The Philosophical Basis of How Stories Connect with Audiences

"It sort of makes you stop and think, doesn't it?"

Rule No. 1: Audiences connect best with characters when you tell a story that the audience believes is universal, logical, and organic. 

• Universal means the story centers on a universal values that the audience believes are universally true...that means what is right vs. what is wrong.  In 90 minutes you can't change the audience's moral values more than a smidgen, so you better start and end where the audience generally is. You can nudge people, but you can't convert them. If you want to convert people produce a documentary and present the most biased interviews and visuals you can find. But don't figure you can figure which way the conversion will flop. A pro-Trump doc may just turn people against him, as Dinesh D'Souza has probably discovered, and a anti-Trump doc may create more Republican voters...as Michael Moore has discovered. 

• Logical means the story's cause and effect elements are logically consistent with Natural Law. Now, there are two kinds of natural laws. There is physical kind, e.g. gravity, momentum, inertia, etc.; and there are psychological kind, e.g. guilt, generosity, lust, envy, etc.   You violate one and there will be natural consequences to answer to. 

• Organic means the filmmaker's ability to surreptitiously foreshadow events... while still being universal and logical.  

Rule No. 2: Every one of the universal, logical and organic elements consistently conforms to a single Moral Premise Statement:

[some moral vice] leads to [some physical detriment], but

[some moral virtue] leads to [some physical betterment].

To expand: The vice and the virtue in the statement need to be universal values that most everyone in a general audience will understand at some level, e.g. greed vs. generosity, selfishness vs selflessness, arrogance vs. humility, etc.

The detriments and betterments are logically the natural consequences of the vice or virtue. Greed leads to isolation, generosity leads to friendship. In the political arena, arrogance (both Trump and the Acosta) leads to distrust, but humility (Jordan Peterson) leads to respect. 

This is one of my Big Problems — s.w.

Rule No. 3: Avoid parochial content and jargon...unless your audience is parochial and expects you to use jargon. For instance, Christian faith films often lapse into trite visuals, scenes, and jargon, the meaning of which is obscured to the non-believer. Someone asked Jordan Peterson once, "Are you a believer?" Peterson's logical response was, "I believe a lot of things." 

Rule No. 4: Tell the Truth.

Seems simple, but here's what it means.

When you set up a conflict between a flawed character and a universal vice and universal virtue, remember these three things:

1. Things Don't Happen by Accident. Either nature delivers, or your character is motivated by some value. 
2. The Universe is run by the Eternal Purposes of God. Generally, that means Natural Law is benevolent toward humans, unless humans ignore what is benevolently given them.
3. Novel and unexpected events (e.g. a miracle) occur to accomplish the universe's larger purpose. In such an event, it may appear that Natural Law is violated, but to the clever writer the event is always natural. 

AVATAR: Regardless of the politics, the moral premise is true.

2009
Director/Writer: James Cameron

There have been numerous articles about AVATAR's political bent.

I'm politically conservative, and the bias in AVATAR was more than obvious. The movie was filled with political over generalizations that would make me shutter as a storyteller.  But, the movie is true. No, I don't think it was true politically, but it was true morally. And it is the moral truth of a story that is at the fundamental heart of connecting with audiences. I loved AVATAR for that reason..well, okay, I'm also a sci fi buff and the special effects were wonderfully convincing. Loved those transparent computer screens and pads.

But, regardless of whether or not you embrace Cameron's political bias, AVATAR is true at the level of the moral premise, which can be expressed like this:

Greed, abuse and disrespect for life and creation

leads to dread and destruction; 

but generosity, kindness and respect for life 

leads to hope and progress. 

To the extent that European settlers came to North America and "conquered" the land out of greed, abuse and disrespect for life, they could expect some dread and destruction as a result. And to the extent that the Indians were greedy, abusive, and disrespected the life of the new comers, they, in turn, could likewise expect some some dread and destruction.  But to the extent that either side respected the other, progress and hope would be the result and there are numerous stories on both sides that indicate such.

The same can be said of both sides in the various wars we've been part of of as a country, as well as the current Mid-East conflicts. Both liberals and conservatives are, at times, guilty of greed and abuse by disrespecting the other side and refusing to seek truth together, and both liberal and conservatives are, at times, seeking truth in a respectful and cooperative venture with wonderful progress benefiting all of mankind as the result. But the moral premise of AVATAR is true, regardless, in all of our lives -- it's a natural law of the universe.

AVATAR's MOMENT OF GRACE

I took "liberal" notes during my first exposure to the film, and I could write a lot about it if I had the time. But for now let me point out Jake's Moment of Grace... that moment 1/2 way thorugh the movie where the protagonist makes a major shift in thinking about whether to accept or reject the truth of the moral premise. By my stopwatch the story portion of the movie is 2 hours 34 minutes long. That means, if Cameron followed a natural story plan, the main character must come to some realization that shifts his motivation at about 1 hour 17 minutes.

According to my notes, in the minutes leading up to that point, Jake is led to and chooses a dragon as his own. And with Neytiri he has a wonderful time riding the skies of Pandora as he literally makes connection with what is true about Pandora. It's a mind opening experience for him. And then he's back in his real world, and one of the first things he says, in a daze is: "Theirs in the true world. In here is the dream." My notes claim that comment comes at 1 hour 17 minutes.

From that moment on Jake begins to see Pandora and the Na'vi differently.

Ah, I could go on. The movie is expertly structured. Jake's outward goal is to do something that allows him to have his legs back, and thus the Avatar gives him that freedom and joy of being whole again. Right after Jake's MOG, just described, the evil Colonel Quaritch pays him a visit, and perhaps sensing Jake's recent embrace of the Na'vi way of looking at things, the Colonel offers him his real legs back. But there's another way for Jake to realize his goal, as the movie reveals.

My suggestion is to look past the political slant of the movie and enjoy it's true moral premise. It's a great ride, and further reinforces my contention that the best movies are longer than 2 hours. Pam and I both thought the time just flew by.