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]

First Entertain

There's an adage in Hollywood, and similar industries, that says: "FIRST ENTERTAIN."

Successful entertainment, to me, is defined as emotionally engaging audiences so that they're willing to buy a ticket, or dispose of some of their free time. 

For me, the term "entertain" has an emotional element and a training element. (I'm sure this is NOT the word's etymology, but humor me.) Successful entertainment always emotionally engages your audience, AND it passes onto them some true moral message usually hidden in the subtext.  (For the girl on the right that truth is "Never, ever believe your mom when she says, 'Trust me, you'll love it.'")

So, we have something that is emotional (E) and we have a training element (TRAIN). That gives us E-TRAIN. Also there is the idea that both the emotional and the training enter into the person's consciousness and become INGRAINED (which rhymes with ENTER-TAIN-ED -- like I said, humor me). The key word there is ENTER.

Successful entertainment, therefore, ENTERS into a person EMOTIONALLY and TRAINS them about something true. First ENTERTAIN as you EMOTIONALLY TRAIN.

Okay, Okay, so TRAIN and TAIN are not the same. Let me  s t r e t c h  it for ya. TAIN rhymes with STAIN, and good entertainment leaves behind a stain.... no, no, you potty head... a stain in your brain—a memory. (Geez! I can't take you anywhere.) Another way to understand this is that ENTER-TAIN is a lot like INNER-TRAIN. That is, something is "entertaining" because it has the ability to train our memories. The reverse is also true: if we want to train our memories there must be some emotional involvement, some entertainment. Memories do not "stick" without adrenalin burning some synapses together in our brain.  

The long of this short post is that successful communication has three components. It must ENTERTAIN, and for it to do that it must be MORALLY TRUE (at a psychological, spiritual, or subliminal level), and it must EMOTIONALLY ENGAGE (it must be be a visceral simulation of life).

That is what stories do better than a thrill ride at an amusement park, and what stories do almost as good as real life experiences (life's best teacher), but with out the physical danger.

(And you can believe the little girl above would feel a lot safer at the movies. Real life does have its drawbacks, especially when your mother is C R A Z Y!)

Screenplay Checklist & the 4M's of the Moral Premise

SCREENPLAY CHECKLIST

Came across this very good checklist for screenwriters at Danny Santos' blog.  Here's the first of eight sections. All good. The only problem is you have to have some sense of what the answers SHOULD be.  Check out the whole list at his blog, HERE.

Plot

• Does the script make yourself ask “what comes next”, is it a page turner?
• Are the stakes realistic for the setting?
• Is the journey compelling?
• Does the protag make a decision that leads to an action?

THE 4M'S OF THE MORAL PREMISE

Danny has also condensed the essence of the moral premise to four words. I like this. You can read the full post (it's short) HERE:

It takes 4 “M’s” to work out the moral premise, they are Morality, Malignance, Maturation and Misfortune.  The first two are the choices the protagonist has to choose between [that] ... lead to the other 2 “M’s”, Maturation and Misfortune, these are the effects of the choice.

But he doesn't mention the book or my site.  : (>

The Moral Premise Statement LIST

I have created a single page that lists all the moral premise statements used in the book and my workshop slide presentation. In the weeks to come, I'll be adding statements from his blog, of which I think there are more than in the book and workshop. That page is here: http://www.stanwilliams.com/MORALPREMISE/MPS.php

The page is the idea of William Fitzpatrick who created and manage a WikiScreenplay site that is no longer operative...it appears. 

Abby Sunderland's Story Leads to Inspiration

In the wake of Abby Sunderland's rescue in the South Pacific, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to Austrailia and at least one fishing vessel, some have compalined that the rescue cost too much money. Others have written that letting a 16-year old sail around the world by herself was foolish and should have been prevented. And still others suggest that the parents and/or sponsors should be punished  and forced to pay for the rescue.

But there is a more significant reason we do not hesitate to rescue people like Abby Sunderland.

Abby's quest is an inspiration and a salute to our efforts to overcome the difficulty of the human condition. Her attempt to sail around the world (even with the rescue) rouses in our spirit a desire to conquer what seems otherwise impossible. While thousands of teenagers are destroying their lives with drugs, violence, sex, and more mediocre journeys of self-indulgence, Abby Sunderland rises above the roar of the headlines with a truly remarkable accomplishment... even in her rescue.

The Karate (Kung Fu) Kid

In August of 2008 I was asked to review the then current screenplay for the KARATE KID V, in which Jaden Smith would star. At the time I didn't understand how an a boy Jaden's age and size could pull off a movie with so many physical demands. But based on the TRAILERS on the movie's YouTube page, there is no doubt that Jaden Smith is not your typical 11-year old. On both an emotional and physical level he appears to carry the role with a weight that redefines his otherwise small stature. He is, after all, the off spring of Will and Jada Smith and the star quality DNA is clearly present. I will write more about the film's moral premise after I see it a few times.  Check it out this weekend and let me know what you think.

UPDATE: Just got back from a sold out screening in Novi, MI. This movie is better than the original. It's 140 minutes (with credits) and it has you for the whole ride. Jaden's performance is remarkable. The moral premise is about "respect"... more later. Highly recommended. Loved it.

My moral premise analysis of Karate Kid (2010) is HERE.

Romance Writers & The Moral Premise

A few blogs ago I wrote about Myra Johnson and her "gang" of romance writers. Well, I didn't know they were a gang then, just a few I thought. Then she asked  me to be a guest blogger for Seekerville, the blog site for The Seekers, "a group of fifteen unpublished and newly published Christian writers."

The first writer on their bio list, Mary Connealy, "writes romantic comedy with cowboys."  She's married to a Nebraska rancher. Yep, they sure do sound like a posse out hunting for .... romance. This should be fun, a few are sending me romance novels they've published, for me to read before I write for them.

Myra was kind enough to send along a couple of links to Seekerville Blog posts that referenced The Moral Premise. One was a Guest Post by their agent Natasha Kern where she shares her critical understanding of novel story structure and elements. It's a very enlightening read, and about mid way she has some nice things to say about TMP.

Aside from TMP, however, she gives stellar advice to all writers about lessons that need repeatedly to be learned.

Myra Johnson - Novelist

Hearing from other writers who have read The Moral Premise makes my day. I'm humbled and thrilled. (See the COMMENT to this post. These are writers who were recommended to The Moral Premise by their agent, Natasha Kern.)

The other day I received a SASE from Myra Johnson requesting the Moral Premise bookmark. Included was her business card and a nice little postit note that read:

Thank you! Your book has made a huge impact on my writing! Myra Johnson. 

Myra writes romance novels (that's her writing cave in the picture from her website). Here's what he has on the first page of her website which you can access by clicking on the title of this post above:

In real life and in the books I write, it seems life and love are always on a collision course. It hurts like crazy when life in the real world rains all over our romantic dreams. But I still believe in love, which is why you'll find enduring messages of forgiveness and reconciliation in my stories. Messages of hope. Messages of faith. Messages of God's unconditional love . . .

Because romance gets messy when life and love collide!

Isn't that the truth.

I don't hear from many novelists, so I kept digging. On her "books for writers" page I found a blurb about the Moral Premise. You can read it HERE for yourself.

Thanks, Myra, glad I could help. Good luck and God Speed on your writing.

Romances and the Conflict of Values

A reader writes with a problem (indented).

Dear Dr. Williams:  Thank you for writing The Moral Premise and frequently updating your blog. I have learnt a great deal from both, and I'm actively trying to incorporate the methods outlined in the book into my own work. I am a novelist, and I can see how this is just as applicable to us as it is to screenwriters. My genre is 'love story' which opens up another can of worms for me as a writer. I'm having some issues when trying to understand how to apply antagonistic forces. I believe you stated somewhere that love stories would involve a co-protagonist setup and that the man and woman would be antagonists to each other. With no clear antagonist practicing the vice side of the moral statement, I am unsure how I apply the vice side throughout a love story and how the two characters should arc. If you are able to provide me with any guidance as to how a moral premise operates in a love story with two protagonists I would be very grateful.  (Signed: G.M.)

Dear G.M.: Tell me a bit about your story and how ends. Is it a love story (someone dies), a romance (a persona dies), or a romantic comedy (two egos die)?  (Stan)

[Following: GM is in black and my response is inbetween in purple. (SW)]

It's a romance as I have not envisioned a tragic ending. The story involves a man and a woman who dated when they were young and fell in love, however his work/career was extremely important to him and they amicably parted ways as she knew how much it meant to him.

Sounds a little like Nicolas Cage's FAMILY MAN.

She did not realize until later that she was pregnant with his child. By then he was career bound, and she had lost contact with him. She decided to raise the child alone but this came at the expense of her own career. When the novel essentially begins, he is driven by his career and money, and he is isolated and lonely. Conversely she has struggled to keep her daughter and herself afloat, and all three (mother, father and child) will somehow come together at some point in the story (the inciting incident and goal that will bring them together is still unknown) and priorities will have to shift if he is to learn to value love over business/money, he is to connect with his daughter, and we are to have the man and the woman fall in love again.

So, it's a remarriage, romance story.

With so many elements to the story, I’m worried that the above will not follow one set moral premise statement, and perhaps I have thought about the story in a backwards manner with the ‘moral premise’ as a step after the above plot brainstorming rather than before it.

 Based on what you've told me so far, there's not too much for even a movie.  Novels, which I have not studied in depth in terms of the moral premise, may well indeed have more than one moral premise... even as some movies do. Some other posts deal with this from some of my other readers.  But I  suspect the different moral premises need to be tightly linked on a value level. Novels can do this more easily than movies, because novels can be longer, have multiple stories interwoven, and transcend eras easier. But the novel will resonate best with readers if the story comes back to one thing about which the story ultimately reinforces.

My idea behind the story stems from putting love first as opposed to money, and as a result I have put together:

Greed and selfishness leads to isolation and hatred, but
Generosity and sacrifice leads to inclusion and love.

Yep, that is what I was going to suggest, or something very much like that.

My difficulty in getting my head around all this is due to the fact that in romances the two characters are typically opposites.

As they are even in successful marriages... opposite in some respects, but not every respect. The drama explores the opposites, not what they have in common. Perhaps you're thinking they need to be opposite in every respect. The story will assume they have much in common, but the drama and the emotional journey of the story will explore how they learn to "love" each other's differences. (I'm thinking of the Fred Astair and Ginger Rogers films. They both loved to dance, but the drama was never about the dancing.)

In a typical non-romance story this would mean one was a protagonist and one was an antagonist. Yet in a romance we have two protagonists who we want to remain opposing for conflict purposes, yet we still need both heading for the same goal with the same moral premise, and all this is with a different type of antagonistic force present. 

Moving the “normal” structure around to fit a romance is proving difficult to visualize. 

Many thanks,
G.M. 

[Now, my in depth response.]

Well, let me help you. It's not that difficult at all.

The simple answer is that each character (the man and the woman) struggles with the vice side of the moral premise in their own way, and becomes the obstacles and the antagonist for the other. 

Jeff Bridges & Maggie Gyllenhaal, CRAZY HEART (2009)

I like the way Michael Hauge explains this. He calls the two moral premise values the character's "identity" and the character's "essence." At the beginning of the story each character has an "identity" that they have given to themselves; that is they have put on a mask and are pretending to be someone they are not at their essence. But the identity, because it is false, has holes, and the romance character can see through those holes to the person's true essence. Each character falls in love with the other person's essence and are repulsed by that person's false identity. In Crazy Heart, the romance sub-plot between Blake and Jean occurs because Jean sees what Blake could be. She falls in love with his essence. But when he can't seem to fall in love with his own essence, she breaks it off.

So when the man reveals or practices his false identity the woman is turned off and repulsed. Likewise when the woman reveals or practices her false identity the man is turned off and repulsed.  But when each practices their essence, there is attraction.

In over simplified terms of the Moral Premise, the false identity is that person's vice, and their essence is their virtue. In more accurate terms, it's the moral premise vice that allows the character to hide behind their identity and camouflage their essence. And it's practicing the moral premise virtue that allows their true essence to be revealed. 

Although the man and woman may have similarities, the story is about how these two characters are different, even opposite in some ways. To be complete and happy and fulfilled, they have to be together so their essences are complimentary. 

Both may love the opera, but one likes to sit in the balcony and the other in the front row. They are both stubborn and demand their own way. Thus the drama comes out of the battle to decide where they will sit to enjoy the thing that they both love. the story is about stubbornness and forbearance --  not the opera.

Now about somethings each needs to be stubborn... justice, for instance, or if they're investors in the opera they can be stubborn about the singers being on pitch and not just looking the part. But about other things they need to drop the stubborn "identity" and be "forbearing."

Each character, at a subliminal level, longs to be complete and whole. In and by themselves they never will be. But with the right mate, they can participate in that wholeness somewhat vicariously, and by virtue of being married and (one flesh) they can participate with the other person that makes them a whole, if only by  proximity.

A personal example: my wife, Pam, and myself. I am not sentimental nor do I value nostalgia in the least. But at the right time I realize that being sentimental and nostalgic has some value. But to this day I could never express such emotion or sympathy toward others. But Pam does it so naturally. So, I can facilitate her getting to a family gathering where she can dole out the sentimentality, nostalgia and sympathy. I'll sit next to her when she does this, and I will aid her by finding money so she can buy the stupid little gifts that others love for their tacky sentimentality. (Can you tell I am not into this.) So, in that way, we are made whole. My vice (hating to be sentimental) is countered by her virtue (sentimentality.)  But my vice (arrogance) can prevent her from being sentimental and putting her down for it.

 

2. The arc from vice to virtue does not need to be wide or long, nor does it need to deal with vile or overly righteous values.  Not shown above, but imagine, the story being about moving from courage to honor (two small arrows at the right would do this). That is the moral arch of THE BLIND SIDE which deals with two virtues (one not as good as the other)  and how any fool can have courage, but not everone arrives at honor. 

In the diagram above the two yellow arrows can represent the moral arcs of a romantic couple. For their peculiar reasons each is deceptive to the other, thinking they need to lie about what they do, where they're going, or why, in order to appease the love of the other. But the other doesn't buy the lie and there's rejection. It's only when they take off their masks, and are truthful to each other that there is acceptance. 

3. Here's a variation on this theme:

The character represented by the left arrow believes (has the false identity) that they have to be deceptive to be accepted. Whereas the character represented by the right arrow is so scrupulous about telling the truth that it sounds like an over the top lie all the time. Both are vices. The virtue is graciously telling the truth. 

In these ways each protagonist becomes the antagonist for the other. So the man's goal and the woman's goal is to get together with the other. To do that he thinks he has to be God's gift to women and be arrogant and controlling. (WHAT WOMEN WANT) But that "identity" he keeps practicing turns off the woman, and thus he's rejected. At the same time she arrogantly believe she has to protect herself from such cads, and defends everything she does and puts him in his place. And that repulses him. So, they become each other's antagonists. 

4. Now, in your case, both the man and the woman have to practice a vice which will block their true essence from being regularly revealed. they are both determined to be right about what they believe, and both have to change to meet in the middle and get together. A very typical virtue and vice scenario for stories like yours is arrogance vs. humility. Or going back to your original moral premise statement:

Greed and selfishness leads to isolation and hatred, but
Generosity and sacrifice leads to inclusion and love.

The man, involved in business, is easy. But,how can you make her greedy about what she is doing? They both have to be imperfect. She can't be greedy about making money, that's his problem.  OR, perhaps she is greedy by virtue of being poor. Perhaps she's a hoarder: or perhaps she is about time. Or she could be selfish and proud about being poor. She could see "money is the root of all evil" but she only believes that because she's never had any. She's forgotten that the adage is "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil". In what ways is she NOT generous? That is her vice, and it blocks the guy's ability to see her goodness. But she does have some and by the first ten pages we know that that is.

But, if you're determined to make her the perfect person, and him the bad guy, then you have a story about HIM, not her.  If you want to make the story about both of them, they both have to be imperfect. 

Watch any Romantic Comedy that was successful in the box office and you'll see this. Take out the wild comedy, and you'll have your romance. 

Hope this helps. Let me know. 

See also this post on the Conflict of Values: http://moralpremise.blogspot.com/2010/02/expanded-conflict-of-values-and-moral.html

The Story Diamond

The Story Diamond is a useful diagram in structuring a story or screenplay. It was conceived by Chris Vogler and Will Smith, and then used by screenwriters Marianne & Cormac Wibberley for an upcoming Will Smith project that I was called in on to brainstorm. The image below is close to what they handed out. I've added the ACT 1, 2A images, and the explanation at the bottom. You can download this image HERE.

With their permission I took it and enhanced it by overlaying the various story structures used in the industry. The latest version is linked on the moral premise website in the middle of THIS PAGE... scroll down to find it. 

Here's what it looks like today with a host of other story structure systems overlaid. A full explanation of the Story Diamond is presented in my On-Line Storycraft Training series. You can download the latest version HERE.

Redemptive Crazy Heart

CRAZY HEART

Moral Premise Analysis

Written & Directed by Scott Cooper
based on novel by Thomas Cobb

Bad Blake (Jeff Bridges) (AA: BEST ACTOR)
Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal)
Wayne (Robert Duval)
Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell)

Music by
Stephen Bruton, T-Bone Burnett, & Ryan Bingham

  
Length: 106 min (1:46)

Domestic Gross 35MM

Act 1-2 Break
(Theoretically: 25% = 26.5 min.)

Actual: After Jean's first interview with Blake, he asks her:
"Did you get what you need?
and she responds: "I could always use more." (28:42)
 

Moment of Grace
(Theoretically: 50% = 53 min.)

Actual: After Blake rolls his truck and
the doctor tells Blake to start taking care of himself. (55:30)
 

Act 2-3 Break
(Theoretically: 75% = 79.5 min.)

Actual: After Blake loses Buddy in the mall and Jean leaves him.
Next morning Blake calls Wayne: "I want to get sober." (90 min.)

MORAL PREMISE
Self-hated leads to a destructive and empty life; but
Self-love leads to a constructive and fulfilled life.

One night a few months ago, while in L.A. on a consulting job, I saw CRAZY HEART  at the instigation of writer-director Mike Soccio. Mike was lamenting the ending of Crazy Heart because Bad Blake (Jeff Bridges), does not end up with his love interest Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal). The next day Mike and I tossed around the idea that the movie didn't do that great at the B.O. principally because it didn't have that expected "Hollywood Ending."  It was a let down for the audience that after all the trials and tribulations that Bad Blake goes through, especially after his successful effort to get his life straightened out, the girl goes to another man -- and a man we never meet, nor do we know anything about. Mike was nearly pounding the table in expressing the audience's disappointment. 

I agreed with Mike then, and I do now, even after studying the story and coming to appreciate the "rewarding" genre-bending structure that Crazy Heart employs. It's a structure that  stretches the genre of a "romance" in an appropriate and truthful way, leaving us with a slightly independent feel and a terrific story.  I think the fact that Blake does not end up with the girl actually opened the door for Jeff Bridge's Academy BEST ACTOR win -- something I had hoped for.  And, I will attempt to describe why the movie would have been a disaster, in a narrative sense, if Blake had ended up with Jean.

ANALYSIS

In CRAZY HEART, Bad Blake's physical goal is to write new songs for his successful prodigy, Tommy Sweet.  But the psychological problem that prevents this is Blake's own self-hatred and the physical manifestation of that hatred — alcoholism. One of the wounds from Blake's past is that during the days when he was making a name for himself and touring, he became an absentee father. In our story Blake has not seen his son, Stephen, since his boy was four. That is the age of Jean's boy (Buddy), and it explains why Blake takes to Buddy-- it's an effort to redeem his past.

Thus, Blake's psychological goal is to love himself. Once he learns to love himself, he can stop drinking, and with the absence of alcohol he can, once again, become a songwriting powerhouse.

To tell this story our protagonist, Blake, needs help to see his problem and to learn to love again. He can't possibly love others until he learns to love himself.

The agents, or mentors, that lead Blake on that journey include a variety of characters, from his manager, to Tommy, and to his friend Wayne. But the most important guide on his journey is the aspiring journalist Jean Craddock.  

Jean, therefore, is not the goal, but the muse. The story is about Blake learning to love himself, not Blake learning to love Jean. Oh, it could have been about learning to love Jean, but that story, if it's to happen, is after the fade to black. (She's not married yet.)

Further, Jean's goals as muse, is not simply to stimulate Blake's songwriting that seems to come naturally to Blake, but to be his muse toward health and love—two criteria for being able to write songs. The narrative structure allows Jean to give herself to Blake in love, to remind Blake of the hope and inspiration that love can bring. So, that is what she does. Similarly, Blake's manager,  Wayne and the doctor do what they can to guide Blake toward self-respect and health. Indeed the manager starts and finishes the journey, and the doctor partners with Jean in the Moment of Grace to turn Blake in the opposite direction.

Buddy's role is also designed to inspire Blake to see the redemption of love, for Buddy is a metaphor for Blake. Not only does Buddy represent the flesh and blood son Blake lost, but when Blake drinks in the mall bar, Buddy leaves. That's a metaphor for when Blake drinks, Blake's essence leaves. And when Jean tells Blake that he'll hurt Buddy with his drinking, the meaning is that Blake will hurt Blake with his drinking.

By the end of the story Jean and the others have succeeded—Blake returns to self-respect and self-love and is productive and fulfilled. In this light, for Jean to become the object of his journey, for her to become his goal, would discredit the story being about Blake and the fundamental journey he's on.

MUSIC

Music plays an important role in communicating to an audience what a movie is really about at a psychological or spiritual level. And the music in CRAZY HEART is central. An examination of the songs reinforce the above analysis. The songs are not so much about a man loving a woman, but simply about a man loving and respecting himself.

The movie's theme song is Ryan Bingham's THE WEARY KIND. It's not a song about love between a man and a woman, but about a man learning to give his life one more chance.



And this ain’t no place for the weary kind

And this ain’t no place to lose your mind
And this ain’t no place to fall behind

Pick up your crazy heart and give it one more try

In the song SEARCHING, it does look as if this could be about a man and a woman, but as we see Jean being the muse, we realize that Jean's love is a metaphor for the real object of Blake's love, himself -- not in narcissism, but in self-respect.  Read these lyrics with "self" standing in for "you" -- or Jean standing in for loving self.

SEARCHING
I've spent a lifetime darling

Searching looking for someone like you

Dreaming in all my dreams
I dream that someday
I'd find someone like you
Other loves have come my way
but they were not for me

Tell me that you're here to stay don't ever set me free

Then there is the song Wayne sings (off camera), LIVE FOREVER. This is not just a song for Blake about his son, or for Jean about Buddy, but principally about all fathers and mothers (especially Blake's father and mother). For whatever happened in Blake's past, and we don't know everything, it's evident that the "darkness" had taken Blake. Wayne's song is to all of us, a plea for all of us to do what we can as parents to raise up our children with self-respect so they do not become like "bad" Blake:

LIVE FOREVER

You fathers and you mothers


Be good to one another

Please try to raise your children right
Don't let the darkness take 'em

Don't make 'em feel forsaken

Just lead them safely to the light

When this old world is blown us under

And all the stars fall from the sky

Remember someone really loves you

We'll live forever you and I
I'm gonna live forever

I'm gonna cross that river


I'm gonna catch tomorrow now.

And finally, THERE'S A BRAND NEW ANGEL



Open the gates
Welcome him in. 

There's a brand new angel,

a brand new angel


with an old idea.

The "old idea" here is not the "old, bad Blake" but the old idea of a noble, constructive, tradition and not the modern tendency toward cynicism, anarchistic indulgence, and moral deconstruction. Blake is the brand new angel. Welcome him in.

Heroic Addition - Hurt Locker

HURT LOCKER

Brief Moral Premise Analysis

Script by: Mark Boal

Directed by: Katherine Bigelow

Bravo Company's Explosive Ordinance Demolition (EOD) Team

Sgt. FC William James (JAMES) – Jeremy Renner

Sgt. JT Sanborn (SANBORN) – Anthony Mackie

Specialists Owen Eldridge (ELDRIDGE) – Brian Geraghty

 

This is a great movie that won six 2009 Academy Awards including Best Original Screenplay, Best Direction, and Best Picture. But it did not resonate with general audiences, doing only $12.6 MM at the box office ($11 MM budget). Why would such a powerful movie in many respects fail to garner a large audience, although marketing an independent movie that is picked up late by the domestic distributor (SUMMIT) no doubt had an effect on its availability to a wider audience.

THREE PROBLEMS

HURT LOCKER suffered at the box office needlessly. All successful movies, in terms of story: (1) Needs to have ONE clear protagonist; (2) The protagonist needs a PHYSICAL GOAL that the audience can see and root for; and (3) The underlying subtext of the story (what the story is really about, that is, the moral premise) needs to be TRUE and CONSISTENTLY APPLIED and be about ONE THING.

A VISIBLE PHYSICAL GOAL
 
In most of my consulting I focus on the truth and consistency of the moral premise's portrayal. But the more scripts and stories I look at for students and clients, I'm beginning to focus more on the PHYSICAL PREMISE... the goal. Without a clear goal you shouldn't even waste your time thinking about a moral premise.

Michael Hauge calls the PHYSICAL GOAL the OUTER MOTIVATION, and indeed that is a good name for it, just as the PSYCHOLOGICAL GOAL (or the moral premise) is the INNER MOTIVATION.  In his on-line article titled "Arenas and Finish Lines: Avatar" Michael discusses why Avatar did so well at the box office and why Hurt Locker did so poorly. Simply put, Avatar's protagonist has a goal (stop the destruction of Na'vi) while the protagonist of HURT LOCKER just wants to survive the next assignment to defuse and dispose of a IED as member of an EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) team.

But James, the intended protagonist, survives multiple defusing and disposal events, so we're never sure when he's reached his goal. It certainly isn't to return home. In fact, the opening supers tell us that perhaps this man has no goal, other than to continue to feed his addiction to war.

As a result, the audience is left underwhelmed with no one to root for.

As I discuss below, however, the supposed "antagonist", Sanborn, may have been the better protagonist. Sanborn has a goal, to get home alive, and later develops a second goal, to get married and have a boy, which is a further and natural development of the first. We identify and root for Sanborn, we don't for James. 

A DEMONSTRATED TRUE MORAL PREMISE

Normally, a well crafted true moral premise would help a film connect with audiences. And in the HURT LOCKER we have a decently crafted and implemented true moral premise. Let me describe that first, before going on to the contrary depiction in the film.

The still image above is a frame from the slow motion shot of an expelled casing from a sniper's round tumbling harmlessly to the desert floor. It indicates HURT LOCKER's Moment of Grace (MOG), and as you should expect the "shot" occurs in the exact middle of HURT LOCKER at 63 minutes (the film's length is 126 minutes, not counting the credits).  This particular casing is from the round fired by Sgt. Sanborn at an Iraqi insurgent sniper during a sniper duel. Sanborn's spotter is Sgt. James. 

The slow motion image is symbolic on a number of levels.

A. The casing is similar in shape to the IED casings which are the EOD's primary task to defuse and destroy.

B. Whereas the IED's disrupt the ground from below bringing indiscriminate death to civilians and combatants, this sniper's casing disrupts the gravel from above bringing discriminate death to a single combatant.

C. Before an IED explosion the IED's casing lies dangerously beneath the surface. After the sniper's shot the round's casing lies harmlessly above the surface. 

D. For the first half of the story the drama between Sgt. Sanborn and Sgt. James lies dangerously beneath the surface. After this particular round is fired (and the MOG), the drama between these two men lies benevolently above the surface. 

E. Before the MOG the conflict between Sanborn and James escalates to the point where Sanborn seriously considers killing James in a faked accident. After the MOG the two men learn to work together for the benefit of all.

BEFORE THE MOG

When James comes on the scene as the EOD's bomb tech we discover that he is not only very good at what he does, but he likes to do things on his own. On his first mission he discharges a smoke bomb presumably as a diversion to possible snipers or an insurgent capable of detonating the IEDs. But the smoke also inhibits Sanborn and Eldridge from doing their jobs to cover James.

James' cowboy personality, angers Sanborn. When we learn that James was a Ranger, we're reminded that in Sanborn's mind James is a "lone ranger" and the connotation is not a good one. To the audience however, upon seeing how good James is, we're reminded of the heroic cowboy that rides into town, single-handedly saves the town from the bad guys, and then rides out of town -- again alone. Indeed, James' character seems to have no vices except that he doesn't communicate with his team, as army procedure seems to dictate.  James' independence is illustrated in other ways:

• He takes the shrapnel protecting plywood off his room's windows and basks in sunlight.
• He doesn’t listen to Sanborn, especially when Sanborn wants James to get out of the kill zone.
• He refuses to use the robot, he puts on his suit and wades in.
• He single-handedly confronts and backs down an aggressive taxi driver, alone, while a whole platoon stands by seemingly helpless. "If he wasn't an insurgent before, he is now."
• He refuses to talk to Sanborn during mission. (But then Sanborn is distractingly annoying.)

After the first mission (during which James deploys the smoke bomb,  disarms 7 IED's in a daisy chain, and comes face-to-face with the insurgent who runs away) Sanborn helps James out of his bomb protective suit and they have this exchange that begins at 26 min 46 seconds:

JAMES: That wasn’t so bad. First time working together. What’d think? 

SANBORN: Hmm, I think us working together means I talk to you, and you talk to me? 

JAMES: We going on a date, Sanborn? 

SANBORN: No. We’re going on a mission, and my job is to keep you safe so we can keep going on missions. 

JAMES: It’s combat, buddy.

THE MOMENT OF GRACE

The MOG in HURT LOCKER should be occurring half way through the story at 63 minutes. The EOD is pinned down by sniper fire beginning at 54:40 to about 1:08:50. It's a long scene, during which there are long periods of Sanborn (above, left) and James (above, right) waiting out the insurgent sniper perhaps a mile away. As you can, tell the 63 minute shot from Sanborn's rifle is in the midst of this scene. It is a scene that demands these two men talk carefully to each other according to a procedure they have been trained to follow. Their teamwork saves their lives, a teamwork that involves Eldridge as well. Here, pinned down by the enemy they learn to trust each other. 

After the MOG shot described above, they continue to wait out the insurgents into dusk in case there are more lurking in the distant building. During that time Sanborn, his eyes glued to the telescopic finder, begins to cough. Some minutes later, James asks Eldridge for a juice pack. 

When James gets the pack he looks at it as if he is praying over it. Although his fingers hurt he gets the straw punched in through the side, and then he slides over to Sanborn and holds the straw to Sanborn's lips... for Sanborn cannot put down the weapon that is protecting them.

JAMES: Drink. Drink it.

And Sanborn does, all of it.

After this whole MOG scene the EOD team finally gets back to the barracks and celebrates their new found camaraderie with stomach punches that one reviewer describes this way:

They trade “stomach punches in a ritualistic display of affectionate aggression that looks as if it will end in either sex or murder, and Ms. Bigelow’s insight is that the tense comradeship of soldiers rests, often tenuously, on barely suppressed erotic and homicidal impulses.

Indeed after this, Sanborn increases respect for James, and James reciprocates by including Sanborn in the diagnosis and solutions that confront the team. James isn't perfect, and his lone ranger attitude draws Sanborn and Eldridge into a night hunt that gets Eldridge shot in the leg and sent home. It' is James' fault for ignoring protocol and letting platoons search out the bad guys. At least he doesn't go out alone.... although earlier he did and almost got killed by a housewife and then the guards of his own base.

But to show how much the team has grown from beginning to the end, at the end they are confronted by a family man who has been forced to become a suicide bomber. this time Sanborn and James work together. Before initiating thier plan they talk it over, and bump fists:

SANBORN: Go get them.

JAMES: Let's do it.

It is a dramatic change from the beginning.

The most dramatic change of call is when Sanborn, previously afraid to enter the kill zone, now stands side-by-side with James in his suit, as they struggle to cut through the locks that fatally imprison the father.

There is much more to share about these two men, especially the final conversation in their Humvee after they fail to save the man strapped with bombs and locks. But let's move on for now.

THE MORAL PREMISE

With the short explanation above it seems that the moral premise might be stated this way:

Demanding arrogance leads to animosity and hatred; but

Competent teamwork leads to respect and honor.

It's a lesson that James concedes in his embrace of Sanborn's defensive and effective support, and Sanborn learns about James. 

BUT "HURT LOCKER" IS NOT ABOUT ONE THING

As true and well-developed as the moral premise is, the movie is not perfectly structured around that one truth. Indeed, there is a second moral premise, but I am having trouble articulating it. Perhaps someone else will see what I can't (although there are hints that follow) and explain it to all of us in the com box below.

But there are two things that dilute and confuse the one thing described in the moral premise, which I think inhibits the audience's understanding of what the movie is trying to say.

HURT LOCKER begins with this quote from Chris Hedges book "War is a Force That Gives us Meaning." Superimposed over black, the first thing we see is this:

The Rush of a Battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.

and then part of the quote fades away leaving us simply with:

war is a drug

At the end of the movie, a movie that is clearly intended to be about William James, he goes home to be with his wife and son, and he struggles with making decisions about cereal in the grocery story (a decision that has no moral significance). And we find him cleaning out the leaves from the eaves, an action that is just like clearing the gravel off an armed IED, but with the leaves in the eaves there is no moral significance, and James knows he was called to do something significant with his life.

As he sits on a bed with his toddler son and they play with a Jack-in-the-Box (a metaphor for the IED), the jack pops up, and the baby laughs.

JAMES: You love playing with his stuffed animals. You love your mommy, your daddy, your nature pajamas.  You love everything, don’t you? Yeah! But you know what buddy? As you get older, some of the things that you love might not seem so special anymore, you know. Like your jack-in-the-box. Maybe you realize it’s just a piece of tin and a stuffed animal.  As you get older, there are fewer things you really love. And by the time you get to my age, maybe it’s only one or two things. With me, I think it’s one.

In the next images, we see James landing back in Iraqi, for a new rotation as the bomb tech for Delta Company, and 365 days to go. 

The first and last images of HURT LOCKER tell us that for this warrior, war is an addiction. It's the only thing he can like, or the only thing that gives him a rush of satisfaction and significance. 

Unfortunately for the box office that is not what the clear moral arc seems to be for the the main characters. That war is a drug is a valid theme, but it dilutes the resonant meaning of the above moral premise so aptly demonstrated in the story per se. Perhaps someone else can suggest a moral premise that involves the "rush of battle and addiction" as some combination of virtue and vice through which the characters arc. And indeed, there are the scenes wherein we see James feeling very satisfied at the completion of a mission. To James defusing a bomb is as satisfying as sex, and after he completes his duty, he's quick to lay back and have a smoke. For him the rush of defusing a bomb is like an addiction that he can't wait to experience and later memorialize. He even keeps a collection of triggering devices that almost killed him, and in with the devices is his wedding ring. Thus, the connection between the adrenaline rush of sex and James' encounters with bombs is astonishingly clear.

But that is not the clear arc that we encounter with him and Sanborn's relationship, except to say that Sanborn doesn't share James' addiction and can't figure the guy out. So, we need a second moral premise for this addiction thingy, that interconnects with the teamwork idea, if we're going to help this movie succeed at the box office. Well, it's too late now, but that seems to be a valid effort at least to help us all in future projects.

AND "HURT LOCKER" IS NOT ABOUT ONE PERSON

The second element that seems to have diluted HURT LOCKER from resonating with the audience is that the most significant character arc is not James' arc, but rather Sanborn' s arc. This easily confuses audiences. The movie is clearly intended to be about James and his journey... a journey that audiences' expect to be about discovery,  learning, and change. But, James has almost no arc. Indeed, when he returns for another rotation it could easily be his third or fourth rotation to Iraq. We don't know. There is no significant change evident in James' character from the opening scene to the final. 

But, Sanborn's arc is huge. Early on, when he and James are shaving in the base bathroom, and he expresses his anger at James for not following protocol on their first outing, they have this interchange beginning on page 29:

SANBORN: What you did yesterday, wasn’t cool.

JAMES: Yeah, I know. You’ll get it, though. You’ll get it.

James' arrogance grates on Sanborn.

SANBORN: I was in intelligence for seven years before I joined EOD. We ran missions in every shit hole you can imagine. So, I’m pretty sure I can figure out a redneck piece of trailer trash like you. 

It’s a harsh racial remark coming from a black man to a white man.

JAMES (almost affectionately): Looks like you’re on the right track. (smiling) See you out there.

Later when Sanborn discovers that James has a son, Sanborn says he's not ready for a child, even though his girlfriend wants one.

By the end of the movie, after their final scene in trying to save the father (note they just saw the father of some children die) and both of them coming close to death from the explosion, Sanborn (with cuts on his face) engages James in this discussion:

SANBORN (near tears, face scared with bloody cuts): Shrapnel zings by, slices my throat. (recall that James has shrapnel wounds all over his body.) I bleed out like a pig in the sand. Nobody will give a shit. I mean, my parents will care, but they don’t count, man. Who else? (pause) I don’t even have a son.

JAMES: Well, you’re going to have plenty of time for that, amigo.
(notice the affectionate "amigo", which follows James earlier calling Sanborn "bro.")

SANBORN: No, man.

JAMES: You know.

SANBORN: I’m done. (beat) I want a son. (beat) I want a little boy, Will. I mean how do you do it. Take the risk? 

JAMES: I don’t know. I just … I guess I don’t think about it.

SANBORN: Every time we go out, it’s life or death. You roll the dice. You recognize that, don’t you?

JAMES: Yeah. Yeah. (beat) I mean, Yeah, I do. But I don’t know why. (stutters)I don’t know, J.T.  Do you know why I am the way I am?

SANBORN: No, I don’t.

This from a man who earlier had said: 

"I can figure out a redneck piece of trailer trash like you."

The main characer that goes through the greatest arc and change is Sanborn, but the movie focuses on James.  The audience has to be asking, "WHO is this movie really about?" Is it Sanborn, or James? With whom are we to identify? And is the movie about:

-- teamwork

-- war as a drug

-- we fight for our family's freedom?

I think this lack of unity about the protagonist, and the movie's thematic elements, aids in its lack of overwhelming resonance with general audiences.

[Side note: I can't help but notice that James Cameron's movie, AVATAR (which was also up for BEST PICTURE), is decidedly liberal in its portrayal of the U.S. military, as if the U.S. Army only battles for greed and power. But his divorced wife, Katherine Bigelow's movie, HURT LOCKER is clearly about the moral significance, valor, and virtue of our warriors and why we go to war. Indeed the title of the book she quotes at the beginning of the movie is, "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" ... not a book I can imagine James Cameron reading. ... but then I have not read the book and I do not know it's central theme.

And what was that... what was the noble warrior's name in HURT LOCKER? The name of Bigelow's former husband? Is there a message here ... not so explicitly hidden? ]