NARNIA: THE DAWN TREADER - Without a clear hero and villain how successful will it be?

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER (2010)


Directed by: Michael Apted
Writers: Christoper Markus, Stephen McFeely et al based on the writings of C.S. Lewis

Georgie Henley - LUCY PEVENSIE
Skandar Keynes - EDMUND PEVENSIE
Ben Barnes - CASPIAN
Will Poulter - EUSTACE SCRUBB

Storyline: Lucy and Edmund Pevensie return to Narnia with their cousin Eustace where they meet up with Prince Caspian for a trip across the sea aboard the royal ship The Dawn Treader. Along the way they encounter dragons, dwarfs, monsters, and a band of lost warriors before reaching the edge of the world.

PREFACE

I must first say that I have a great fondness for the Narnia tales and C.S. Lewis in particular. We read the Chronicles to our children several times as the grew up. I have read much of Lewis' theological material and have always recommended it. Although he is at times deep and hard to understand in a single sitting. My favorite of his  tales is his Space Triology, which may someday find its way to the screen.

Before I get to the heart of the problem with the VDT story, here's a sidebar about the difference between allegory and myth, and why didactic presentations rarely work.  (See also: Why Story's Work, Part 1.)

ALLEGORY NOT MYTH
The Narnia movies have left me underwhelmed. And only when I saw the Voyage of the Dawn Treader (VDT) did it occur to me perhaps why. I had originally thought it was the presence of Aslan, showing up at the end almost like Billy Graham at the end of his association's movies, giving an invitation to become a Christian, in so many other words. At the end of VDT Aslan says to the kids on the beach who are lamenting having to return to the real world (Earth, I guess) and never seeing Aslan again. (quoting from the book, which is in the movie):

ASLAN: But you shall meet me, dear one.
EDMUND: Are--you there too, Sir?
ASLAN: I am. But there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there.

This ruined the movie for me.  It was Billy Graham. It was like plastering the "moral premise statement" on the screen in type: "Attention audience, this is what the movie is about... pay attention and go to church."  BTW: Bible devotees notice the Old Testament reference to Yahweh with Aslan's utterance, "I AM."

What occurred immediately in my mind is how J.R.R. Tolkien disliked Jack's stories because they were like poster allegories for Christianity and not myths (like Lord of the Rings) that could exist on their own merit. (see second comment below)

So, it is perhaps upon that foundation that I became aware of the real story structure problem that at least exists in VDT, and which explains why the movie is not doing what it could be doing had they fixed the structural issues. This all has to do with the audience connecting with the characters. Or, to utter it in other words: identifying with and becoming a part of the story symptomatically - imbued - being "in the scene" emotionally.

NARNIA VS. HOLLY & IVY

Stan Williams, Rumer Godden, Trudy Williams (1985, NY)

Narnia VDT will be popular, but mostly by virtue of the capital it has created as a series of children story books, which are far different than a mainstream movie. Indeed I am still working on a script based on famous Scottish author Rumer Godden's THE STORY OF HOLLY AND IVY (SOHI). Back in 1985 I owned the theatrical rights to the story for a year or so, met Rumer with my daughter Trudy (who was instrumental in getting Godden to pay attention to our petition), also took a meeting with Kermit Love (the puppet master of Sesame Street after which Kermit the Frog is named - that's Trudy with Kermit and his creation SNUGGLES  in his NY studio), and with Bill Wiitala and James Leach wrote a screenplay. We even got as far as pitching it to Disney.

Trudy with Kermit Love (d. 2008)

Trudy with the SNUGGLES.

A day after watching Narnia: VDT with my story students, I happened to be reviewing Kermit's notes on our then current SOHI screenplay, and juxtaposed his comments next to a couple of letters I had received from Mrs. Godden. Both had their opinion of what the movie version of SOHI should be in terms of characters. Ms. Godden was begging that the story be told straight ahead like a good children story without all the plotting so evident in movies. That was the "charm of children stories, they're not complex," she argued. But Kermit, being in the movie and television business for some time, saw it differently. His notes points out that SOHI has no over arching antagonist that prevents from Holly finding her "Grandmother's" home.  Yes, there is Abracadabra the Toy Store owl. But he only operates in the toy store, at night, and then only ineffectively -- i.e. small role. Kermit was right. And that is something that must be fixed if we're ever going to make a movie of SOHI. Kermit also points out that the main character is a little girl, the clear protagonist, but that there is not a leading starring role that can pre-load the project to attack financing.


BACK TO VDT
Kermit's concern over the the SOHI are similar to what I see is the problem with VDT, AT LEAST IN THE MOVIE VERSION.  But my prediction is that word of mouth promotion will be moderate. The reasons are here: (forgive me for not elaborating)

Edmund wants the power, but Caspian the better swordman.

PROTAGONST? There is no clear or single imperfect but striving protagonist that dominates the screen time, passion for the goal, or is a person we're deeply attracted to. And the stakes for not reaching the goal are uninspiring, if they are mentioned at all.  King Caspian wants to find the seven swords and the seven Lords, but it's never a do or die mission for him. Indeed Narnia is at peace and everything seems to be going fine. This voyage is a last campaign promise but with no clear urgency. Lucy and Edmund show up, but they're not sure, for some time, why they were brought back to Narnia, and they never have the goal that Caspian owns. Indeed what Lucy and Edmund's goal seems to be (from fade up and black) is to go to and live in Narnia. But while there, Lucy and Edmund are support players to Caspian who has to live with what happens. Lucy and Edmund do not have anything invested long term. They are there for a holiday, almost. Then there's Eustace. Now, Eustace has an arc (perhaps the only one)

Reepicheep and Eustace working together at last.

from being bratty and mean to being respectful and friendly. Eustace also has a clear Moment of Grace when his greed turns him into a dragon and he changes his attitude. But Eustace does nothing until 2/3 through the movie to endear us to him, he does not dominate the story, he makes no moral decision at critical turning points, and and he has nothing invested in achieving the end goal. He is the only one, however, that has a clear, passionate goal -- to go back home. But no one is driving the story, except the author. Caspian, Lucy, Reepiceep, Edmund, and Eustace are, in some regard, co-protagonists, but the classic structure of a story that engages an audience is missing. And then there is this...

Is this a book we should be reading?

ANTAGONIST? There is no clear personified antagonist. Yes, there are obstacles, but they are not always the result of a single force that is obstructing their goal. Yes, there is the Green Mist that influences the crew with thoughts of envy, pride, greed, power, and other evil things, and yes each temptation does slow down or threaten to throw the mission into chaos. But each of these, until the final battle, is dispatched with barely a struggle, albeit Eustace struggles more than most although being a dragon does have it's virtues. We also have no clear idea WHY the evil mist does what it does. "Good" antagonists possess a motivation that they believe is virtuous; there's a logic to their deeds. But not in VDT -- the evil is just there.  And finally, we have the sea monster for the closing act. It's a mighty fight, requires everyone to work together, but from whence did this monster come morally? What is its goal? Is it just confused and wanting attention?

NEXT TIME

On the beach before the effects crew arrives.

Those are the serious problems with VDT as a stand-alone movie. I think it works okay as a childrens' story and as a chapter in the larger Narnia epic. But the problem of adapting a novel and making it work for the big screen is clearly evident here. What's the solution. right now, I don't know. But if Doug Gresham and Walden want to hire me for the next episode I'm available. The problem is that there is a need for both Gresham and Walden to stay true to the source material. That is their goal. And as long as they keep true to that goal, the movies may be less than fully realized. To fully realize The Chronicles as mainstream movies, with on-going success, requires that the basics of movie stories be observed. Adaption means adapting it to the medium, not just making pictures and recording sound, but changing the structure of the story as well.

BTW: the acting, photography, and effects are terrific.

THE MORAL PREMISE

I am at a loss on this. It seems everything is in play. Edmund wants power, but quickly understands his place under King Caspian. Lucy wants to be beautiful like Susan, but quickly burns the spell that allows it.  Eustace is greedy, and at a MOG becomes a dragon, which changes his attitude. (This had the most potential, also because the story is told by Eustace. But the movie's goal and Eustace's goal are not aligned until way too late.  Caspian and Reepicheep seemingly have no vice (although in the book Caspian struggles with pride and selfishness -- and adventures of his own with little thought of his kingdom). There is a moral story going on between Eustace and Reepicheep -- as Reepicheep helps Eustace understand friendship, loyalty, and what it means to be valiant. But their tag team match has little to do with the major spine of the movie -- to find the lost Lords and swords -- although their teamwork at the end helps the Treader accomplish the goal -- and it is Eustace that finds the last sword and places it on the table.

The net result is a lack of focus. As I illustrate many times in my book,  THE MORAL PREMISE, unless the movie is about one true thing at a psychological or moral level, and unless that one thing is consistently portrayed in every one of the main character arcs, the movie will never do well at the box office. Narnia VDT fits that bill, unfortunately.  It fails to connect. The business it does do will be spending the capital purchased by the popularity of the books. But as a movie, it falls flat.  See any number of other posts herein, on other movies, where this isn't true.

THE KARATE KID (2010) - Can a Kid "Get" any Respect?

All photographs and clip in this blog are Copyrighted by Columbia/Sony. They are used in this blog under the educational use provision. 

Directed by: Harald Zwart
Written by: Christopher Murphey (screenplay), Robert Mark Kamen (story)
Revisions (uncredited: Mike Rich, Mike Soccio, Will Smith)

CAST

DRE PARKER (Jaden Smith)
MR. HAN (Jackie Chan)
SHERRY PARKER (Taraji P. Henson)
MEI YING (Wenwen Han)
MASTER LI (Rongguang Yu)
CHENG (Zhenwei Wang)

Training a top the Great Wall of China.

STORY LINE (Columbia Pictures)

12-year-old Dre Parker could've been the most popular kid in Detroit, but his mother's latest career move has landed him in China. Dre immediately falls for his classmate Mei Ying - and the feeling is mutual - but cultural differences make such a friendship impossible. Even worse, Dre's feelings make an enemy of the class bully, Cheng. In the land of kung fu, Dre knows only a little karate, and Cheng puts "the karate kid" on the floor with ease. With no friends in a strange land, Dre has nowhere to turn but maintenance man Mr. Han, who is secretly a master of kung fu. As Han teaches Dre that kung fu is not about punches and parries, but maturity and calm, Dre realizes that facing down the bullies will be the fight of his life.

BOX OFFICE

As the subtitle of The Moral Premise expresses, (Harnessing Virtue and Vice for Box Office Success) a movie's financial success is tied directly to a consistent application of a true moral premise, which gives the character's purposeful motivation in all the

Log Line Hell and Purgatory .. Rarely Heaven

Good log lines require a lot of work and rewriting. Start with a fresh eraser. When you get them right thy're a treat. Reading one is like watching a whole movie in 5 seconds -- provided your imagination is up and running. In the middle of this post I'll give you my latest formula for a good log line, and some great examples I just came across. 

But first, I must lament the dearth of good examples. Last night I was perusing InkTip's December 2010 magazine of log lines and associated pitches -- seemingly hundreds of them. Just reading a hundred log lines in a few hours in stimulating, if not instructive. But the lesson is usually, and sadly, what NOT to do. Some are bazaar. Take Example No. 1

THE THIRD SECRET (Harold Zapata) Imagine Hell in all its fury unleashed on Earth. A young professor of paranormal theistic anomalies suffering a crisis of faith becomes involved in the quest to uncover and stem the last of three mythic secrets hidden deep inside the Vatican Riserva, after the assistant to the Pope is murdered through stigmata by a ghoul-like-child.

What we have here is unimaginable. Now the writer may think "unimaginable" is a good thing. But if a producer can't imagine it visually in his head, it might as well not have been written. Here we have more. First, I can't imagine Hell. Indeed I don't want to. I'd like to avoid all visions of it. And frankly I oftentimes think that Hell is the latest headline of something that's happening on Earth. The latest, for me, was the story of a mother and father who are asking the public via their Facebook page to vote as to whether or not to abort their child. That's all the Hell I want to imagine for today, thank you.

But the big problem with Example No. 1 is that is attempts to pour several apoplectic movies into one under the misunderstanding the more is better. Here's my summary of what's in Example No. 1:

• Movie 1: Hell unleashed on Earth. 
• Movie 2: A professor of paranormal theistic anomalies (period). And isn't that redundant "paranormal - anomalies" and contradictory "professor - theistic". Sorry, but I can't imagine what either of those are.
• Movie 3: Professor suffering a crisis of faith. Does your typical university professor have any faith to be involved in a crisis about it? Still can't imagine it.
• Movie 4: Anyone trying to uncover a deeply hidden Vatican secret. What does it mean to "stem... a secret." I can't imagine what that means.
• Movie 5: The Pope's secretary is murdered. (Ah, that's intriguing.)
• Movie 6: Anyone dying by stigmata. Actually anyone WITH stigmata for real. 
• Movie 7: A ghoul-like-child. 

Now when you put all of that together there's no foundation for the audience to know where reality is. It seems like anything is possible, with no real tie-in to the lives of the people in the audience -- unless it's an audience of paranormal-theistic anomaly professors who look like ghoulish children with stigmatas, all out to murder the pope. With such an audience, this just might catch on.

Example No. 2

THE OAK TREES EVER (Aragon Olano) - Romance.  Two people from two different worlds desperately hold on to one love that blossomed between two mysterious oak tress.

My imagination is still challenged. What in the "world" is this about? Who's the protagonist? Who's the antagonist? What is the goal? Is this the story of two aliens sent to Earth as punishment for their carnal activities but are caught in a flood and must breed between two oak trees wrapped in Christmas tree lights? Anybody have a hint? Anybody? Anybody at all!?

Example No. 3
There were several like this. So general it could apply to nearly every movie, novel, and comic book ever written:

AND DARKNESS FELL (Phillip Frydendall) Four antagonistic humans are thrust into a fact-paced journey through time. Not all will survive as they become entrenched in the chaos and woe of mankind's history and that of the universe - past, present and future - amid the onslaught of demonic forces attempting to usurp humanity.

I don't know about you, but that one wraps up the whole log line industry.  I mean, what doesn't it include with a line like "past, present and future...usurping humanity."

LOG LINE CRITERIA

A good log line does many things. It focuses and inspires the writer, it attracts producers and money, and it sells the intended audience. It may change over time, but it becomes the driving force of the physical story, i.e. the log line is the physical premise.  [Meanwhile the Moral Premise drives the psychological thread of the story. Put them together in a Moral-Physical Premise Statement.... but that's another of a dozen posts, herein.]

From my workshop here's what it takes... and then some examples. A good log line is:

• Based on a SINGLE PHYSICAL HOOK that is otherworldly, out of the ordinary, and intriguing. You only get ONE HOOK PER STORY and everything else has to mind-meld with reality.
• The subject is an IMPERFECT but PASSIONATE PROTAGONIST
• The verb defines an INTENSE or INTRIGUING STRUGGLE
• The direct object  is an UNRELENTING and STRONG ANTAGONIST
• The qualifying prepositional phrases establish the protagonist's GOAL and the STAKES.

To add frosting to your log line, it should:

• Imply (not state) GENRE and SETTING
• Infuse IRONY between protagonist and goal
• Inspire the reader to VISUALLY IMAGINE the story
• Instantly demonstrate MARKETABILITY
• Indicate that the protagonist is on the OFFENSE and not passive.

Now how about some good log lines from the same INK TIP Magazine? I think these fulfill the above criteria very well... and are all movies I'd like to see.

THE MOTHERLOAD (Joan Macbeth) - A woman, estranged from her family for years, reluctantly agrees to drive her recently widowed mother across the country, only to discover her mother has Alzheimer's.

There were too many examples where the mafia or the Russians are the bad guys. We need new good bad guys, but this one sounded less pretentious and actually human.

SAYING HELLO TO THE DEVIL (B.J. Williams) - A hit man, seeking to absolve this haunted past, wages war against the Russian Mafia in hopes of saving the life of a nine-year-old girl they hired him to kill.

This next one I'm going to edit a bit. It reminds me of the jewelry commercials on YouTube featuring a "dog house":

HUBBY CAMP (Ocean Palmer) - Three irritated wives trick their husbands into attending a remote martial correctional facility that specializes in intense remediation in order to reshape underachieving and disappointing husbands.

This next one is slated as a comedy, but it sounds more like a wonderfully redemptive drama. I'm going to edit it a tad as well.

SO YOU WANT TO BE FAMOUS (Don Aldrich) - An aspiring but not very good actress in L.A. contends with her retired live-in grandmother, a retired Broadway superstar, to help underprivileged students of the performing arts.

Still editing... here's a comedy.

CINDERS (Carolfrances Likins) - Cinders refuses to go to the ball - she'd rather stay behind with her tattered friends and scheme the overthrow of the kingdom - but her fairy godmother arrives with other plans.

And finally my favorite, becasue of the clear metaphor, the sign of a good film although it again uses the trite backdrop of the mob.

THE JANITOR (Matthew Blackburn) - A man escapes his past life as hired mob muscle, keeps a low profile as a high school janitor, and takes an opportunity to redeem himself by mentoring a young girl. But when drugs run rampant in the school, [and the girl's life is threatened], this janitor must clean up.