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.

WARRIOR (2011) - A FIGHT FILM LIKE NO OTHER

My thanks to Mary Kochan of CatholicLane for her editorial assistance. Catholic Lane published this review on August 24, 2011.

Director: GAVIN O'CONNOR

Writers: GAVIN O'CONNOR (screenplay), Cliff Dorfman (screenplay, story)

Starring

Tom Conlon - TOM HARDY

Brendan Conlon - JOEL EDGERTON

Paddy Conlon - NICK NOLTE

Tess Conlon - JENIFOR MORRISON

Frank Campana - FRANK GRILLO

Release Date: September 9, 2011

LIONSGATE

RATING: PG-13 for fight sequences and language.

[This is mostly a review of the film. I'll do a little moral premise analysis at the end.]

Synopsis
Tommy Colon and Brendan Conlon are estranged brothers who end up fighting each other inside a cage for the Mixed Martial Arts championship popular with ex-marines. At first punch and bruise (and there are a lot of them in this movie) it appears to be just another pugilistic movie filled with gratuitous violence designed to entertain the battered minds of a bitter disenfranchised generation. And it may be all that — but only in part. For this story is a gripping, won’t-let-you-go study of what it means to fight for noble causes, what it means to love, forgive, and find redemption.

Haunted by a tragic past, Marine Tommy Conlon (Hardy) returns home for the first time in fourteen years to enlist the help of Paddy, his father (Nick Nolte). Tommy wants Paddy, a recovering alcoholic who’s returned to his Catholic faith, to help him train for Sparta, the biggest winner-takes-all event in mixed martial arts (MMA) history – with a $5 million purse. A former wrestling prodigy, Tommy blazes a path toward the championship with quick, frightening knockouts. Meanwhile, his brother, Brendan (Edgerton), an ex-MMA fighter-turned high school physics teacher, returns to the ring in a desperate bid to save his family from financial ruin (the bank is ready to foreclose on their house). To the ringside crowd and the sports commentators (played by themselves), Tommy is a mystery fighter that came out of nowhere while Brendan is an over-the-hill fighter who is expected to be dispatched in the first round.

But what the experts don’t know is what’s driving the two men. Neither are fighting for glory, money, or egos — but something much more important — the redemption of their lives, which is complicated by a father they both despise for abusing their mother so badly that she ran for her life from him years earlier. “Pop” has now been sober for 1,000 days, has returned in a meaningful way to his Christian faith, and agrees to coach the deeply bitter Tommy even though ringside Paddy roots for Brendan. In the end, the two brothers must confront each other and the forces that originally pulled them apart in the MMA finals. The climax is perhaps one of the most unforgettable in the history of cinema.

The uniqueness of the story is that neither Tommy nor Brendan are fighting for personal glory. Tommy is an AWOL marine from Iraq. Why he’s AWOL harkens back to the story of Ishmael and Moby Dick and the biblical story of Job. Throughout the movie, Paddy (Pop) listens to Moby Dick on tape, and in a climax of his own, Paddy confronts the forces of nature that he (like Ahab) has brought upon his crew/family. Tommy is fighting for the families of the marines that were lost on the tragic day in Iraq that sent him running. He feels guilty that he alone survived and winning the $5 million dollar purse, which he intends to give to the families of his deceased warrior friends, will go a long way to erase his guilt for not dying with his comrades in arms.

Meanwhile, Brendan, who long ago gave up a successful career as a MMA fighter to become a humble but popular high-school physics teacher, gets upside down on his mortgage, and a hawk-like loan officer isn’t going to lose any sleep about foreclosing on Brendan, his wife and kids. But then, when Brendan begins to moonlight as a MMA fighter again, and wins a fight in the parking lot outside a local strip club bringing home the $500 purse to pay on the mortgage, the school board suspends him from his job without pay. Fighting outside strip clubs isn’t exactly the role model the school expects of its teachers.  In this there is humor when  his school principal ends up cheering him on with every ounce of his being. Also coming to his support is his wife, Tess who initially tells him: “I will not watch you fight” — but nonetheless puts her heart in the ring with him. As the audience, we cheer Brendan on as well, because, as his trainer tells him when he’s about to lose the second round championship fight, “Why are we here? If you don’t knock him out you don’t have a home.”

Dual Protagonists?
I want to say that the movie has two (dual) protagonists, Tommy and Brendan. But that isn’t really true. Brendan is the protagonist, and Tommy is the antagonist. Each has a tangible, physical goal, yet each is prevented from reaching that goal until they confront the psychological vice that blocks their progress — each must confront the truth that the movie is about (see “The Moral Premise” below). One of the endearing qualities of the picture is that the audience wants both Tommy and Brendan to win for different noble reasons. Consequently, the irony behind their estrangement makes the final two rounds of the final fight a love affair, in a very real way. I won’t reveal the ending here; it must be experienced. But I am looking forward to watching the movie again when it’s released to theaters and I can vote with my wallet.

Metaphor and Redemption
WARRIOR is like DIE HARD in the metaphor department , and both movies use the same theme music “Ode to Joy” that you may know as ” Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee.” Few women or mothers may understand what I write next, unless they are responsible for earning the family income and paying the bills. I suspect that most responsible men (and I consider myself one of them) have battled month after month, most of their lives, trying to pay bills and keep the family’s financial head above water. It is a constant battle in our consumer, materialistic society, where even as Christians we’re even harangued into giving every last dollar to the thousands of worthy causes that make us feel guilty if we don’t give way beyond our means. In DIE HARD, John McClain battles a tower filled with terrorists, who end up humbling John’s arrogance so John is ready to be a loving, caring and serving husband once again. The bloody fight with Hans Gruber and company is a metaphor for what John’s going through psychologically to get his wife back.

In WARRIOR the physical fighting is a metaphor for the psychological battle Brendan and Tommy (and Paddy/Pop) go through to find psychological redemption, and financial security as well.  The fighting seems over the top and gratuitous until the last moments of the film, and then the metaphor and the brutality make sense. Watch and listen carefully to the last moments of the final fight. Sit on the edge of your seat and don’t miss it. What happens… what both men do… is nearly impossible for any other man to do in most casual situations, let along a championship MMA fight in front of millions on live TV.

Thus, the story beat that will grab you is how the brothers reconcile with each other and their father. It doesn’t seem possible, but then miracles do happen.

Moral Premise
If you’ve read my book, The Moral Premise, then you know that all successful movies (indeed, all successful stories in any medium) are about a conflict of values that prevent all of the main characters from achieving their physical, or outward, goals, until they confront the psychological blockage in their system of moral values. In WARRIOR the conflict of values is about bitterness vs. forgiveness. And until forgiveness takes place, no one is going to win any fight. Here’s WARRIOR’s moral premise statement:

Bitterness leads to hatred and separation; but

Forgiveness leads to love and relationship.

In Conclusion
WARRIOR is an exciting and engaging human drama film, with award winning acting, direction, sound, editing, and a genre setting benchmark ending. It’s an Oscar contender and worthy film for adults and mature teens that explores the values in the human condition that are worth fighting for.

American Christian Fiction Writers Conference - Early Bird Workshop

On September 22, 2011, in St. Louis, I'm presenting the five-hour long Early Bird Workshop for the annual American Christian Fiction Writer's Conference. Individuals who are registered for the workshop should be getting an email notice of what I'm posting below so they can come prepared by pre-reading and viewing the works I'll be referencing.

I'm posting it here for convenience, since the ACFW Conference cannot post it on their website. In case you're wondering if you want to attend (my workshop) the following provides the antecedents of my examples.  If  you want to know "generally" the outline of my workshop you can read about that HERE. Although what I do in St. Louis will be significantly abbreviated due to time and revised to include some novels in the mix.

I've also decided to spend more time than I have in the past on examples and clips, since SHOWING is far better than TELLING. (As a writer, have you heard someone tell you that before?)  I love sharing this stuff and revealing the secrets of what makes great stories and movies. The title of my talk will be The Top 20 Secrets to Successful Storytelling (in Movies and Print).

========

Early Bird Workshop Reading/Viewing List

ACFW Conference September 22, 2011

Dear Early Bird Attendees:

In the course of the few hours we will spend together exploring the world of story structure, and the magic of moral and physical premises, I will reference a number of motion pictures and novels. You will get more out of the workshop if you are familiar with the following works. I am listing them in two categories:

I will spend the most time on these works:

• “Where the Heart Is” (novel by Billie Letts)

and the following movies

• DIE HARD (Bruce Willis)
• KARATE KID 2010 (Jaden Smith, Jackie Chan)
• RATATOUILLE  (Pixar)
• WHERE THE HEART IS (Natalie Portman)

I will mention these works but not spend as much time on them:

•  “The Mark of the Lion” novel series by Francine Rivers

and the following movies:

• A BEAUTIFUL MIND (Russell Crowe, Ed Harris)
• BRUCE ALMIGHTY (Jim Carrey)
• CITY SLICKERS (Billy Crystal)
• CITY SLICKERS II (Billy Crystal)
• CRAZY HEART (Jeff Bridges)
• DATE NIGHT (Steve Carell, Tina Fey)
• GRAN TORINO (Clint Eastwood)
• IN THE BEDROOM (Tom Wilkinson, Sissy Spacek)
• LIAR! LIAR! (Jim Carrey)
• MY NAME IS EARL (TV) (Jason Lee)
• PRECIOUS (Gabourey Sidibe, Mo’Nique, Mariah Carey)
• THE BLIND SIDE (Sandra Bullock, Quinton Araron)
• THE INCREDIBLES (Pixar)
• WHAT WOMEN WANT (Mel Gibson, Helen Hunt)

I’m looking forward to meeting you and sharing with you the excitement and focus that this workshop will give your story writing.

Please share this with your other writing friends and associates.

Stan

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.

Stories and Premises in Medieval Art

On August 20 the small class of classically trained teens that I teach screenwriting to, will accompany me to the Detroit Institute of Arts (DIA) for a lesson in visual story telling by the masters -- centuries before photography and cinema. But the stories, along with their physical and moral premises, are nonetheless poignant and relative even for today. (all photos via my iPhone, today)

For those of you outside of Detroit, the DIA is perhaps best known for Rivera's Court, where Diego Rivera's renoun frescoes tell the unblemished story of the industrial revolution, and the moral struggle involved in balancing the values of labor, capital, product, and economy. The Rivera Court is particularly attractive because of the bold, bright skylight that illuminates the work of the controversial Mexican artist.

But on the day we visit we'll not spend but a few minutes in Rivera's Court. Instead, we'll head for the galleries either side of it. To the Southwest are the European: Medieval and Renaissance galleries, and to the  Northwest is one particular room in the American collection.

The roots of Western Civilization (e.g. American civilization) came from Medieval Europe, that  culturally was dominated by Roman Catholicism. It was the Catholic institution that saved literature, fostered agriculture, established education, embraced parts of the Renaissance that didn't threaten it's teachings,  encouraged scientific discovery(*), and promoted the arts. This was during a time when the populace could not read, and if they could there were no books.  It was through the visual arts (as movies principally are) that the Church and its constituents communicated stories. Among the hundreds of artifacts on display at the DIA, we'll see how visual story telling hasn't really changed that much in hundreds of years.

TWO CLASS ASSIGNMENTS are below -- my students should keep reading.

FROM A PLACARD IN THE GALLERY:

"In much of the 15th-century Europe, saints were an integral part of everyday life. People imitated them, honored them, and called upon them in times of need. Churches, guilds, cities, and nations all had patron saints.

"At the time, believers often felt unworthy to appeal to God directly and prayed to saints to intercede with God for them.

"The Catholic church recognizes as saints virtuous people to whom miracles are attributed.

"The mother of Jesus has a special role. Many Christians hold Mary in special regard, above even the saints. Believers consider her, as the mother of Jesus, the closest to God and the most important assistance in communicating their prayers." (to Jesus and God.) 

"This room is filled with sculpted and painted images of saints and Mary that helped 15th-century Christians in prayer. A believer might have lit a candle or laid flowers in front of an image in respect and honor."

FROM ANOTHER PLACARD IN ANOTHER GALLERY: 

"In this gallery you will find works of art created in Western Europe during the latter Middle Ages. You will see some of the materials and artistic techniques prized during the period: ivory carving, enameled metalwork, tempera painting, and stained glass." (At right: Diptych with Scenes of the Lives of Christ and the Virgin, about 1320. Carved from Ivory by an unknown Parisian artist.)

"Most of these objects have religious themes, reflecting the importance of prayer and devotion in the daily life of a medieval Christian. Many objects performed a particular function, whether it was a chalice to hold during during Mass or a sculpture of a revered religious figure to adorn a church altar.

"The medieval collection of the DIA is one of the most important of the country, notable for the excellent quality of the objects."



 

THE FIRST ASSIGNMENT for my class during our visit.

Take an hour to wander through the 10 galleries of the Medieval and Renaissance collection.  Note that EACH work of art features the elements of drama that we've been studying present in motion pictures, yet at at no time are words used. (The best cinema still uses very little dialogue. SHOW don't TELL is the rule, even in contemporary novels.) Considering principally the elements of a log line  (i.e. a protagonist, a verb, an antagonist, a goal, and stakes) select TWO works of art and for each list the following:

A. Name of the work.
B. Artist's name.
C. Type of media.
D. Year of it's creation.
E. The protagonist.
F. The battling verb.
G. The antagonist.
H. The protagonist's goal.
I. The stakes.
J. The virtue at work in the story.
K. The vice at work in the story.
L. The moral premise of the work.
M. The most striking emotional element of the work. (That is, what tugs at your heart and pulls you into the work emotionally?)

You'll obviously have to use your knowledge about some stories apart from the exhibit, just as the Christians of the period listened to sermons and teachings that explained what the works were about.

Try not to select the same work that others select. Let's get a good variety.  After we're done we will let each of you take us to one of the works you selected and describe your observations to us as a class. (typically the DIA is not busy on Saturday so we don't be disturbing anyone.)

THE SECOND ASSIGNMENT is this:

As a group we will take our stools (provided by the DIA) and enter one of the American collection galleries, and sit before American Rembrandt Peale's 12-ft by 24-ft oil-on canvas painting "The Court of Death," which he completed in 1820.

It's the big screen of the 19th century, and like movies today it carries a powerful moral premise about virtue and vice and their physical consequences as one approaches death.

The painting depicts eight principal characters and a number of minor characters, not including Death who sits on a central throne...holding court. (There's a webpage dedicated to this painting. HERE.)

When my class arrives in this gallery we will cast lots and match up each of the students with one of the principal characters in the painting.  Then we will sit on our stools before the painting and write a short and dramatic life story of the character we've been assigned. The ending of our story will place them in Peale's painting. Taken altogether we will have a powerful piece of explicit story telling that the painter intended for us to imagine.

Needless to say, bring a good pad of paper (your journal will do if you have pages left) and some good writing instruments.

I will post links here to the results, after they are edited.  (Thanks WB for the suggestion.)

==============

(*) Story telling is much like scientific discovery in one respect. They are both based on the assumption that there is a natural law of rationally ordered cause and effect. In scientific discovery the cause and effect are both physical. In storytelling, while there is the same physical cause and effect relationship as in science, there is also, and more importantly, a cause and effect between the psychological (cause) and the physical (effect, or consequence) as described in my book, The Moral Premise.

The success of story telling is much the result of most religions' assumption (and science's fundamental assumption) that the universe is ordered and not random

Thus, the Church was principally (although indirectly) responsible for the scientific discoveries of the Renaissance. Catholic teaching assumes that the natural laws of the universe are ordered, structured predictable through rational investigation. The scientific method (1. observation 2. hypothesis. 3. Test. 4. Law) is dependent upon a observation that can predict cause and effect based on order that is a benefit to man's existence. If physical phenomenon were based on random events, or some set of laws that did not have mankind's survival as it's primary purpose, the scientific method would be useless -- and a box of dice might be as good as anything.  Thus, it was, that many of the great discoveries in science were made by devout Catholic men...including Galileo. And thus, it was, that almost all of the great artists of the time, who could have been movie directors if alive today, were devout Catholics as well. And, you'll discover, that not a few of Hollywood's best directors have Catholic backgrounds and understanding.

Good Stories Require Aggression

I've been doing a little sailing with the family, trying to get away from the computer, etc. But stories are always close at hand. In our pursuit of "sailing" from Detroit, MI to Lexington, MI we encountered a number of nemeses: sweltering hot weather (>100), big freighters that take up the channel, a midnight encounter with a foreign freighter on the St. Clair River that sent out a rouge wake that put my wife in the hospital for a few hours (they kept asking her: "Madam, are you in a safe environment?"), a late night dock security guard on a Segway, and "no wind"... a terrible thing for a "sail" boat. But we (the protagonists) were aggressive and overcame the obstacles, and achieved our goal: a quiet anchorage in Lexington, MI.

Stories require aggressive, resourceful heroes. No movie goer is interested in a hero who is only passively interested in the goal, or an antagonist who simply behaves contrary. Both characters need to pursue their goal with passion, diligence, and aggression. My workshop now begins with a slide saying you need two key ingredients for a successful story: The WRITER'S PASSION and the PROTAGONIST'S PASSION — both for achieving their goals. The actual slide form the workshop says it this way:

1. A good story originates from a writer's inexplicable INSPIRATION. Nothing can replace it.

2. A good story is about an imperfect hero's unrelenting DESIRE for achieving a goal against insurmountable odds. Nothing can supplant that.

3. For a good story to be well told the writer's INSPIRATION, and the hero's DESIRE must have one thing in common — STRUCTURE. Everything needs it.

Oh, yeah, here's a picture of an obstacle, and the boat getting to the goal:

Getting Focus Group Feedback

Like a lot of you, I continue working on a number of story projects. One current project is NAUGHTY LITTLE NAZIS (D.K.N.), originally written by Nikita Mungarwadi when she was 13. At the time Niki went to the middle school where my wife, Pam, teaches. One day Pam came home and said that one of the students at school (but not one of hers) had read my book, The Moral Premise. That got my attention. It wasn't exactly written for early teen consumption.

The second sentence out of Pam's mouth was that the girl had written a screenplay and wondered if I'd read it for her. If the sentences had been reveresed I would have said "No, thank you." But how could I refuse to at least flip through the first few pages of the screenplay a teen had written after reading my book? It seemed "sacriledge" to say no.

Nikita Mungarwadi

So, a few days later a screenplay came home with Pam titled NAUGHTY LITTLE NAZIS. To say the least, it rocked my socks. I could hardly put it down. It needed some work to be sure, but the third thing that caught my eye was the author's name, "Nikita Mungarwadi." I have some connections to India, and as I found out Niki was an American off spring of Indian immigrants. Her Dad is the director of water distribution for S.E. Michigan for the City of Detroit.

I had to meet her. To make a long story short, I volunteered my time to work with Niki at their kitchen table with her dad helping us with Internet research about Germany during WWII.  We worked off and on for six months, and then I bought an option on the project to develop it further.

Here's the log line for the war-time action story:  A rebellious 14-year old German girl battles the Nazis to free her Jewish friends from the Ghetto before it's liquidated.  (The story is loosely based on a compaction of the teenage resistance groups active in Berlin during the war, which required considerable research on Nikia's part.)

Sanjeev (dad) and Nikita Mungarwadi, Stan Williams, Alex Krüger, Pam Williams. 

One of the problems with stories that are outside your experience is how to get a reading form someone that might know more than you do about it. The story had to read well to a German teenager, preferable form Berlin, I figured. Where was I going to find one of those, I thought. I'm in Michigan, and it's been decades since I was in Germany.

Niki and Alex. Alex returns to Berlin this week.

As it happened (for the convenience of this story) my son's family, who lives nearby, were hosting a 17-year German boy from Berlin as a foreign exchange student. The boy's uncle was in the Hitler Youth Corp. Such luck. Alex agreed to read the recent draft, and after Niki read it, and Pam, we all met for dinner at a local Indian restaurant.

Alex had a lot of great ideas for the character names to make them more traditional and German. With Nikita and Alex we refined a few scenes that they thought needed more danger and excitement. It's been fun working on a script written by a teenage an American-Indian girl, with a teenage young man from German (who's nearly forgotten how to speak in German after being the U.S. for a year), while sitting in an Indian restaurant in Michigan. Great Feedback. Now it's on to the next draft.

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

Meaningless Ratings (2002)

What follows is an article I wrote for a Catholic website in 2002. The article reveals some of the motivation behind the research that resulted in The Moral Premise, which was begun the next year. 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. It is dated, so I've done a little editing and added a few comments [in brackets].

=======

MEANINGLESS RATINGS

"I'd rather write an R-rated film that told the truth than a G-rated film that lied." That's what respected Christian producer and screenwriter, Brian Bird, said to me over lunch recently in Hollywood. He was tired of taking his children to see G-rated Disney fare that presented a worldview that was distinctly non-Christian — e.g. elevating faith in magic and fairies over faith in God and the angelic hosts.

For Christians, the Motion Picture Association of American (MPAA) film ratings, and the recent TV-ratings, do not tell whether or not a film is acceptable — to children or adults. But as a rough gauge of acceptability, they have provided some help. Or so I thought until recently.

When we first started our motion picture development company we made a decision to focus our efforts on writing only G, PG, and PG-13 rated films. No "R-ratings" we said — unless we felt particular inspired to do something as poignant as Schindler's List and we avoided gratuitous elements. But in recent months, some of the PG-13 films that have hit the theaters have caused us to rethink that rule. [And in 2004 there was THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST with a strong "R".] Increasingly, films that used to be rated R now appear to be rated PG-13. So recently we made the decision that our efforts would instead focus only on G and PG ratings, with PG-13 as the rarely allowed exception. [This makes business sense as well. The fewer admittance restrictions to a film, the higher potential box office.]

What is going on inside the MPAA rating board wasn't announced but it is being noticed. Peter Bart, VP and Editor-in-Chief of Hollywood's most respect trade publication, Daily Variety, wrote in his August 5, 2002 editorial “PG-13 Pictures Rate an 'R' for Raunchy” (p. 19):

More and more films like Austin Powers in Goldmember — movies steeped in toilet jokes and sexual innuendo — are earning PG-13 ratings rather than the more restrictive ratings they might have received a few years ago.

Is it pure coincidence that ratings mavens have seemingly become more liberal at a time when the major distributors are more conservative? When I asked one studio chief last week, he sat back and grinned: "Puzzling, isn't it?"

But parents may not be puzzled about whether they'd like their 13-year-olds to become aficionados of Austin Powers. Sure, no nasty penises or vaginas are on display (just some interesting facsimiles), and no one commits sexual intercourse, but the overall level of humor makes American Pie (which got an R) seem like a course at the Harvard Divinity School. When Dr. Evil refers to his lair, a submarine, as "long, hard and full of seamen," he is actually lifting the level of dialogue.

To set the record straight there are a number of motion pictures with PG-13 and even R ratings that, although they are not suitable for children, tell morally valid, redemptive stories with strong Judeo-Christian themes and values. Among such recent PG-13 films are: PAY IT FORWARD, THE APOSTLE, and WHERE THE HEART IS. Worthy R rated fare include WE WERE SOLDIERS, AMISTAD, THE GREEN MILE, AND BLACK HAWK DOWN, [and in 2004, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST].

On the otherhand, there are also movies that deserve their restrictive R rating for no reason other than the filmmaker, in possession of a truly redemptive Judeo-Christian story, made stupid decisions regarding language and sexuality. One such movie is MAGNOLIA — a film that I would highly recommend if it wasn't for the zillion or so [unnecessary] expletives.

What Peter Bart suggests is that the MPAA ratings board has caved into the desires of filmmakers and the studios to produce raunchy, vile movies yet not necessarily jeopardize their $50 million marketing budgets. Instead of an R rating they get the more marketable PG-13. Why is the R rating now a problem when five years ago it wasn't? Because, not only are parents keeping a closer eye on what their kids are seeing, but theaters are doing a much better job of keeping kids out of R movies.

Additionally, TV shows with kid audiences are likewise turning away advertisements for films with R ratings. All of that hurts attendance. And while that's good for parents, it's bad for filmmakers of such fare. So, to help the studios and distributors appear to have a cleaner image, MPAA has embraced what might be called “ratings equivocation”. What used to be R can now be classified as PG-13. The result? Less conflict with critics, and more tickets sold ... to kids.

Parents beware. Don't read too much into a rating. Instead, get the scoop on the story and read what good Christian reviewers are saying about the picture, [although I still cringe at how some Christian reviewers count sweat words, and the number of times little Billy gets slugged in the stomach by big Bully. See my other post on "The Good of Conflict and Immorality in Movies.]  Better still, go ahead of time or along with your child or teen, and don't be embarrassed to walk out.

I love the movies. I produce them. But in regard to my children and grandchildren, I have little patience for irresponsible filmmaking.

Villains "Noble" Intent

In story development we often speak of heroes as having a weakness or imperfection. It is what allows audiences to identify with the protagonist and morally be sutured into his or her life. We also speak of villains has having an understanding (within themselves) that what they are doing is just, good, and right. No one else may believe it, but the villain, in his or her twisted logic, believes it.

This "light" of righteousness, as dark as it may be, also allows the audience to identify with the villain. Why? Because subconsciously, we, the audience, know that our best intentions often miss the mark. What we think is right, is often wrong. Maybe not to the extent that we'd be thought of as a villain, but it does put us in that arena.

What is right and wrong lies on a continuum. See this POST.

Today I was struck by three headlines where the three villains written about all have noble intent behind their actions. AP reports both:

From the AP & Fox News: Dr. Jack Kervorkian, the Michigan pathologist who championed physician-assisted suicides, died early Friday after being hospitalized with kidney problems and pneumonia. The 83-year-old Kevorkian, who said he helped some 130 people end their lives from 1990 to 1999, died about 2:30 a.m. at William Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak, Michigan."

Notice the "noble" smile on Jack's face as he prepares again to help kill someone. Have you seen this man's "art."  Google it. It's what an art director would create for a villains lair.

And then there's Ratko Mladic claim:

From the AP and Fox News: "Ratko Mladic defiantly refused on Friday to enter pleas to what he called "obnoxious" allegations that as the Serb military chief during the Bosnian war he orchestrated the worst atrocities of a conflict that claimed 100,000 lives. He claimed he was defending "my people and my country."

Notice the ironic patriotic salute.

Well, we don't want to be like these guys, but they're great "role models" for our story's villains.

And just a reminder... the villain can be the protagonist.

Big Yacht Repower - Post Production

This is about a documentary I produced, shot, and edited. The shoot began November 2009, ending in July 2010.  It was aired on Detroit Public Television in 2011. The On-Line version LINK is HERE at YouTube.   The video is embeded below.

Disclaimer

I put this in my moral premise blog because I don't have a production blog. It's out of the ordinary post for the others found on this blog because it does not deal with a mainstream feature film. However, Big Yacht Repower does have an imperfect protagonist: An Old 53-foot Hatteras that leaked oil and went slow.  The moral premise could be stated like this:

Old, leaky diesels lead to slow passages and low fuel economy. New, high-tech diesels lead to fast passages and high fuel economy.

Production notes and jacket copy below.





If the video doesn't play here easily, click on the YouTube icon  to watch on my channel at YouTube. 


Retrospect

Producing this took me back to my days of directing technical training video discs for Ford Motor Company. But back then I had great budgets with decent size crews,  Ford's engineering departments to prep props and set pieces, a huge studio just 50' feet down the hall from my cubicle, and often a travel budget. Big Yacht Repower was just the opposite in about every way, with one exception. Back then we were editing on 2-inch wide Quad tape and the best editing equipment available in the world. Each hour of tape in it's aluminum 15-inch diameter reels weighed 20 pounds. Big Yacht Repower was shot on a nearly obsolete SD, tape based camcorder. Each hour of 1/4-inch wide tape was in a tiny plastic case that weighed a few ounces. In the Quad-tape days I needed a study hand-cart, a van, and a strong back to take tapes to an edit facility. With BYR I could stick everything in my pocket, and thanks to Apple's Final Cut Studio suit of applications, edit on my laptop with sophistication I couldn't dream of back then.

Jacket Copy
BIG YACHT RE-POWER is the gritty inspirational documentary about the repowering of a classic Hatteras 53-foot motor yacht with two massive new diesel engines. It's a fast-paced forty-minutes featuring a handful of savvy marine technicians at the Gregory Boat Basin, a 100-year old Detroit marina, who upgrade the engines and technology on the old but beautiful boat, turning it into the faster boat of its kind on the water.

The doc was shot during the winter of 2009-2010 at the Gregory Boat Basin in Detroit. The boat is "Signature One" owned by Scott Gregory. That spring and summer we edited the project. We did it as a marketing piece for the Gregory Service and Restoration Departments. The whole story is told with visuals, music, and superimposed type. Pure visual storytelling.

Production Notes

I shot it on a Panasonic DVX-100A at 24P 16:9 with the help of a wide angle anamorphic lens adapter. (Standard Definition). I shot everything at 24P; but should have shot it at 24PA. The 24P mistake required I remove all the 2:3 pull down elements via Final Cut, and then adjust all the special effect time maps (time lapse) elements.  But in the end I had a true 24 fps timeline. (Note to Stan: Shoot 24PA from now on.) The combination of the small size camera, the low-light sensitivity, and the extra wide angle adapter allowed us to get in spots that even with the Panasonic 200 DVX HD would have been impossible. Lots of fun, a truck load of work, but very satisfying.

After months of editing I showed it to WTVS (Detroit Public TV) thinking it might make a good midnight 40-minute filler. They enjoyed it so much that they offered to use it as prime-time pledge break if we could find a matching sponsor. There were enough companies involved in the project, but no one could afford the matching pledge liability (they must have thought a lot of people would be watching) -- Duh!  So the premiere airing got bumped to March 19, 2011 (a Saturday) at noon and very few watched.

But before airing, I spent weeks color correcting the project (actually more black and peak level adjustments with some additional tweaks at the gamma) and preparing the elements for up-resing from standard definition to HD.  With the competent advice of editor Don Thompson at WTVS I upgraded my Final Cut version, and then recreated all the superimposed type and chapter headings in HD. The SD was up-resed to HD (1080x1240) and imported into a Final Cut HD timeline, into which all the HD type and Photoshop elements were added. That timeline was then rendered to produce the HD end product.

Seeing this on PBS in HD, and being a guest on the pledge-break that aired it, was a rewarding experience.

My thanks to Scott Gregory who bartered years of slip and storage fees for our 41-ft ketch, FAMILY TIES, and support of Dan Miller and his crew who did the expert work and didn't complain when I was in the way or asked them "Can you do that again?" and Scott Gregory, Jr. for piloting the camera boat for the final on-the-water at sunrise shots that cap off the project.

The completed project with a couple of bonus tracks can be ordered on SD DVD HERE.

Rollercoaster Charts

Just finished a couple of revision passes on D.K.N. (Naughty Little Nazis) a screenplay by Nikita Mungarwadi that we're developing.

Log Line: A 14-year old German girl battles an Nazi S.S. officer and his platoon to rescue her Jewish friends from the ghetto before they are liquidated.

The most recent revisions dealt with pacing. Since this is a war-time action picture, we had to make sure there were no long slow spots. In fact, while producing this graph we eliminated six pages that slowed the story down.  The numbers on the bottom indicate "calculated" pages based on Final Draft's 1/8 page as the smallest scene length... the actual script is shorter than the chart indicates.

Click to Enlarge

The top chart (Progress vs. Regression toward Goal) measures the scene's portrayal of the protagonist's progress or lack of it toward her goal. The Moment of Grace is near the center of the chart at the GREEN ARROW. Until that scene the protagonist's efforts are up and down, without any great progress. But after the protagonist learns some tough lessons that takes her to apparent defeat (end of Act 2) -- she rises to apply the moral premise and finally make serious progress toward her goal. Yet, there are repeated set-backs of ever escalating danger all along the way.

The bottom chart shows how much reflection vs. action exists and where.  As we should hope, as the story progresses the action becomes more intense, with the clear majority of the story above the line, well into the action arena.

The RED arrow is the Inciting Incident. BLUE the beginning of Act 2. GREEN the Moment of Grace. PURPLE the Climax to Act 2. YELLOW the beginning of the Final Conflict, with the Act 3 Climax occuring there the action and the coaster action gets the most fierce. These turning points are not positioned perfectly, but they respect the dynamics of the story. As we move forward we may find the need to adjust them.

If you want to know how these charts were created, HERE ARE THE INSTRUCTIONS. I began with Final Draft's Scene Report and used Excel 2011 chart generator.