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? ]

Dischord vs. Harmony

DATE NIGHT
Brief Moral Premise Analysis
Script by:  Josh Klausner
Directed by: Shawn Levy

We watched this in the theater and have not been able to judge its success through the total box office, nor study it in DVD format. (Update: Off $55M budget, Date Night succeeded WW with $152M.) Before Pam and I went, I took note that the film (including the credits, which are actually NOT part of the story) was 88 min long. I divided by two and put 44 min at the top of my little notebook I take to the theater. The scene that embraces the time from 40-48 minutes should include the story's Moment of Grace (MOG) and a switch in the character's mode of operation (MO) in their journey to attain their physical goal. Their MO before the MOG would indicate what vice they are struggling with, and their MO after the MOG would indicate what virtue they're attempting to embrace.

Date Night is essentially an action movie, about suburban couple Phil and Clair Foster (Steve Carell and Tina Fey) who go into town on a special date night to reignite their marriage. I'll leave the plot for other reviewers, as my task here is simply to I.D. the MOG and a possible moral premise around which the movie is built.  Suffice it to say, fireworks ensure.

As we sat enjoying the chase scenes and Carell and Fey's trademark humor (albeit a bit too adolescent for our tastes) Phil pulls Holbrooke's (Mark Wahlberg) hijacked sports coupe over to the side of the road and a constructive argument ensues. Suddenly, in the midst of the hilarity and action there is a serious discussion about their relationship, as if a marriage counselor had suddenly popped up in the back seat and said, "You guys need to talk out your problem."

I glanced down at my iPod's stopwatch. It read 43 minutes. I glanced at the time I had circled at the top of my notes -- 44 minutes. And I started taking notes of the dialogue as best I could. Here's a first draft of what could be the moral premise for DATE NIGHT:

In marriage:
Taking the other for granted leads 
to boredom and discord; but
Courting and surprising the other leads to romance and harmony.

Before this MOG (during which there is no conclusion) the characters are living like roommates. Not only is there no sex, there's no romance, and there's an effort on Clair's part to do everything for everyone. She's worn out and just wants to get away....not from the marriage, but just for a little solitude. It seems to her that Phil does nothing for them as a couple. As a result she complains that she can't "light-up" Phil's life by putting on something sexy when he comes home to satisfy his "gross sexual fantasies" (an over-the-top reference to "simple romance," for which they both long.) But Phil is not thinking ahead far enough to surprising Clair and being romantic, because he says. she is always doing everything for everyone, and she doesn't wait for him to do anything for her. If she did, perhaps he could surprise her now and then. So, Clair takes the lead, and Phil tries to go along. This is evident, too, in her getting all dolled up for their weekly date night, but without telling him that she's expecting more than the greasy spoon at the end of the block.

The image at the top of this blog illustrates one such beat. Once they figure out that their journey in this movie is to find the Flash Drive (this film's MacGuffin) Clair takes Phil's sports coat, wraps it around her hand, and smashes through a door window to gain access to an office where they might get a clue for their hunt. Phil is shocked. B&E is NOT something he would have done. She acted independently.

Earlier, Phil does something similar in the restaurant when he takes the Triplehorn's reservations—something he did independently that she would not have done.  Both decisions lead to discord and get them in trouble.

After the MOG they attempt to act within the loose definition of working together to make decisions. He boosts her up to a fire escape to B&E their next location; he doesn't usurp her but they do it together. Earlier, it is her idea to visit Holbrooke for help (something Phil is not, after the fact, in favor of). Later it's Phil's idea to visit Holbrooke, but this time with her agreement.

Before the MOG they act unilaterally, after the MOG they act bilaterally. It is by working together, and not taking the other for granted but cooperatively surprising the other, that they accomplish their mission, and end up rolling in the grass in each other's arms in their front yard. The romance, and presumably the s-x is back. No sequel is planned. 

Scene-By-Scene and the Moral Premise

A reader asked a short time ago how the moral premise can help to write a good scene.

The answer is the same as how the moral premise can help to write a good movie.

Think of this analogy:
A scene is to a movie, as a paragraph is to an essay, as a propositional statement is to a logical syllogism.

In a syllogism there is a propositional statement followed by one or more statements of evidence, ending with a conclusion. In a good syllogism the various propositional statements are RELEVANT to the argument, constituting together SUFFICIENT evidence that is generally ACCEPTABLE to the opponent, and include the best REBUTTAL arguments against the position. (Those are the four criteria of a good argument as constructed by T. Edward Damer.)

Essays (or any persuasive communication construction) are exactly the same. The essay sets out to tackle a position on a topic. Each middle paragraph should provide evidence that supports the final paragraph's conclusion.

In both the syllogism and the essay, there is a beginning (postulate), middle (evidence), and end (conclusion).

Do you see the story setting up in this way, scene by scene.

So, in a movie, the story BEGINS with a character with a problem (the postulate, or major premise of an argument.) The obvious physical problem is a metaphor for his psychological (or emotional or spiritual) problem. There really is only ONE problem that takes form in the physical realm and the psychological realm. That PROBLEM is the BEGINNING, or the syllogism's postulation, or suggestion that we have a topic confronting us that needs a solution.

The movie then begins to present evidence that pertains to the problem. In a well formed movie that evidence is RELEVANT, SUFFICIENT, ACCEPTABLE, and provides a good REBUTTAL with respect to reality as perceived by audience.  This is the MIDDLE.

Taken all together, that evidence leads to a natural conclusion (or ENDING), and the story's resolution.

Now, if you don't quite get all that, please read it again, or ask a question. Because the next chunk of understanding is related to all that above.

So, the SCENE is just like the MOVIE, in that there is a BEGINNING, MIDDLE, and END, and because this is a movie that has a consistently applied moral premise, everything in the scene pertains to the same postulation, evidence, and conclusion, but just in smaller chunks.

In a recent blog post David Mamuet is quoted as summarizing a scene this way:

WE, THE WRITERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES OF EVERY SCENE THESE THREE QUESTIONS.

1) WHO WANTS WHAT?
2) WHAT HAPPENS IF HER DON’T GET IT?
3) WHY NOW?

 I might revise those somewhat this way:

1. Who wants what?
2. Why do they want it?
3. What happens if she doesn't get it?

See, the beginning, middle and end?

Well, the answers to each of those questions resides in the moral premise statement. AND, each main character in that scene will approach and answer each of those questions with answers (e.g. actions) that are answered by the moral premise statement.

So, if the moral premise of a movie (and of a scene... and of each character) is:

Pride leads to destruction; but

Humility leads to life.

then the two characters in the scene are going to either be pursuing pride, or humility, or some position on a continuum between Extreme Pride and Extreme Humility, but not starting from or ending at the same point. (See my post on the Expanded Conflict of Values.)

Keeping it simple for this explanation, in a scene you have two characters in conflict. One is trying to resolve the conflict in the scene by seeking a position that satisfies his or her pride, while the other is attempting to resolve the situation using humility. But every step toward humility (by either character) leads to life, and every step toward pride (by either character) leads to destruction.

Notice I said "LEADS TO". By the end of the movie we might actually "see" life or destruction, but in a scene we'll just see a small snippet of or step toward one or the other, --which when taken in total will naturally end the movie on one note or the other.

The Hero's Two Journeys - A Review

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

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

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

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

CREATING IMMEDIATE EMOTIONAL IDENTITY WITH YOUR CHARACTERS

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

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

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

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

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

DIFFERENT WORLDS AND VALUES

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

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

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

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

A JOURNEY OF FULFILLMENT

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

The inner meaning grows out of the outer journey. 

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

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

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

REAL LIFE


In another place, Michael says: 

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

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

PERSONA vs. ESSENCE

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

12 STEPS OUTER AND INNER

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

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

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

Rabbit Holes and Metaphors

Tim Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND (starring Johnny Depp) has its origins as a sometimes muse of writer Linda Woolverton (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, THE LION KIND, TV). It is NOT the traditional story we grew up to know, but rather the latter adventures of Alice as she is about to enter adulthood, with all the original characters. I recommend the short but gratifying interview on the WGA-WEST On-Line site titled WONDER WOMAN. While it succintly tells of how the story developed, was pitched, and how Burton and Depp became attached, I find it most instructive as she discusses the rich metaphors of this coming of age tale.

SCRIPT TIPS Features The Moral Premise

My thanks to British entrepreneur and screenplay program guru Dan Bronzite for featuring a second of my essays on The Moral Premise this month in his newsletter, SCRIPT TIPS.  Here's link to the front page:
http://www.movieoutline.com/archive/scripttips0210.html
and a second link directly to the article.
http://www.movieoutline.com/articles/movie_story_theme.html

Dan's main site is here
http://www.movieoutline.com
has a slew of great resources and articles by many professional practitioners. This month they are coming out with version 3.1 of his MOVIE OUTLINE software that has some very cool features including the ability to assign emotional values (+/-) to scenes and visualize a chart of the roller coaster effect.  His software is also reasonable priced and works on both PC and Mac.

Expanded Conflict of Values and The Moral Premise

UPDATE: What is discussed in this post is not some new discovery. Not much is new under a billion year old sun, even if it's continually being rediscovered. See end of this post for link to another post that reaches back a few years to something called Nicomachean Ethics.

During a recent story meeting in L.A. our well-known host and producer solved a story problem we were having by introducing a brilliant expansion of the moral premise concept as it pertains to the conflict of values. I'm sure it applies to other well-known stories once we have time to think more about it. Perhaps readers will have some suggestions.

To introduce this expanded conflict of values idea let me first review some basics from the book and my workshops.  I'll use some old and new workshop slides to illustrate.

[Clicking on any slide opens a larger vision in a new window.]

Slide A

 

All drama requires a conflict of values, principally between the protagonist and the antagonist. The values can be identified by a virtue and it's opposite vice. For instance, generosity (a virtue) is related to greed (the contrary vice).  Both of these values (generosity and greed) can be depicted in different characters to different degrees. And both protagonist and antagonist, in the telling of the story, will move along a continuum of pure greed at one end (black) and pure generosity at the other end (white.) In a redemptive story the protagonist may be a little greedy at the beginning of the story, but by the end, he will have moved toward the virtue end of the scale and become somewhat generous. 

I've made the point, illustrated by the color arrows in Slide A, that if the "greed" and the "generosity" are too far apart, the story may come off as unrealistic and artificial. In 2 hours, it's hard to envision a protagonist going from a greedy crook to a generous social worker. Some movement, please, but not too much. Keep it real. At the end of a redemptive movie, a protagonist will still be imperfect, just not as as imperfect as he or she was at the beginning. 

Slide B

So, a good movie will deal with a Vice and a Virtue that are modestly separated in degree from each other.  The antagonist will try to pull the protagonist to the dark side, and the protagonist will pull the antagonist to the light side by defending herself against the antagonist's attacks. Depending on who wins, the movie becomes a comedy or a tragedy.

Slide C

Thus, for a movie with the moral premise:

A deceptive heart leads to rejection; but
A truthful heart leads to acceptance....

...our protagonist may start somewhere in the middle of the vice-to-virtue continuum,  then during Act 1 and the first half of Act 2, move toward the vice in an effort to achieve his or her goal. But in the second half of Act 2 and Act 3, she will move to the virtue side as the goal is achieved. In the example in Slide C, the character slides toward deception before she learns to tell the truth and moves toward success. This, of course, is story with a "redemptive" end, or what I call in the book a "classic comedy" as opposed to a "tragic drama."

Slide D

The scene where our character changes tactics or methods in their pursuit of the goal is halfway through Act 2 and is called the Moment of Grace. All main characters should have moment's of grace, and they should be plotted out before the script is written.

Slide E

In a typical comedy or drama the protagonist is opposed by the antagonist and while the protagonist makes a turn for the good at her Moment of Grace, the antagonist, likewise, has a Moment of Grace, where he turns deeper to the dark side. With respect to the example in Slide E, the moral premise for the antagonist might be something like this:

A deceptive heart leads to rejection; but
A habitual lying heart leads to isolation and despair.

Slide F

In a buddy drama or romantic comedy with a redemptive ending, the two main characters are co-protagonists, and each becomes the antagonist for the other. Perhaps they are both deceiving each other at the beginning of the story, and through a singular moment of grace they both learn that it's better to tell the truth. Of course, they don't learn that lesson real quick else the movie would be over in a flash; and since none of us learn anything very quick, we are able to identify with the slow learning protagonist(s) and the movie becomes more realistic. The "A (P)" and the "P (A)" designations in the diagram reminds us that each character is both a Protagonist to themselves and an Antagonist to the other.  While each character deals with the same dipole of values, the specifics of the plot for each particular story is different.  Jane may be deceiving Jack about where she lives, and Jack may be deceiving Jane about his education.

Slide G

In a similar vein (but in the opposite direction) a story could have both characters reject the moral premise's truth, and lie to each other more at the end of the story than at the beginning. Neither would achieve the redemptive goal, but rather a goal that is tragic.

THE SMITH OBSERVATION

Now, here's the expanded concept of how the conflict of values works in an expanded way. Credit goes to Will Smith for recognizing this and how is can be used effectively in story telling. Like other natural laws of story telling this has probably been used many times, but I have not seen it artiuclated or documented until Will brought it up in our meeting. It was pretty exciting and will definitely make the movie we were working on all that much better. (Note: The examples I use below do NOT refer to the project in development.)
 
Slide H

It's common knowledge that any virtue when taken to an extreme becomes a vice. We see such characters all the time in movies, like a mother who becomes so kind that she intrudes far longer and deeper into her adult son's life than a mother should; or religious sanctity that results in delusion; or generosity that goes so far as to discard personal responsibility in the giver's life or creates slothfulness in the life of the recipient; or over protection that creates debilitating co-dependencies.

Notice that in the graphic the tradition vice (to the left) is the abandonment of the virtue, while the other end is the virtue taken to the extreme by a manic, obsessive, or repressive disorder. Where the absence of the virtue is the result of some degree of evil, the other end is the result of an extreme effort to be good.  So, how does this work when we apply them to character arcs?

Slide I

Consider the expanded moral premise statement in Slide I:

A deceptive OR scrupulous heart leads to rejection; but
A truthful and compassionate heart leads to acceptance.

Notice the whole continuum deals with the values of deception and truth-telling, either truth-telling in its absence or to the point of being repressive and hurtful.  The Bible asks us to speak the truth in love, which suggests that we can speak the truth in a way that is either hateful or harmful.

Slide H

Thus, in a buddy film or romantic comedy or drama, our co-protagonists and co-antagonists may struggle with the values either side of the virtue. Each tugs on the other to move toward the middle and toward the virtue. One character is untrustworthy because he is always lying, and the other is untrustworthy because they are being so scrupulous and manic that the truth is contaminated. (Again, as a reminder, in films of these genres each co-protagonist is the antagonist to the other. )

Slide J

Finally, Slide J suggests a structure I've not considered before, but one that probably exists in many films. A tragic film where the characters, at their moments of grace, let their pride get the best of them, and refuse to move toward truth, manically displacing themselves toward their respective vices of deception and scrupulosity. Could be a comedy... I guess.

Comments? And again, thanks to Will Smith and his constant pursuit of excellence.

(See posts on: Nicomachean Ethics, especially the advanced use of this concept that I explain in my review of THE KITE RUNNER.)

Story SECRETS - Suspense, Intrigue, Drama, Irony

This is a reminder to me that SECRETS (irony) in stories are essential to create suspense, intrigue, and a lot of fun for both writer and audience. Secrets held by characters and audiences are foundational to story suspense. This reminder came to me while Pam and I were watching the Fred Astaire and Ginger Rodgers collection of musical comedies. In each of these entertaining films the fun comes from misunderstandings that are secrets held on various levels. Ginger's character thinks Fred's character is someone other than he is, and Fred doesn't know that she thinks he's some one else. The misunderstanding is assisted by a mix up in hotel rooms, ambivalent wives, and over scrupulous assistants. Yes, it's farce, and as we watch we subliminally believe that we'd never fall for such antics in real life, but we allow ourselves to be carried away by the silliness because its funny and we know there's going to be another great dance number (that took 40 takes to get right) just around the next dramatic beat.

There are major secrets (that move the drama forward) and minor ones that add color to the plot. Here are some of the secret structures I've seen. (What are the others?)

To create major suspense let the audience know something critical to the lives of the characters that no character knows. (We're on pins and needles wondering when one or all of the characters will find out the secret, and what will happen as a result.)

To drive the drama forward let the audience know something that only one other character knows, such as the protagonist or the antagonist. (We wonder why she doesn't reveal the truth, or maybe we know why. We see the antagonist preparing to trap the protagonist, and we want to yell out to our hero "Watch out he has a knife (or a cream pie)." But "secretly" we don't want him to or her to know too soon because then the movie would be over.)

To reward the audience for sitting through the long scenes that are boring but essential to the story (I suppose) there are secrets that one or more characters know but that the audience does not until it's revealed. (We see characters plot and plan but without explanation to us. We hope they'll succeed because then we'll be rewarded with some surprise or extravaganza, like the final big dance number on the big white set. )

SECRETS in stories, you see, are things we love, and hope for. They are like Christmas presents. Yes, we want to know what's in the package under the tree, but if we really knew, then Christmas wouldn't be anything to look forward to. So, we shake the package, and try to guess, but we really don't want to open it too soon because we'd spoil the surprise that the secret holds.

AVATAR'S Grace Augustine

Here's a link to Amy Julia Becker's blog entry on the transformation of AVATAR's Dr. Grace Augustine. It's a good piece. Amy was reaching out asking for reaction so I set about to comment in the blo's com box, but I couldn't help resist a little elementary instruction about myth to the previous comments. James Campbell and Christopher Vogler write well about myth... oh, yes, almost forget -- there's J.R.R. Tolkein.

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

2009
Director/Writer: James Cameron

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

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

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

Greed, abuse and disrespect for life and creation

leads to dread and destruction; 

but generosity, kindness and respect for life 

leads to hope and progress. 

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

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

AVATAR's MOMENT OF GRACE

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

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

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

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

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

PRECIOUS: Turning Points and Moral Premise

PRECIOUS

Based on the Novel PUSH by Sapphire.

Clareece ‘Precious’ Jones – Gabourey ‘Gabby’ Sidibe

Mary – Mo’Nique

Ms. Rain – Paula Patton

Mrs. Weiss – Mariah Carey

Conrows – Sherri Shepherd

PRECIOUS vs. THE BLIND SIDE

At some point I'll need to write up a comparison of THE BLIND SIDE to PRECIOUS. Both are stories about black teens in need of a second chance. BLIND SIDE is about a boy, and PRECIOUS is about a girl. Both teens are overweight, lost with no parents to love and care of them, nearly illiterate but smart; they are humble, good hearted, and both need to learn to be self-reliant and pursue a goal to change their lives.

As of last weekend (13 Dec 09), PRECIOUS's domestic U.S. B.O. was $38MM off a $10MM budget, and THE BLIND SIDE did $150MM off an undisclosed budget. PRECIOUS looks like the loser in this comparison, except to be successful (by my business calculations) a project only has to do 3.5 times it's budget, and PRECIOUS is a bit beyond that. More importantly, Precious is not family friendly (strong "R"), while THE BLIND SIDE is PG-13 and endearing in many ways. So, it's interesting that PRECIOUS has done as well as it has. More on that later.

THE MORAL PREMISE(S)

Here are some quick observations of PREVIOUS and the film's moral premise. Only a little story stuff here, mostly analysis. To give you a hook to hang my observations on here is what I think the moral premise is. Actually, I think there are three interleaved and interrelated moral premises for this film. That these values, themes, and consequences are all interrelated, and yet stand on their own is one reason the film is so rich. The statements might be stated this way as if leaning the early lessons open the awareness and opportunity to learn the second and third lesson.

FIRST
Blaming others for our circumstances leads to selfish abuse; but
Empowering ourselves to change our circumstances leads to protection

SECOND
Accepting ignorance leads to lack of opportunity; but
Pursuing knowledge leads to vision

THIRD
Relying on the resources and decisions of others (government)
leads to dependency; but
Becoming self-reliant leads to independence.

Please comment and suggest your own moral premise statement(s).

The movie claims to be 110 minutes, but that's with 9 minutes of head and tail credits. My timing in the theater was right at 101 minutes (or 101 pages). So, at approximately pages 15, 30, 50, and 70, I expected to see some turning points, and I was not disappointed.

The turning points I discuss below are those discussed in my book and workshops, as well as those of Michael Hauge. My terms are slightly different than Michael’s but the concepts are the same.

Act 1 TP (1A-TP) 

Act 1 Center TP is bifurcated. There are two halves, at 8 min. and 16 min...

The inciting incident occurs at 8 min when Precious is told she can’t attend high school because she’s pregnant. The NEW OPPORTUNITY that begins Act 2 is now only a possibility, and that is attending Alternative School. When Precious asks what "alternative means" she's told:

PRINCIPAL: Alternative school. It's like a choice an alternative way of doing things.

This meaning of this line reaches into the heart of the movie: "You have a choice of doing things differently." Up until now, Precious' life is determined by her mother (Mary) and father (Carl) who are abusive in the extreme. The father is out of the picture now literally, but not substantively. Mary and Precious have an abusive co-dependency relationship. To break the cycle, one of them is going to have to make a CHOICE and do things differently, or find an alternative way of doing things.

The new opportunity is reinforced when the principal comes to Mary and Precious’ apartment—and although Mary only allows communication via the door pager—it’s enough.

At 16 min. Precious goes to the Alternative School to check out the possibility of going on a new journey. She hasn’t committed to it, but she’ll consider it.

The second half of Act 1 is the protagonist’s rejection of the opportunity, or her lack of making the commitment. We know she has to, but we’re intrigued and want to know how it will happen. (If she were to reject the New Opportunity, the movie would end at the end of Act 1.) Next.

Precious' initial rejection of the alternative school comes in the form of her mother's violent rejection of anything getting in the way of welfare (an education would result in knowledge and literacy so that a job could be obtained) and in some states going to school automatically takes you off the welfare rolls.

Other obstacles include: (a) the alternative school's entrance written test which Precious observes is prejudice against people in her kind of situation (it requires that you can read), (b) the absence of literal, moment-by-moment directions that tell her what to do (there is an assumption on the school's part that she'd walk into the classroom down the hall, and Ms. Rains' encouragement to come isn't literal enough; and (c) Precious’ bad life style that make her sick and cause her to throw up a bucket of stolen fried chicken (her breakfast). This last scene becomes the climax to Act 1, and a metaphor for the change in direction she needs to take: throw up your past and go in the opposite direction. The wastebasket she uses to regurgitate in is in the opposite direction to the classroom's entrance. She finally turns her back to the basket and wanders down the hall to the classroom.

We’ve made it through Act 1. Go back and look at everyone of the moral premise clauses, and you’ll see them reprised visually in the on-screen events of Act 1. She empowers herself to change something. She pursues knowledge, and it’s SHE that chooses to go to the school, take the test, and walk down the hall to class.

Remember one of the most important rules of all story telling: The PROTAGONIST must make the MORAL DECISIONS that CHANGE their life, and head the story in a NEW DIRECTION. That old direction and the new direction are described by the moral premise statements, and we must see actions on screen that reinforce what the moral premise describes.

Act 2 begins at 27 minutes.

With great reluctance, Precious enters the classroom, already occupied by a few other girls. (There's a resemblance here to The Breakfast Club).

The first half of Act 2 sees the Protagonist pursue the new goal (empowering herself, her education, and her self-reliance) while embracing an old method. In this case that old method is being dependent on her mother, being open to being dependent to welfare, and she’s not convinced that being ignorant is a bad thing.. It's a combination that doesn't help Precious break the cycle of her co-dependency and consequently there is always the threat and challenge to give up school and turn completely to welfare...until the Moment of Grace (MOG) arrives, halfway through the movie.

There should be a MOG for each main character. In this movie there are two main characters: Mary and Precious. Each has a moment of grace.

Act 2 TP - Mary's Moment of Grace at 46-49 min.

A welfare investigator comes to visit Mary in her apartment. The investigator comes a little early, which angers Mary, because she hasn't had time to fully implement her usual fraud with the help of Precious and Aunt Dot, who cares for Precious' first child, Mongoloid (Mongo). The fraud is that there are three mouths to feed, not two, and quickly Mary dons a wig, applies lipstick, and vice grips Mongo to her lap, while putting on a polite sweetness as she lies to the investigator about looking for work, carrying for the baby, et al. As soon as the investigator is gone, Mary tosses the child aside and swears at the inconvenience. The gross assumption is that she is a victim and the government owes her money to maintain her lazy, abusive lifestyle. While the fraud goes down you can see Precious’ emotional revolt at it all. When the investigator asks Precious something, Precious faces a moral dilemma. But Precious goes along with the fraud, as does Aunt Dot. Mary has multiple opportunities to tell the truth verbally and non-verbally, but rejects the truth of the moral premise and chooses the dark side. Her path from this point forward will spiral downward. Mary has rejected her Moment of Grace.

The very next scene is Precious’ MOG.

Act 2 TP - Precious' Moment of Grace at 49-51 min. (The exact midpoint of the 101 min long film.)

This scene is very similar to the scene before. It takes place at the welfare office, where a welfare agent (Mrs. Weiss convincingly played by a deglittered Mariah Carey) questions Precious as to if she's eligible for welfare. But it's in the welfare office, and it's a different agent. But the questions are similar to those put to Mary. But Mary isn't present, now. Even though Precious was sent to the office by Mary,with the intent of furthering the fraud and extracting more money from the government, Precious isn't as sold on the need for dependency or fraud. Precious' moral sense has not been fully corrupted. When Mrs. Weiss asks about her father, Precious first says nothing and then blurts out: "My father gave me this baby and the one before." By the end of the scene Weiss is horrified at what Precious has been through. In the first line of the voice over in the next scene as Precious walks away from the welfare office we hear, "I couldn't lie no more." She has taken the first steps that will break the dependency. From this point on Precious will make progress that before would present impenetrable obstacles.

One of those dramatic beats occurs a few pages later when Precious acknowledges to us, during one of the classroom journaling sessions:

PRECIOUS (thinking): My mom says I can't learn from no book. But I am learning from a book.

Around her are signs that speak of "self determination." The journal is a huge step toward "self expression." Journaling helps US define our identity with few outside influences.

Moments later her body goes into labor contractions, and she screams all the way to the delivery room. Finally, a nurse, John, yells at her to “STOP!” Momentarily she does. It's a poignant moment. The screaming is the plaintive sound of a dependent person who has no control over her own life, or the pain in that life. But John, a successful nurse, knows differently. There is pain in life, but we have a choice to scream (as if we are the victim) or not to scream and put up with the pain (taking control of ourselves.)

John later establishes a good and healthy relationship with Precious and the other girls in the class. He becomes a role model for them. Part of that relationship is a wonderful scene where John is visiting Precious in her hospital room, while her fellow students are visiting. It's his lunch hour and he's eating fresh fruit purchased from an organic food store. The girls all talk about how much they love McDonalds, and John says that McDonalds is bad for you, and that Precious will not be allowed to eat anything except what is good for her as long as she’s at the hospital. It's a discussion about breaking old, harmful, dependent habits, and establishing healthy ones. By the end of the discussion Precious is smiling (John's attention to these girls is healing... he's good looking and respectful) and she says she wants some of that organic food.

Even the word "organic" is insightful. It's the opposite of "artificial" which is what dependency on others is. Organic reflects taking charge of our life. It's a choice. It's an alternative. It's something that is better for you. Being in charge and taking personal responsibility.

Act 2 Climax - 65-67 min

Our protagonist now enters the devils lair, where she is sure to be defeated, in a way. Precious leaves the hospital with Abdul and trudges back to her apartment and climbs the many flights of stairs to her apartment. Entering her apartment, Mary (still stuck to the TV watching the $100,000 Pyramid quiz show that presents only thin white successful people) takes no immediate notice of her daughter, or grandson. Instead, Mary demands:

MARY: Where you been all this time?

When Mary asks to see the baby and commands Precious to get her something to drink, Precious gives the baby reluctantly to her mom, and walks to the kitchen. Moments later, just about the time we think Mary may have changed, Mary throws the baby on the floor and then heaves the nearest heavy object at Precious. This time Precious doesn't take the abuse, but comes quickly back to battle her mother throwing her aside, turning over the TV breaking it, picking up her baby and purse, and leaving the apartment quickly. No sooner does mother and child get to the bottom of the staircase than Mary hurls the broken TV down the multiple flights and tries to kill Precious and the baby. But the TV misses, as Precious moves out of the way just in time. Throughout this scene there is a church choir singing a Christmas hymn.

This is a dramatic turning point where Precious clearly turns from dependency to independency, for her own sake but also a basic necessity for the baby's survival. Precious catches a glimpse of the church choir singing as she escapes from her mother, but I can’t catch the lyrics. Sounded like a Christmas hymn.

Lyrics to songs are important at revealing the filmmakers’ mindset about where the story and characters are going. But I have no list of the music at the present, else I’d look up the lyrics. Ah just found one of the songs: HAPPY by Leona Lewis. Lyrics HERE.

Act 3 begins at 67 minutes.

Precious enters the unknown world of self-determination.

At first she stands outside a church watching the choir practice that we’ve been hearing. She sees herself singing in the choir in a robe, with the baby. It’s a beautiful scene. But she doesn’t go in.  Back in the apartment, an out of control Mary destroys everything in P’s room.

Precious navigates the challenges of taking personal responsibility. At this point she only has Abdul yet she also wants Mongo. But her mentor, Ms. Rains, and others, try to persuade her to give the child up for adoption so she can concentrate on her studies, AND to provide the children with the opportunities she didn't have, thus helping to break the cycle of poverty that alone she may not be able to do for her kids.

Act 3 Mid point Turning Point at 79 minutes

Mary is clearly the antagonist and keeps trying to bring Precious back under her rule of dependency, for that is how Mary gets money for doing nothing. Her next push to break Precious down, defeat her independent spirit, and get her to come home so the welfare payments might have a chance of starting up again, is to visit Precious in her halfway house apartment and lower the final blow. Precious is not happy to see her mom.

MARY: Your daddy's dead.

(long pause)

PRECIOUS: Is that all you came to say?

MARY: He had the AIDS virus.

Then Mary goes on to say that she (Mary) doesn't have it, but Precious probably does... and that means Abdul probably does. Precious visits a clinic and is tested. She's HIV+. This devastates Precious, and once again she has to make the decision to take control of her life, and the curse of being HIV+, which greatly add to her burden and ability to stay on her own. It is a daunting challenge. In her next journaling class all she can write on the paper is "WHY ME?"

What is her answer? Does she make a moral decision or let fate take over. Her answer is true to the moral premise's good side. She says to Ms. Rains:

PRECIOUS: Let's say I am HIV positive. I stopped breast feeding (Abdul).

Then she cries, her staid constitution broken down by the realization that her life and Abdul's life are on her shoulders. No one else's. It's almost too much to carry. Beforehand, she didn't cry because she could be callow, blaming others for her circumstances. But now, taking responsibility to change her future demands honesty and with that vulnerability. What is Ms. Rain's response?

PRECIOUS: [Crying hysterically] Nobody loves me! 


MS. RAIN: People do love you, Precious. 


PRECIOUS: Don't lie to me! Love ain't done nothing for me! Love beat me down! Love rape me. Made me feel worthless! Called me an animal. 


MS. RAIN: [Tears begin falling from her eyes] But that's not love. Your baby loves you. *I* love you! Now, WRITE!

That is: Take control. Love yourself.

The Act 3 Climax is from 92 - 100 minutes.

Mrs. Weiss has Mary and Precious in her office, and tries to get Mary to talk about the abuse to Precious. This is the scene that seals Mo’Nique Academy Award nomination and perhaps a win. Mary slowly, with a great deal of prompting begins to tell when the sexual abuse of Precious began, at age 3 by Precious’ dad. Mary is afraid of Carl, but allows the abuse, and does nothing to stop it.  Mrs. Weiss is horrified. Precious listens intently. But Mary, as every good villain has an excuse:

MRS. WEISS: [Angrily] You just sat there, shut up, and let him abuse your daughter.

MARY: [Hysterically in tears] I did not want him to abuse my daughter! I did not want him to hurt her! I didn't want him to do nothing to her!

MRS. WEISS: [Overlapping with Mary's voice] But you ALLOWED him to hurt her! You did!

MARY: But, those... those things she told you I did to her? Who... who... who else was going to love me? WHO else was going to touch me? WHO else was going to make me feel good about myself?

Looking at the negative side of the moral premise statements earlier, here we see the depths to which Mary has descended. She’s been there the whole time of the story, but it is at 92 minutes that the au

dience sees the full tragedy of rejecting the truth and accepting the falsity of the moral premise’s dark side. She blames others for her circumstances (who is going to touch me?).  She reveals her ignorance that she could change her circumstances (she’s revealed as having not knowledge or vision of what could be). She demonstrates that she has relied totally on the resources and decisions of others for everything in her life (“I did not want….”) but she did nothing because she did not know how.

As if the monster that Mary has become has any redeeming value left in her, she leaves the office and returns momentarily with Mongo, giving him to Precious—a nod by the filmmakers that we need to feel sorry for Mary, and realize that there is good and bad in all of us.

Contrast Mary’s state with what Precious’ then says and does. Remember her visits to Mrs. Weiss were in order to get on welfare and receive public assistance. All the time we see Precious in Mrs. Weiss’ office Precious is holding on to the possibility of following in Mary’s dependent path.

At 100-min.  Precious, having said very little before, stands with Mongo in her arms:

PRECIOUS: I like you too, but you can't handle this.
(to her mom) I didn’t know what you were really like until now.

And with Mongo in tow she says to the both of them:

 PRECIOUS: You’ won’t see me again.

And she walks out.

The final denouement is less than a minute long. Precious is walking down the street with her two kids in tow. We hear her thoughts, as we have throughout the picture, something to this effect:

PRECIOUS: They say I can read now at a 7th grade level. Next year it’ll be high school, and then college.

And with that we have all the confidence in the world that Precious, unlike her mom, has embraced the good side of the moral premise. She will succeed because she has learned to empower herself, to pursue knowledge, and become self-reliant. The result of all that, which we don’t see in its completed form, but we do see immediately and not subliminally is this: -- Precious (as she walks away from the welfare office holding her two kids) is protecting her family, she following her vision, and she is determined to become independent. It’s a new and frightening journey. But she seems up to the fight. We have hope for her. (I look forward to the sequel.)

Say Good-Bye To Writer's Block REPRINTED

Dan Bronzite is the editor of ScriptTips Ezine, and CEO of Movie Outline Software. Recently Dan asked if he could reprint an article I wrote a while back on the relationship between writer's block and the moral premise. I said yes, and as the article was released this past week. The link to the article (Say Good-Bye to Writer's Block) is here: http://www.movieoutline.com/articles/writer_block.html

Dan wrote again and said:

Thanks again for allowing us to republish your article which will feature in this month’s ezine. ...I read your article again and I have to say.. it really is great.  I think even your article has the “Moral Premise” because it is not just flimsy, superficial advice, it really gets to the heart of the issue.

He offered to give me another spot in a later issue, that I'll take him up on.

So, I read my own article again; it does a good job of summarizing the importance of following a true moral premise in anyone's life-story, and I was reminded of something, that Dara Marks in Inside Story writes about. Too often we embrace a "position" or "policy" that is more about not offending someone's contrary views, than it is about embracing what is true. We falsely believe that one value is as good as another. But all story tellers knows that's nuts.

There are many issues facing the political scene today that are more about tolerating things that are false or even evil, just so we don't offend another person's beliefs or values. The problem with that is that the other person's beliefs or values may actually be harmful to themselves and others.  The Catholic Church is often lambasted for objecting to various lifestyles and behaviors; the criticism is that the Church is not tolerant. As if tolerance of things that are contrary to natural law, what is true, or what is evil is somehow a virtue. "Tolerance of evil" is a false theme. It will not only destroy you but your story as well.

So, our telling of stories that connect with wide general audiences need to be about things that are true. Pursue what is good, true, and beautiful. And not everything open to a character these days fits into those categories.

The Moral Premise is a Lifesaver

Got this today:

Dear Dr. Williams:

Two and a half years ago I picked up "The Moral Premise" and thought it was pretty good, did most of the exercises, and put it down. Today I picked it up again and I finally got it--on a gut level. The Moral Premise is the missing piece of the puzzle, the reason why all my plays haven't worked, and why they can work from now on. Your book is a lifesaver.

Adam Schwartz

Thank you Adam. That made my day.

Simplifying the Moral Premise

This post from George Chatzigeorgiou, a moral premise fan from Greece whose material I have posted before.

 =====

While watching films and noticing how the moral premise works in them, I've found that in many good films, although there is a moral premise, it doesn't have the fully realized structure that is presented in the book, mainly plot arcs and moments of grace for main characters besides the protag. For example, the kind of films some call "character study" do not have full arcs for secondary characters ("Taxi Driver" for instance).

Thus, I've compiled a set of general rules which I think can be applied in just about any film with a good moral premise. I find these rules very freeing, cause they help me apply a moral premise without feeling confined by a highly rigid, "idealized" structure that serves well as a general guide and as a general template, but I don't think it's necessarily meant to be fully realized. So let me know what you think, will you? (In my general rules I've also included Blake Snyder's advice that the movie's theme should somehow be stated through dialogue during the set up.) I also think that these rules serve as a simplified summary of what the moral premise's all about.

Summary of the rules of a good moral premise:

1) Have a moral premise as the movie's thematic core structured as: [Virtue] leads to [success], but [vice] leads to [defeat].

2) Make the theme crystal clear by including a distinctive theme statement (preferably in the set up), by infusing the movie with "moments of grace" (beats which awaken in the minds and hearts of the audience what the movie is really about), and by exhibiting both sides of the moral premise, as well as each side's consequences.

3) Keep the moral premise consistent throughout the movie and don't betray it. This, in short, means that any character choosing to practice the virtue side should ultimately experience success, while any character choosing to practice the vice side should ultimately experience defeat.

George

Top 10 Secrets of Successful Screenplays

As I was preparing for TIGER'S HOPE, CBS organizers asked me to present a talk at a local film production expo—Michigan Makes Movies EXPO. My workshops are based on my book: "The Moral Premise: Harnessing Virtue and Vice for Box Office Success", that Will Smith says is "the most powerful tool in his new toolbox." When I gave the organizers the title of my talk, they weren't sure they wanted to use that title, because it would confuse people. "What is this guy doing talking about a moral premise at a film expo? I mean it's Sunday, but isn't morality for Sunday morning at a Church?" So, I changed the title to "Top 10 Secrets of Successful Screenplays." Of course, the content was identical, except I put ten magenta and yellow numbered buttons throughout the presentation. "There's more than 10, here." I blurted out.

The organizers were hoping for 500-600 to show up. Instead 1,500 crammed the aisles of the Rock Financial Showplace in Novi, just 3.6 miles from my driveway. It's closeness to my home was good, because time got away from me (we went to a late Mass), and I found myself rushing to the site and the "greenroom" trailer, flying a "Welcome Guest Speakers". When my handler (Steve) guided me through the hall for my 3:30 talk, I could hardly find a place to walk for all the people in line behind several of the breakout room doors. (!). They set me up with a room that had crammed into it about 120 chairs. Be the time I started all the chair were filled, and 1/2 way through the SRO crowd were turning people away.

Now, I don't think this SRO crows was "me" or my particular presentation (there were numerous presentations all at once)... although I took notice that no one was sleeping at least by falling out of their chair. I think the crowd was more evidence that the film industry in Michigan has the potential of popping out all over. There is a raw enthusiasm here for filmmaking.

The day of the expo I read a web news report of a man at a fair nearby, who was impersonating Robert DeNiro. Guess what, the man was no impersonator. About every other day that I'm out on the road I pass a movie trailer or make-up trailer.... with California plates. And when we decided to use the RED camera on Tiger's Hope (the latest technology that Hollywood has embraced) I was surprised to discover a supply of perhaps 12 in the city for rent. That's really significant. (But I think the cheapest rates are still in CA

There's a thirst for knowledge, and the Expo this past Sunday was one of those great events where for $20 attendees could gain a huge amount of knowledge in a very short period of time. The best students are enthusiastic and hungry students. And they were in large supply on Sunday.

At the end of my one-hour talk (the workshop is actually 16 hours, so these 1 hour gigs are a challenge, especially with the multiple movie clips I use to demonstrate the moral premise) I announced that the books were available on line at Amazon.com or MoralPremise.com, and that I had a box of books with me, but I wouldn't be able to sign them personally until after the next session in which I was scheduled to appear on a pitch panel. Well, before I could unplug my laptop, 18 books disappeared from the box and $20 bills were being stuffed into my hands or Steve's. After the second session on pitching, I had a line up of people to talk to, and a few more books to distribute, and when I left the building, the green room was being towed out of an empty parking lot.