters whom he brings to life - and for some - to death..." Mike M.

You get the point. POV works, but it takes some work.

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi's U.K. Banquet - Subtext for Desert

I love subtext in dialogue. I discuss it at length in Lesson 12 of my on-line Storycraft Training series. But in today's news we have a prime example that is worth honoring. 

Earlier today DailyMail.com posted a news story about Iranian president Ebrahim Raisis's helicopter crashing, and the speculation that he might have died. (As I write this there's no confirmation, but that is besides the point.)

The story tells us that it was Raisis who ordered the massive drone and rocket barrage on Israel last month, which did little damage, but was likened to kicking a sleeping tiger.  

Evidently there is some animosity in the UK toward Iran...my point is not to delve into that, but into the subtext that exploded in the comments section, which over a period of a few hours went from 112 to 4,600. 

The comments, about Raisis's probably demise go like this. The subtext is some of the best I've ever read, and could, no...SHOULD be the dialogue in a GodFather IV script. 

From Surrey, UK (Thumbs UP: 871 - Thumbs DOWN: 57)

Thought I'd already had an amazing weekend walking in the sunshine - amazing countryside, nice pub lunch with golden pint of cider. But this just put the cherry on the cake.

From An Island off the coast, UK (Thumbs UP 3,400  Thumbs DOWN 257)

Fresh Scottish salmon on the BBQ resting on a cedar board for supper, with new spuds dripping in butter with peas. A beer is already in hand with chilled Australian Red Wing with the fish. Yep, it's a good evening.

Response to above: Coventry, UK (UP 717 - DOWN 43)

I just had Scottish salmon with a crisp Caesar salad and cherry tomatoes...so I agree a good evening. 

From London, UK (UP 2,000 DOWN 115)

When I though the sunshine Sunday couldn't get any better, marvelous!

Kettering, UK (UP 429, DOWN 15)

I actually just had roast beef and lemon cheesecake  

UK Response to the above (UP 315, DOWN 15)

Oh, I love lemon cheesecake! A lovely day for it, too.

And so it went. Great subtext is worth memorializing.

stan 

Storytelling Tips 1 & 2 on Irony in Terrence Malik's A HIDDEN LIFE

 Hopefully, these two short videos speak for themselves. A HIDDEN LIFE is a cinematic masterpiece of storytelling. A significant factor in it's storytelling genius is the pervasive and deliberate use of visual and aural irony. These two videos only scratch the surface of this 3 hour motion picture. 

An earlier post on Malick is HERE.

Moral Premise Storycraft Podcast Ep. 2: Can Historical Fiction Be True?

Click Image to Access Audio Podcast on YouTube

Sound of Freedom vs. Indiana Jones: The Dial of Destiny

This blog post is a cry for reason in the pursuit of excellence and a plea to destroy the love of mediocrity. The Sound of Freedom movie, starring Jim Caviezel, is a good movie, and I'm glad to see the good it is doing to raise the salience of sex trafficking evil in the world. 

However, in terms of its story execution and its promotion I believe it could be better. For writing that, I've run amuck of "ideologically" driven Christians. For pointing out things that should've, could've been better I've been called a pedophile, and a MAP. I've been told to STFU, that I'm wrong, and that I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill. (BTW: mole hills can break your ankle if you step in one just right; underneath the small pile of dirt is an unseen hole.) The worse argument I've encounter, however, is this: "If it's doing some good, why criticize it?" 

Why indeed!?  Because the end never justifies the means. Because the movie could have done a lot more good. Why settle for affecting six-million minds when you could reach twelve-million? Is that the bane of the human condition? Settle for just good enough...let sleeping dogs lie...don't cause trouble...you can't do anything about it...just shake it off...critical thinking is too hard...go with your gut.

A. SANITIZED STORY

Last week, Pam and I screened SOUND OF FREEDOM (SOF) at the local multiplex. My lovely and sensitive wife loved it and wept. I though it was boring...very little action, some scenes were a stretch to believe. The initial luring of children, however, almost had me walking out of the theater. I was easily angered at the gall of the traffickers and the stupidity of the father. But horror of all horrors (in terms of filmmaking) the Act 3 climax (the final and necessary hand-to-hand fight between the hero and the villain) was sanitized by several SILENT and BLACK screens for seconds each...no doubt so as not to offend the easily offended Christian audience. I'm a Christian and I found the sanitized black offensive. Why? Because they hid the real sacrifice that Tim Ballard was making to save the girl, and it hid the real sacrifice called on all of us to stop the evil. It was too quick, too neat, too tidy, too bloodless, too neatly packaged to reveal the reality of the situation. Shame on the filmmakers. (cf: complaints about the violence in The Passion of the Christ)

B. EMOTIONAL IDENTIFICATION

SOF tells a true story (documented with actual footage at the end), but it isn't TAKEN (2008 - Pierre Morel, Director, starring Liam Neeson). Both films are rated PG-13. TAKEN went on to earn $226M worldwide over 20 weeks plus several sequels which together earned $928M plus two TV series. Let's see if SOF does that well. The big difference aside from the verisimilitude of the TAKEN story is that SOF is missing the key emotional connection of fatherhood. Bryan Mills (Neeson) is trying to rescue his daughter (whom he had been trying to reconnect with due to a divorce) from the sex traffickers. The SOF filmmakers try to make that connection but fail because Tim Ballard is trying to save children unrelated to him. Yes, it's "based" on a true story. But there is a serious lack in emotional connection with the audience; the audience will NOT emotionally identify with Ballard as they did with Mills.  

C. ALEJANDRO GÓMEZ MONTEVERDE

Part of the reason for an imperfect understanding of story structure is that SOF comes from Writer-Director Alejandro Gómez Monteverde  whose earlier two films, BELLA and LITTLE BOY (links are to my Moral Premise analysis) tried to appeal to Christian audiences, but bombed at the box office with poor story structure. Otherwise Alejandro is an excellent filmmaker. 

D. BOX OFFICE COMPARISONS

I also found the filmmakers (and Angel Studios) of Sound of Freedom dishonest in their ballyhooing of how they supposedly beat out Indian Jones: The Dial of Destiny (IJ:TDOD) and every other film on July 4.  On the Angel Studio website (the day I wrote this) they claim that SOF was Number 1 at the box office on July 4. While technically true for the domestic box office, it is misleading considering the overall performance worldwide of other films, like the Indy film. When the box office receipts are compared fairly, IJ:TDOD whipped SOF. Here are a few details.

Different Films Not Comparable

The factors are many: The release frames (day and date schedule) were not the same, the genres are not the same, the screen count is not the same, the star ratings are not the same, the balance between drama and humor are not the same, and the release countries were not the same. 

For starters: SOF opened domestically (2,634 screens) on Wednesday, July 4, 2023 with $14M in pre-sales to their core Christian audience. IJ: TDOD opened internationally (with 4,600 domestic screens) five days earlier on Friday, June 30, 2023 with $124M worldwide.  (the number of international screens is not tracked.)  

Domestic Comparisons:
IJ: TDOD first seven days = $94.7M.  SOF first seven days (domestic only) = $45.7.
IJ:TDOD per screen/per day average  = $2,941.   SOF per screen/per day average = $2,479.

International Comparisons: (2X domestic extrapolation)
IJ: TDOD first seven days = $189M.  SOF first seven days (domestic only) = $45.7.
IJ:TDOD per screen/per day average  = $5,880.   SOF per screen/per day average = $2,479.

July 4 (Opening Day Comparisons
Opening day for SOF, was Day 5 for IJ:TDOD
IJ:TDOD did $11M domestically with $22M projected Worldwide.
SOF: $14.2M domestically with no International.

As of Sunday, July 9 (totals)
IJ:TDOD WW: $249M
SOF WW (actually only domestic) $41M. 

Based on these reported numbers the SOM promoters have misrepresented the truth. In a very narrow way one can say that SOF beat IJ:TDOD.  But by passing on and repeating this narrow window of comparison, the general impression is that SOF is the better movie by far. 

But that is far from the truth. The SOF filmmakers should stop comparing the the two. When compared at face value the comparison puts SOF at a disadvantage. It's really not possible to compare them fairly because they are so different in many ways.  As Jordan Peterson would say, "Tell the Truth, at least don't lie." 

(All numbers from https://boxofficemojo.com the industry reporting standard, which are also reported on pro.IMDB.com)

E. DISNEY'S INVOLVEMENT

My take (without inside information) is that the SOF filmmakers also misrepresented Disney's involvement in the film's distribution, and some minor matters of fact which lessen the SOF promoters credibility. According to IMDB Pro, SOF was completed on Nov. 28, 2019, not 2013 as some have claimed. It's also been claimed that Disney shelved SOF because they are supporters of sex trafficking. I think this is a hubris conspiracy theory started by conservatives, if not Christians.  In 2018, 20th Century Fox picked up SOF for distribution, but when Disney purchased 20th Century Fox in 2019, SOF was put aside. Per Fox Business a Disney spokesperson told Newsweek that Disney had no knowledge of the film given the nature of the international acquisition pre-merger agreement. The SOF filmmakers reclaimed the film from Disney's shelf, and shopped the film around for three years before making a crowd finding deal with Angel Studios for distribution.  It is hard to know what or how the actual decisions were made at Disney about SOF. Disney has proved to be morally corrupt in a number of its decisions, both filmmaking and entertainment parks. I can say that IJ:TDOD is far from woke, and an excellent family film with clear emphasis on family and the fight between good and evil. 

F. SOCIAL DIALOGUE

Finally, a comment if Instagram thread participants on this topic come here to read this. I participate in an occasional social media thread, but it is very unsatisfying. I'm convinced that most commenters do not read the entire thread of a conversation but react subjectively and ideologically, making wild, irrational and irresponsible remarks to score a point or a like, like those I mentioned at the start of this post. Social media threads have contributed largely to the dissolution of culture and rational dialogue. It would be different if the social media engines would somehow thread together a conversation so it could be logically followed—a difficult task when multiple people are making comments simultaneously. I got wrapped up in an Instagram thread because of the issues I raise above.  The real corruption is society is the lack of intelligence.