Are Super & Myth Movies Only about FIGHT v. FLIGHT?

A Screenwriter Asked:

Hey, Stan, 

I find myself thinKing about your stuff; the thing I like best about “Moral Premise” is it’s the book to turn to when you’re suddenly asking, “Why am I writing this again?”   

It seems to me that all the “myth” movies, from Superman to Spiderman to Batman to Iron Man to Gladiator to Matrix all are about the responsibility of saving everyone when you have the power.   

I just read an outline for Gladiator, and I could see that Maximus (Russel Crowe) wants “nothing to do with politics” but gets pulled into a battle with evil.  It’s like the Edmund Burke quote: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”  Is this the point of all these movies?   

Is my moral premise: 

 “Running away from evil leads to disaster and isolation; but  

Facing and fighting evil leads to victory and freedom and togetherness”? 

I guess my question is, do I have no wiggle room here?  Should I embrace that moral premise, and stop wondering why I’m writing this??? 

Thanks,  Mike

Dear Mike:

I think most of the “super” stories can be defined by a moral premise that you articulated. But in such clear cut hero/villain stories I think there are dual moral premises that are related to a foundational one, like what you suggest. We might call these “secondary” moral premise statements, which are organically related to the foundational one. But it’s the secondary premise that is more likely to connect to non-super human audiences.

But in both cases the values in conflict must be universal … if you want to avoid niche audiences.

What you wrote:

Running away from evil (isolationism) as a value to find happiness vs. Fighting evil (engagement) as a value that leads to happiness...

...is the proverbial FLIGHT v FIGHT dilemma. It is definitely a universal concept that appears at all levels of the humanity condition.  It's evident in (a) a confrontation I witness on a street corner between a pimp and a whore, or (b) the Bush Foreign Policy Doctrine vs. the Obama Foreign Policy Doctrine. Fight or flight is everywhere and the answers are not easily answered.

You are perfectly safe keeping this simple and direct moral premise as the heart of your story, if that is what you focus on.

But you can give your story more personal and human death by looking deeper into the “human” story that exists in the “super human” diegesis.

For instance:

THE INCREDIBLES is also about:

Battling adversity alone leads to weakness and defeat; 

but Battling adversity as a family leads to strength and victory. 

BLIND SIDE (yes it’s about fight vs. flight) is also about:

Courage to do what is difficult but foolish leads to dishonor;  but

but Courage to do what is difficult and wise leads to honor.

SUPERMAN II (1980) is also about:

Pretending to be someone we’re not leads to fragility; but

Being whom we were made to be leads to superlatives.

DARK KNIGHT (2008) is also about:

Revengeful, self-service leads to nihilistic  desperation; but

Sacrificial public service leads to purposeful hope.

And there are manny other examples.

So, I think your fight or flight is a good place to start, but I think you can also go deeper, to another layer, that will give the basic “super” movie an even more “human” connection that everyone in the audience will get. Not everyone will get “saving the world” because they can’t. But the secondary moral premise (exampled above) are value dilemmas we all deal with.

This moral identification is one of the  20+ techniques filmmakers and authors use to get audiences/readers to identify with their characters on a physical, emotional, and moral level.

Since you have been writing "short" stories for years, and your material is well accepted by the mainstream public, (if I were you at this point), I’d just write it and see if a moral premise (at the secondary level) doesn’t pop out later on. Don’t feel you have to figure it out beforehand. That can be a hinderance. Trust your instinct.

stan

Life as it is... vs... as it ought to be.

REALITY VS. OUGHT TO BE

A great quote from a blog by Daniel McInerny (Graham Greene on the Art of Storytelling) who quotes Graham Greene (talking about cinema) quoting Chekhov (talking about novels).  Thus, I quote McInerny so like a good chain letter you can pass it on and we'll all be remembered. Uh-huh.

Here it is (my emphasis):

‘The best of them (novels/movies) are realistic and paint life as it is, but because every line is permeated, as with a juice, by awareness of a purpose, you feel, besides life as it is, also life as it ought to be, and this captivates you.’ This description of an artist’s theme [continues Greene] has never, I think, been bettered…

Had I come across Chekhov's quote when I was writing The Moral Premise I would have included the quote at the beginning of a chapter. 

When Chekhov says "this captures you" he's referring to audience identification in the moral sense. That is, you are aware that the immoral actions, motivations, and words enacted by a character do not reveal the best of humankind, or even what the character is capable of. That sense of rightness and wrongness comes through in the context of the writing, whether it be a screenplay or novel. That sense of "life as it ought to be" is the moral conscience of the writer communicated to the audience, who knows in their heart (if not in their actions) the difference between moral virtue and vice. Such conflict is absolutely necessary to engage the reader or spectator. And notice Greene's use of the term "theme" which is the root from which a moral premise is derived.

We watched Gavin O'Connor's PRIDE AND GLORY (Hard-R) the other night on our Apple Box, which deals with a multi-generational family of New York's "Finest" who struggle with where the line is between right and wrong. They joined the police force for the pride and the glory. O'Conner's story, which he co-wrote and directed, reveals that when even a taint of corruption enters in a cop's life, the pride and the glory evaporate as fast as a bullet can leave a gun's muzzle. It's the writer's honest revelation of reality in the context of hope and goodness, that allows the audience to know what "ought to be." 

What Chekhov quote begins with these words "realistic and paint life as it is". There's a term for that, which O'Connor uses to describe his work: Verisimilitude (or truthlikeness)—the quality of realism in something (such as film, literature, the arts, etc). 

THE PROBLEM OF BELLA

Verisimilitude's virtue reminds me also of a lesson that I saw in the making a few years back. This lesson reminded me that if you want mainstream audiences to see your movie (and hear your message) then you have to meet them where they are and reflect reality to them as they understand it.  If you don't, then they can't follow your story, let along understand the moral message in it -- if that's important to you -- and should be if you want your movie to be entertaining. (Yes, there's a direct connection between a film's moral message and entertainment. They are two sides of the same coin. See FIRST ENTERTAIN.)   

The lesson involved the movie BELLA which was suppose to be an anti-abortion film... which in my thinking probably involves some sexual content. (I don't need to spell that out for you,  do I?)  Because BELLA was a hit at the Toronto Film Festival with audiences, many people thought it was going to clean up at the box office. I didn't see the screening in Toronto, but some suggested that the producers (as offen happens at festivals), stacked the theater with supporters. 

Regardless, after an early promotional screening (between Toronto and the film's theatrical release) I met one of the producers and chatted. I was concerned because he had just apologized to the very conservative Catholic audience about something that evidently had been pointed out to them as "offensive" and they promised to remove it before the film was released to theaters. What was the "offensive" element? The sound of the protagonist urinating on a pregnancy test strip. There was ONLY the sound. No picture. And the fact that she was to discover she was pregnant was critical to the story's plot. It was a major turning point in the story. You have to SHOW such things. But the producer's didn't show it, they let you hear it. And then they were going to remove the "hearing" of it.  To me this attitude was the death knell of the movie; which explained why I thought the movie was modestly boring to begin with. This harkens back to Chekhov's observation.

BELLA's producers, in their desire to not offend anyone in the audience with visuals or dialogue (and also get grassroots support for the film when it hit theaters), screened the movie dozens of times with conservative Christian audiences. And they made changes based on the feedback from those audiences. They wanted to produce a "pro-life" "anti-abortion" film that didn't offend their conservative supporters. They cleaned and cleaned the edit -- until it was antiseptic of reality's edge. In their striving for truth, the missed verisimilitude or truthlikeness. The result? A box office bomb.

Here's some more evidence about that conclusion.

That same year there were two other "pro-life" "anti-abortion" films that came out. The films were KNOCKED UP and JUNO. These two films found the right balance. They realistically painted life as it is, but permeated the scenes with the juice of what it ought to be. Great balance, and great entertainment. Check out the worldwide box office scores, divide by $5 and you'll know about how many people saw each film:

BELLA (PG-13) -          $12,083,296  (02 M tickets)

KNOCKED UP (R) -   $219,076,518  (44 M tickets)

JUNO (PG-13)  -        $231,411,584  (46 M tickets)

Two of these films went mainstream, the other one was only seen by a very small niche, that had probably already seen the film during the screening tour.  You have to ask yourself the proverbial question:  "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it fall, did it make any noise?" 

One final note I found particular ironic. Notice that BELLA garnered a PG-13 rating. That baffled me. I would have guessed PG at most. Here's what the film rating board said:

BELLA - "PG-13 for thematic elements and brief disturbing images."

Now here's the ratings why for the other two films:

KNOCKED UP - "R for sexual content, drug use, and language."

JUNO - "PG-13 for mature thematic material, sexual content and language."

Do you notice how one of these is not the same as the others? (I learned this watching Sesame Street with my kids. Okay, I was watching after my kids graduated from college.)

BELLA was suppose to be about sex. But sex, which the reality of American culture "worships", was evidently absent from the film -- at least to the point that the ratings board didn't think the film had any sexual content. So much for reality. 

To close, one more reminder of what Chekhov wrote:

‘The best of them (novels/movies) are realistic and paint life as it is, but because every line is permeated, as with a juice, by awareness of a purpose, you feel, besides life as it is, also life as it ought to be, and this captivates you.’

In other words...when you do this, there's chance that people will see your movie.

When an Actor Asks: "WHAT DO I WANT?"

I'm working on an analysis of Billie Letts' book WHERE THE HEART IS for my Early Bird Workshop at the annual American Christian Fiction Writers Conference September 22 in St. Louis. Because I use movie clips in my presentations, I will illustrate my analysis of Letts' book with clips from Matt Williams' movie, the screenplay of which was written by the two guys in the picture, Lowell Ganz (left) and Babaloo Mandell (right).  Ganz and Mandell are two of the most sought after writers in Hollywood, with a long list of credits and awards to their names.

In an Ari Esiner article with the writing duo:

Ganz says his earliest writing lesson came from actor Jack Klugman on The Odd Couple TV show. When presented with Ganz's script, Klugman walked up to the writer and promptly shouted in his face, "What do I want?" And there endeth the lesson on the foremost rule of writing for the young television scribe: always have your characters want something. 

In the last month I've reviewed the work of numerous writers (both professional, and students) and this Ganz observation must be one of the most often violated principles of story writing. Characters always need an outward motivation, a physical goal — they must always want something. They don't necessarily NEED what they want, and what they want might be impossible to achieve because of an inner flaw (a psychological vice).... but they must want it. 

AND, the audience or reader must know they want it.

While screening KNIGHT AND DAY, starring Tom Cruise (Roy Miller) and Cameron Diaz (June Havens), I was astonished at how quickly writer Patrick O'Neill and director James Mangold tell the audience what the main characters want... on a number of levels. The movie is one long chase scene, so to keep the plot and the chase interesting, giving depth to the characters, both Roy and June have multiple goals related to different aspects of their lives.

• Roy's professional goal is to keep the Zephyr battery and its eccentric inventory away from the bad guys.
• Roy's personal goal is to take a vacation by driving to Cape Horn.
• Roy's romantic goal is to keep June from harm.
• Roy's family goal is to be reunited with his parents who think he is dead.
• June's professional goal is to restore her dad's GTO (she owns a garage back in Boston).
• June's personal goal is to give the GTO to her sister to keep it in the family.
• June's romantic goal is to land Roy.
• June's family goal is to get to her sister's wedding.

Thus, depending on the scene, the audience always has several things to root for. 

THE REASON WE ROOT FOR CHARACTERS

Now, why do we root for characters? Why do we want them to get what they want?

Because we like them. 

In narrative theoretical terms, we identify with them. Michael Hauge says there are five ways you, as the writer, can foster likeability in a character:

1. Make the character sympathetic, the victim of undeserved misfortune.
2. Put the character in jeopardy. We ID with people we worry about.  Many stories start with an orphan.
3. Make character likable, kind, goodhearted. They need to be relatable, not likable.
4. Make characters funny. We like to be with people who make us feel good about ourselves or have the courage to say things we don't.
5. Make characters powerful, or very good at what they do.

So, do we like Roy Miller and June Havens? Sure. June is undeserved in her misfortune of being tangled up with Roy, and is therefore in great and repeated jeopardy. She's also an orphaned traveler being kicked off her flight. She is goodhearted and kind. She's funny and encouraging. And she's very good at what she does, which we discover as she explains to the TSA agent the tailpipes and carburator in her carry on baggage. It also doesn't hurt that June comes packaged in Cameron Diaz's body,  quirky smile, and damsel in distress persona.

Likewise, Roy seems to have been thrown undeserved misfortune when he is overpowered by both the Federal government and the bad guy cartel. We worry about him, because he's a spy without backup, and later a boy without his mom and dad -- a orphan. He's goodhearted in that he repeatedly protects, selflessly hapless June. His nonchalant way of dispatching bad guys is sarcastic and funny. And he's very good at what he does. Oh, yes, he has a million dollar smile and he's a hunk with sex appeal.

All together these are personas we'd like to hang around with. We wish we had them for friends. So, we root for them and hope they get everything they want. And by the end of the movie it seems they do. Cape Horn sequel anyone? Mom and dad and flying down.

The Good of Conflict and Immorality in Movies

What follows is an article I wrote for a Catholic website in 2003, while I was writing the first draft to The Moral Premise. I'm resurrecting it here for the record and to facilitate some discussions with some I consult with about the nature of the motion picture industry.

=======

THE GOOD OF CONFLICT
AND IMMORALITY IN MOVIES

Often I hear Christians complain about the protagonist in a movie because he or she made one or more immoral decisions, and is therefore a poor role model. Another oft heard criticism is that movies are filled with too much on-screen conflict or violence, thus giving audiences the wrong idea about how to resolve problems.  

These are definitely valid concerns to the extent that the on-screen portrayal of conflict and immorality is gratuitous.  But for most popular films there are some very good and moral reasons why movies must be about imperfect, immoral human beings, and why the conflict and suffering must be made visible. 

The word "must" in that last sentence is pretty strong, so let me explain. In the history of civilization, stories have played a very important role in forming our culture by passing on history, defining cultural norms, teaching us how to deal with problems, and answering burning questions like, "Why is there suffering?"

Educational gurus might divide the world of learning into three kinds of instruction: (1) experience, (2) observation, and (3) lecture. Experience is the best teacher. Lecture is the worst. The reasons for that have a great deal to do with the number of senses, and consequently the degree of emotional involvement of the learner. The greater number of senses involved, the greater the emotional tension, and thus the deeper the learning.
Whereas lecturing involves only one sense—hearing, experience demands the active participation of all six senses [Footnote 1].  

Experience also involves physical and emotional risk. Risk situations cause the release of adrenalin into our brain etching deeper memories about the experience and its lessons.

Somewhere between experience and lecture is observation, and the modern "movie experience" which is closer to SIMULATION. 

Why Simulation? The darkened theater is replaced by extreme realism, and audience members are transported into the on-screen character's world. To a great extent, movies become so real for audiences that they are almost as good a teacher as experience itself...including the sense of personal risk. 

But, do we want movies to teach us things? After all, the people making movies, so conservative Christian sentiment goes, are immoral pagans who ridicule God, don't go to church, and well, do everything in their life wrong. On some level, with some filmmakers, that can be true. Yet, when it comes to moral lessons that agree with Judeo-Christian values, there is an astonishing phenomenon. 

As it turns out, when a movie conveys moral truth it "sits right" with audiences, and word of mouth increases the film's popularity, tremendously. Conversely, when a movie is morally deceitful, people avoid it. Over the years, filmmakers have recognized this. (Actually, in POETICS, Aristotle was the first to write about the correlation between the truth of a play's moral message and its popularity.) As a result, today, it is a safe bet that a box office success is also a movie that conveys a true moral message [Footnote 2] 

All of that brings me back to the criticism about immoral characters and on-screen conflict. Without these elements movies would be incapable of presenting positive moral messages, infusing us with hope, or suggesting answers to why we suffer. If we remove the immorality and conflict we are left with no drama, no story to tell, and no lesson to learn. Showing the problem allows us to learn how the protagonist overcame it, or the consequences if he doesn't. 

Here then are seven reasons why the appropriate, and not gratuitous, portrayal of conflict and immorality are necessary, not just in motion pictures, but in all stories, if those stories are to effectively teach us moral lessons.

1. Identity. Conflict and immorality are revealed in the life of a protagonist who is like us. This allows us to identify with the protagonist, and see that his problems are, or could be, ours.

2. Meaning. How the protagonist resolves the conflict and immorality reveals the meaning of the associated suffering. We translate that meaning to the suffering in our lives. 

3. Consequences. The protagonist's decisions regarding the conflict and immorality result in consequences. We learn that similar decisions in our lives could result in similar consequences.

4. Hope. The protagonist's hope and perseverance in dealing with the conflict and immorality allows success. We are thus encouraged to hope and persevere, and likewise overcome our problems.

5. Risk. The on-screen protagonist must count the cost and take risks in opposing the conflict and immorality. This reminds us that our noble intents are worthless unless we honestly count the cost and are also willing to take risks to defeat sin and evil. 

6. Sacrifice. On screen heroes often suffer and sacrifice emotional and physical loss in their effort to love and save others from harm. Those are examples to us, of how we are asked to love our neighbor and families, and resist sin, even shedding our own blood in the process. [Footnote 3]

7. Visible. Movies are really about spiritual and emotional conversion. But since we can not see such journeys, filmmakers make the reality of that most important journey visible in the physical realm, as a metaphor. While we may think our spiritual journey is only spiritual or mental, the proof is in our behavior, in our actions and works. What we do in the physical realm, represents exactly what is going on inside.

So, the next time you go to a popular movie, recognize what it is you're watching. Look for and analyze the moral messages, and recognize that without the appropriate portrayal of conflict and immorality, there would be little to be learned about how to live in our conflicted and spiritually dangerous world.

[1]  There are six, not five senses. Most forgotten is the sense of balance, which is necessary for physically activity, including sitting in a chair during a scary movie. 

[2] Whether a movie conveys a morally true message has nothing to do with its ratings or appropriateness for children. See MEANINGLESS RATINGS.

[3] "In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood." Hebrews 12:4

Entertain, Educate, Elevate - Mel Gibson

If an actor is any good, they are vulnerable, on stage and off. Transparency is necessary. Friends who have been with Mel in meetings say he's always anxious, and rarely looks you in the eye. That comes off on-screen, and because of it we are able to see inside the character... and man. It helps us identify with the story, because we all feel that anxious and unsure from time to time.  It allows us to see humanity for what it really is—unsure, but trying hard to be better.

I just read a great interview with Mel conducted by DEADLINE’S ALLISON HOPE WEINER. The interview is mostly about Mel's personal life, which only concerns me as it affects his craft... the writing, directing and acting. You will note that the best artists in any discipline have raw edges. It's what allows them to get in touch with their inner being and do art. It allows us to see honestly real humanity, exposed and struggling with mortality.

Here's something Mel said in the interview that applies to this blog and the art of crafting motion picture stories. What we do is not not just about entertainment, although that is where you need to start.

"And the end of the day, it’s what did they think of that? Did they get something from it? Were they entertained? Were they educated? Were they elevated? Were they all three? You know, which is really good? Entertain, educate, elevate. I think that’s what Jodie did [in The Beaver]. If you can get all three of those, you’ve got the Trifecta going." (Mel Gibson)

Story Structure Basics - 13 Major Beats

[Revised 18 March 2015]

Click for Larger Image

Often when a producer or writer sends me a script to analyze it's because they sense that there's a problem with their story. Usually they're right, and the biggest offender is a lack of structure.

The problems reveal themselves in several ways. There may be three acts, but the protagonist doesn't have a physical goal that the audience can see and root for. Their protagonist may have a physical goal, but the turning points are not the result of the protagonist's moral decision or action. There may be turning points initiated by the protagonist but not for any singleness of moral purpose. In biographies the writers are often so taken by what they presume to be the moral virtues of their protagonist that they fail to include any serious conflict or an antagonist that forces the protagonist to change. The result of problems such as these is the lack of drama, weakened entertainment value, or no way for an audience to become emotionally engaged. 

Perhaps most difficult to obtain is an even emotional roller coaster effect throughout the story. Often critics and viewers complain about a slow second act, or a "sagging middle." The beat outline describe in this post can solve that problem. Each beat (13 or 20), when properly understood and applied, creates a regular roller coaster from front to back. Notice the wavy blue line in the graphic; this represents one ideal of how an audience's emotions can be manipulated by understanding the placement of the 13 (20) beats. Each peak and valley of the line corresponds to a beat. If the beats are missing or misplaced, the blue line sags or plateaus.

What causes the ups and downs is whether or not the protagonist is portrayed as achieving his goal or not. Is he or she being successful or endangered? That emotion is tied directly to the           assimilation of the Moral Premise in the life of the protagonist—will the protag. learn the truth of the moral premise and achieve his or her goal or not. All of this happens in the minds and hearts of your audience on a subliminal level, but it should never be subliminal to the creator, you.

What follows is a generic summary of what I might write in a story report to such writers or producers, as I explain the basics of what's missing in their story. I usually start off by describing that what follows is a natural law of story telling. It's not my opinion, but the consequence of untold experiments of storytelling over the ages. If you want a story to connect, then you can't ignore this stuff, at least not story foundations. [See subsection Story Development Steps/Story Foundations]

The Hero's Two Journeys - A Review

This is a short review of THE HERO'S TWO JOURNEYS from Michael Hauge and Chris Vogler.  If you read much of this blog, or have read my book, The Moral Premise, you'll know that uniting the inner and outer journey of the protagonist into a cohesive whole, about one true thing, is the crux of all stories that connect emotionally with audiences. Thus, this DVD/MP3-CD set is a valuable resource for writers. In addition to recapping their own expertise proven over decades of work in Hollywood, Michael and Chris reveal many practical story secrets that bring together a hero's inner and outer journey so the story will resonate with audiences.

My introduction to Michael Hauge (left) was years ago during one of his national tours when I attended his two-day Detroit workshop. You'll see him cited numerous times in my book.  When "The Moral Premise" was released, Chris Vogler (right) offered to write the book's Foreword. Then as I started to work as a story consultant in Hollywood, I found myself on the same side of the table with Michael (on SEVEN POUNDS) and then again with Chris on a movie yet to be released.

The package, published by Screenstyle.com and the other usual sources like Amazon, includes 4 discs (3 DVDs and a MP3/CD-ROM) with over 10 hours of workshop material from Michael and Chris. (The "CD" disc in my package is mislabeled a "Compact Disc." Instead it is a MP3/CD-ROM filled with files from what looks like 6 CDs. Most players (CD, DVD) can read the disc and these files, but the easiest way to access them is through your computer and download them to a MP3 player.)

Here are some brief notes on the content from the main attraction of the package, their joint DVD workshop on joining the inner and outer journey.

CREATING IMMEDIATE EMOTIONAL IDENTITY WITH YOUR CHARACTERS

I have written before on this topic because it is critical for the audience to get under the skin and in the mind of the story's characters, especially the protagonist. Movies resonate with audiences only when the audience can physically root for the protagonist (in the physical story,) and mentally participate in his or her decisions (in the psychological story). Of course, the two journeys are really just one story, as any person is one person with two identities -- what we are like on the outside, and what we are like on the inside. But what we are on the inside is what motivates (or causes) what happens on the outside. (See The Moral Premise, Chapter 6.)

So, here are five ways that Michael Hauge says you can use to foster the audience's immediate emotional identification with your character(s):

1. Make the character sympathetic, the victim of undeserved misfortune.
2. Put the character in jeopardy. We ID with people we worry about.  Many stories start with an orphan.
3. Make character likable, kind, goodhearted. They need to be relatable, not likable.
4. Make characters funny. We like to be with people who make us feel good about ourselves or have the courage to say things we don't.
5. Make characters powerful, or very good at what they do. 

Michael says to use at least two of these. But the more the better. In CRAZY HEART, Bad Blake embodies all five: 1 (we feel sorry for whatever took Blake to the depths he's in), 2 (Blake is constantly on the verge of either getting fired from a gig or killing himself), 3 (he is goodhearted), 4 (he's says things we'd never say but at times have wanted to say), and 5 (he can be a good songwriter and performer). Result? ACADEMY AWARD FOR BEST ACTOR. (Blog post on CRAZY HEART.)

Michael's best selling book is WRITING SCEENPLAYS THAT SELL.

DIFFERENT WORLDS AND VALUES

Chris writes mostly about the 12 Steps of the Mythic Hero (THE WRITER'S JOURNEY). In one part of this DVD set he talks about how the hero begins in the Ordinary World and spends Act 2 in a Special World where the values are much different. That conflict of values is the character's INNER conflict that sets up the OUTER conflict.

Chris' insight in this speaks to the vice and virtue of the moral premise statement, and how the main characters, upon entering the Special World, are forced to make some concessions to their life, in order to return to some degree of normalcy once the journey and the story are over.

The Ordinary World and the Special World are both physical entities, but the different set of values (psychologically) are the things that drive the action differently in these two worlds.  All action begins in the mind with a set of values. [The above illustration is from the Moral Premise workshop.]

The Special World, physically, can also become an excellent METAPHOR for what is happening in the "unconscious mind".

A JOURNEY OF FULFILLMENT

One  point I feel a bit contrary about is when Michael says:

The inner meaning grows out of the outer journey. 

Here is what I think he means: The outer journey is the result of an inner conflict of values, but by experiencing the outer journey's difficulty, the character learns something spiritual or mentally. Thus, the inner learning comes as a result of the outer experience. One of the two gentlemen explains it something like this: (here paraphrased):

The inner journey is a journey of fulfillment where the character changes from say "protection" to "courage" from "fear" to "courage, or from "being uninvolved" to "being involved."

[Sounds like the beginnings of a Moral Premise statement.]

REAL LIFE


In another place, Michael says: 

What I love about this... is that although we're talking about all these fictional characters, I'm also talking about real life. The characters in movies mirror what we all do, and our own story.

Bingo! Even if our characters are in some fictional or fantasy world, their moral decisions must be similar in nature to the audience's day-in-day-out lives. And that is the best way to connect o audiences...write about their moral experiences. 

PERSONA vs. ESSENCE

Another comparison that the men set up is the difference between persona (or personal identity) and essence (the person's true character). The story is about a character's journey from his outward persona and how his true (inner) self is revealed. There are a number of ways in which Hauge discusses this can happen. But I can't help but come back to the concept of the moral premise, and how the main characters all must traverse from some vice (what they are pretending to be) to some virtue (what their true selves tell them they ought to be). Michael points out that in romances,  especially romantic comedies, the girl falls for the guy's true essence. And when the guy lets his bravado go wild and struts around showing his (false) persona, the girl turns away. But when the guy gets in touch with his inner self and lets his virtue shine through, the armor gleams, and the girl comes running back.  Thus, in a good film, there is that conflict of values which is the conflict between the persona-mask, and the effort to get the characters to take the mask off, and enter Act 3 successfully.

12 STEPS OUTER AND INNER

A highlight of the DVDs is when Chris takes his traditional 12 Steps (from the Hero's Mythic OUTER Journey) and articulates their INNER counterparts. I'm going to short hand them here, but the comparison is valuable.

1. Ordinary World: Limited awareness of internal problem.
2. The Call to Adventure: Awareness that you need to change. 
3. Refusal of the Call: Fear and resistance to change.
4. Meeting the Mentor: Wisdom delivered that meets need.
5. Crossing the Threshold: Committing to change.
6. Testing by allies and enemies: Experimenting with the kind of change that is needed
7. Approach: Preparing mentally for a major shift.
8. Ordeal, death, and rebirth: Removal of the inner mask. Center shifts.
9. Reward: Accepting consequences, both good and bad
10. The road back: Rededication, and removal of the outer mask.
11. Resurrection: Hero explains what was learned.
12. Return with the Elixir: Mastery and future confidence. 

So, there are a few of the discussions that Hauge and Vogler cover in this excellent 4 disc set. Your writing will be better it.

Anime and Manga Themes and Premises

Akemi's Post No. 1
(my comment in the ComBox, below)

I'd like to thank you for writing this book. I bought it awhile ago on amazon, along with only two other books I could fine for figuring out theme and emotions.

I felt that i can write a story (plot wise) but I don't quite have the hang of getting people to care.

Since the books about this subject matter were so sparse, I did and still do a lot of analyzation of theme on my own. This analysis is mostly directed towards Japanese anime and manga.

Underneath all the flash and bright colours most anime and manga have themes and stories that hit me on a gut level. I laugh and cry from one moment to the next. 99% of the movies I try and watch in the theaters don't compell me to have this gut level emotion.

I wrote a piece on character themes on my BLOG "Myth and Manga"... if you are interested in looking at it.

That's actually an interesting question i want to ask you. How do Character themes and Story themes correlate? The anime Naruto I was studying..it doesn't have a story theme. Just individual character themes that focus of acknowledgment of the individual by the society.

Signed: Akemi Art

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