Why LITTLE BOY Was a Bomb

LITTLE BOY (2015) PG-13

DIRECTOR: Alejandro Gómex Monteverde
PRODUCER: Leo Severino (Metanoia Films)
EX PRODUCER: Eduardo Verastegui, Sean Wolfington, Mark Burnett, Roma Downey

STARRING
Tom Wilkinson (Fr. Oliver)
Cary-Hioyuki Tagawa (Hashimoto)
Emily Watson (Emma Busbee)
David Henrie (London Busbee)
Kevin James (Dr. Fox)
Jakob Salvati (Pepper Busbee / Little Boy)

(SPOILERS AHEAD)

I am asked now and then to talk more about movies that fail because of a false or misguided moral premise.

So, a couple years back, I girded up my loins and analyzed and blogged about some big MOVIES THAT FAILED. It was hard work, looking at all that money and talent being wasted. Terrible storytelling. Clear, obvious, universal, common sense story rules were just thrown out the window by filmmakers and studios alike... because, it seems, they come up with an ironic hook. But irony has to support the story, not just be ironic for entertainment's sake. Ionic stories (with good hooks) yet without the proper story foundation will always fail.

Tonight, in order to test out a new hearing aid...I've lost a lot of my high frequencies...I turned on our Apple TV, Netflix, and New Releases (for Netflix, not in the theaters). The first movie on the list was Metanoia Films' LITTLE BOY. Metanoia is run by some talented devout, Catholic filmmakers that I've had the opportunity to meet and talk to a few times.  But I had not seen LITTLE BOY, so, Pam and I settled down to watch and listen (as long my new hearing aid worked...and it did.)

As a period piece, the production values on LITTLE BOY are fantastic. The art direction, prop department and carpenters all deserve some sort of award. The photography and editing are eye-popping good.  The supporting actors are wonderful, and the overall direction is tight and purposeful, and who can deny that watching Tom Wilkinson, Emily Watson, David Henrie, and Kevin James is anything but a joy. And Jakob Salvati, as Pepper, the  Little Boy, held his own as the protagonist.
There are scenes that will make you cry...my wife was taken numerous times with heavy tears. The movie is just plain captivating.

But at the end, I was left with this awful empty, contradictory feeling. Why, I wondered? I couldn't put my finger on it for a while. I ran to the computer and checked what I had remembered about the box office being mediocre. BAM!!!  Yes, something was seriously wrong.

With an estimated budget of $20M-$30M (in Mexico no less where things are a lot cheaper to shoot), the U.S. Domestic Box office was a trifle $6.5M (rounding it up) with apparently no International distribution.

Folks, this is horrible. For a movie that has so much going for it in terms of production value, and scene value—there are wonderful sequences with deft parallel editing, scene-after-scene are just fabulously made—why would this film not connect?  First weekend it opened in 1,000 plus theaters and does a modest $3.3M. Not great, but if the movie was really as good as it looks, it would have dropped only 30% by the next week. But it dropped 62.3%. Fatal. Word of mouth was tepid at best. In later weeks it dropped three successive weeks by 50% and in 8-weeks it was history.

ANALYSIS

The reason this movie about Christian faith did not connect, even with it's Christian/Catholic target audience, has everything to do with the Moral Premise and common sense storytelling's black and white rules.

THE STORY, on the surface is about a little boy who is learning about how faith as small as a mustard seed, can movie mountains. In the movie, he tries and sort of succeeds to move a mountain. It's also about the hateful prejudice some Americans showed American Japanese during WWII. The little boy's father is called off to war and Pepper, with the astute help of Fr. Oliver (Wilkinson), passionately and actively pursues an increase in his faith (through good works) so that his father will return from the war safe and sound. THAT IS, THE PHYSICAL GOAL OF THE PROTAGONIST (Pepper / Little Boy)....is TO GET DADDY HOME ALIVE. Making that goal tangible and visible is well executed in the film. Pepper's family lives in a town on the West Coast of California and there are scenes where Pepper holds up his arms toward the setting sun over Japan (which at that moment may be the Rising Sun of Japan), grunting and shaking in a Star Wars'esque effort to morph "Christian faith" into "The Force." The atheistic Mr. Hashimoto challenges Fr. Oliver to stop the charade and protect the boy psychologically. But Fr. Oliver...is having his own crisis of faith, and doesn't know what to tell the kid...because to Fr. Oliver it seems like the kid does have faith (alas, the kid is demonstrating faith in his own selfishness not in God's power to save...so what we have here is really poor understanding of fundamental theology.) Admittedly, the movie makes no attempt to suggest that what Pepper is doing is Christian faith. But neither does the movie define Christian faith, otherwise. So the audience is left to believe what is shown. And what is shown is logically invalid and subliminally the audience figures that out. (BTW: The Coen Brother's HAIL, CAESAR! does a better job of presenting the Gospel.)

Thus, when the first atomic bomb lands on Japan (shortly after one of Pepper's arm shaking episodes aimed at Japan) the town wildly celebrates because they believe that is was Pepper who was responsible. Why? Because his nick name around town is "Little Boy" and the nickname of the atom bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima was "Little Boy."  Immediately thereafter and for solid minute there is great rejoicing. The film suddenly shifts to the somber destruction and the celebration stops. To make things worse, the family hears that Dad is taken as a POW, and then that he is killed. But through mistaken identity, the soldier that is killed is not Dad. And Dad returns home at war's end shell shocked but reunited with family.

IT'S A HORRIBLE MISTAKE for a movie that tries to battle prejudice to turn to celebration the killing of hundreds of thousands of Japanese in the shadow of what the little, smiling and celebrating Pepper believe is "Christian Faith." Even when, moments later, the movie puts on the appropriate somber moral mood for the bomb, a bitter taste is left in the mouth. A scene like that in any film, least of all a purported Christian film, is like a moral sin. It's nearly unforgivable. It's abhorrent. As one commenter on IMBD wrote "Christian Faith Nukes Hiroshima"  Of course the filmmakers don't say that...but (Damn It!) they SHOW it.

As bad as that scene was conceived, it is not what kills the movie...although the movie deserves to die because of it.

What kills the movie is something more subtle and at once obvious. To explain that I have to take a stab at the moral premise....that sentence that should be controlling everything about the story and it's presence on screen.

[NOTE TO FILMMAKERS OF ALL STRIPES: If you understand an apply the moral premise, your films won't go bust, assuming everything else is well done But when you screw this up, money will never save your investment.]

MORAL PREMISES

There are two possible moral premise statements for LITTLE BOY based on the explicit issues portrayed:

Moral Premise A

Racial hatred and lack of faith leads to hatred, separation and death; but

Brotherly love and faith leads to friendship, family and life.

Moral Premise B

Racial hatred and lack of faith leads to Daddy not coming home; but

Brotherly love and faith leads to Daddy coming home.

Moral Premise A would be a good statement if the movie had a protagonist with some goal that related to life and friendship within the community and physical efforts were put to that end.

But LITTLE BOY is about a little boy who wants his father to come back from war. The kid is not motivated to make the town better. 

Having made that clear (I hope)...

All successful stories MUST follow a few simple rules. Let me mention one of the most important:

1. The inner transformation of values that the protagonist experiences, logically motivates the action that causes the physical transformation.  Psychological Motivation ALWAYS leads Physical Action...and the connection better be logical. 
2. The protagonist's physical action toward the goal, logically causes the goal to be achieved. The goal cannot be achieved by any other action than that of the protagonist. 

If you need to understand this, take my Storycraft Training Online. There's not the room here.

A story cannot succeed if at the end of the plot, the protagonist steps aside and someone else saves the day. The protagonist must do the hand-to-hand combat, not another less important character. Thus LITTLE BOY fails due to three violations of these Natural Laws of Story Structure.

1. THERE IS NO LOGICAL PHYSICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN PEPPER'S ACTIONS AND GETTING HIS DAD HOME.

There is no direct acton that Pepper takes that remotely effects the return of his dad.  It's as if all though the movie Pepper pursues his goal with various actions, but at the end, a superhero swoops in and rescues Dad. The superhero being the guys on the Manhattan Project...some would say, far from innocent lads. Audiences subliminal are left dissatisfied. The catharsis is cut short and quick, if there's any at all. (Bad word of mouth #1.) - This is similar to the story error Hollywood calls DEUS EX MACHINA — an unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation, especially as a contrived plot device in a play or novel. Wikipedia explains Deus Ex Machina well.

2. PEPPER'S LEARNED VIRTUE IS ACTUALLY A VICE

There is a hidden theme in the story that "innocence trumps reality." In other words, as the audience, we want the kid's wishes to come true BECAUSE and only because he's an innocent kid. If an adult acted like Pepper we'd call the character selfish, narcissistic and self-absorbed. Pepper's not wanting his Dad to come home for a selfless noble purpose. This is not A WONDERFUL LIFE where George Bailey's presence in the community benefits the good of all. Yes, we can see that Mom (Emily Watson) is sad and that she's being stalked by the friendly doctor in town (Kevin James). And we recognize that Pepper's older brother is getting in trouble because Dad is gone. BUT NONE OF THOSE have anything to do with Pepper's motivation for wanting his Dad back. That is, Pepper doesn't want Dad back because the Savings and Loan has to be saved for the sake of the town's livelihood. He wants Dad back for himself, alone. And we buy it because the kid is young, and sweet and innocent. But the kid's motivations are not pure, they are filled with vice.  Subliminally, audiences see that. (Bad word of mouth #2.) 

3. THERE'S NO LOGICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN PEPPER'S INNER TRANSFORMATION AND THE OUTER PROGRESS OF RETURNING DAD.

The moral premise also demands that it's the vice or weakness in the protagonist that creates the bad consequences, and that a transformation of that inner value to a virtue or strength will bring about the good consequence. But what does this movie do? Pepper achieves his goal, and we're led to believe in some way that it was his Christian faith that brought his Daddy home. But that's not true and Christians and non-Christians subconsciously know such an idea is fable and heresy. (Bad word of mouth #3.)

And ironically, I'll bet almost no one leaving the theater could explain any of this. It's a feeling, a sense, that something isn't quite right, and quite right they are.

Consequently, Little Boy was a Bomb.

Come on guys and gals out there making movies. READ MY BOOK at least, and try to understand this stuff. I'm not making money off these books, but you could. 

The Prestige (2006)

Virtue to Extremes is Vice

Christopher Priest - Author
Jonathan Nolan - Screenwriter
Christopher Nolan - Screenwriter
Christopher Nolan - Director

Hugh Jackman - Rupert Angier
Christian Bale - Alfred Borden
David Bowie - Nikola Tesla
Michael Caine - John Cutter
Rebecca Hall - Sarah Borden
Scarlett Johansson - Olivia Wenscombe
Samantha Mahurin - Jess Borden

(I am gong to try to write less by assuming that you, dear reader, have seen the movie and understand it's physical premises.)

The Prestige offers an excellent opportunity to examine how virtues such a passion for excellence and self-sacrifice can become horrific Faustian examples of destructive obsession.

Self-sacrifice is often considered a virtue when that sacrifice is for another's good.
But self-sacrifice is also what obsessive people do for something that they selfishly want but don't need.

Here are some examples of he sacrifice that they risk and experience for the sake of their art.

Angier and Borden are assistants (plants) for another magician for which Cutter is the engineer. They go to a Chinaman's magic performance to discover the fishbowl trick. They see the man acting crippled afterwards getting into a carriage. They surmise that he's totally devoted to his craft.

BORDEN: This is a performance. This is why no one can detect his methods…total devotion to his art. A lot of self sacrifice…the only way to escape all this (reality).

The concept of sacrifice is evident in the very next scene when Borden assists for The Great Virgil. In the small audience is a lady (Sarah) and a little boy (her nephew). When Virgil smashes the birdcage hidden under a cloth, the little boy cries: "He killed it!" speaking of the bird. Of course, Virgil reproduces the bird. When Borden approaches the boy, and shows him the live bird, the little boy asks, "But where's his brother?" Borden considers the boy for a moment and says "He's a sharp lad." … and later it is Borden that must discard the very smashed and dead bird hidden in the table's false top.

This dramatically foreshadows the sacrifices that both Borden and Angier will make in their attempts to rise to fame.

In showing a coin trick to the lad later, Borden advises never to show how the trick works because as soon as he does he'll be "nothing to them. Nothing." Notice here that PRIDE is the motivation. Borden says, "The secret impresses no one. The trick you use it for is everything."

In the next flashback scene Borden recalls how he used the trick to sneak into Sarah's apartment. But, telling her how he did it would not have impressed her. Being there, nonetheless, does.

Fallon (Borden's twin in disguise) is leaving Borden as Sarah comes in.
Borden tells his expecting-with-child and very worried girlfriend how he does the bullet catch.

There is a key exchange in this scene at 29:44:

BORDEN: Don't worry. Don't worry. Because, I not going to let anything happen. Every thing is going to be all right, because I love you very much.
SARAH: Say it again.
BORDEN: I love you.
SARAH: Not today.
BORDEN: What?
SARAH: Well, some days it's not true. And today you don't mean it. Maybe today, you're more in love with magic than me. And I, being able to tell the difference makes the days it is true mean something.

Indeed we begin to see that the love for magic and craft create a dysfunction in Borden's life.

Next we find Angier, in disguise, aiming a loaded gun at Borden and asking, "Which know did you tie?" Borden catches the live bullet, taking off two of his fingers.

Days later, when dressing the wound, Sarah can't believe the wound is still bleeding just as it first did. Of course, this is the other twin, who with the help of his brother, has chiseled off the same two fingers. Self-sacrifice for the trick. Passion for excellence or obsession?

Cutter returns to Angier to keep working. They both know that Borden's mistake and arrogance killed Julia. Angier changes his name to The Great Danton. As they prepare the climax bird trick this exchange (35:34):

ANGIER: Cutter the bird cage can't be our climax, everybody knows it.
CUTTER: Not like this, they don't.
ANGIER: I don't want to kill doves.
CUTTER: Then stay off the stage. You're a magician, not a wizard. You've got to get your hands dirty if you're going to achieve the impossible. (and the dove nods its head)

Hinting at the Faustian pledge that Angier will eventually kill far more than just a dove, getting his hands dirty with more that dirt and the blood of a bird.

The bird trick goes wrong when Borden shows up to "fowl" it. This is payback for his fingers and the loaded gun. Although Angier wants revenge now.

Angier gets an audience with Tesla. Tesla shows him the effects of alternating current. Angier wants Tesla to make a "real" machine for him, not a trick.

Angier's Moment of Grace - Part 1 (51:27)

Tesla warns Angier to drop his obsession because of the cost (51:27). "No good will come of it." Angier thinks Tesla is talking about money, but Tesla isn't. Tesla admits that good came from his obsessions at first, but he has followed his obsessions too long, and now he is their slave…and one day "they will choose to destroy me."

Angier's Moment of Grace - Part 2 (52:35)

Olivia tries to get Angier to drop the obsession of revenge by suggesting that they are now even. He explodes:

ANGIER: Even? My wife for a couple of his fingers? He has a family now, and he's performing again. Borden is out there living his life, as he always intended, as if nothing has happened. And look at me. I'm alone, and no theater will touch me.
OLIVIA: Us. You're going to need a better disguise.

In both of these Moments of Grace scenes, our tragic protagonist rejects the grace he is offered by first the scientist and then his lover. He is given an out, a way to live in peace. But he rejects it and embraces the obsession of his craft and the obsession of his revenge.

Olivia's line "you're going to need a better disguise" foreshadows the disguise he has to come up with, not just to sneak into Borden's show, but to come up with a "better trick," and how he disguises his "double." Angier will need a better solution than just a twin. "Better trick" is in quotes because in terms of a true moral premise "better" in this case is "worse" and "trick" is not a trick but a "real" Faustian event.

As the story continues, Angier's revenge gets out of control—a counter point to Cutter's remark that Angier rejects: "We don't do tricks we can't control."

Indeed, Angier soon makes it clear to Olivia that he doesn't care about his wife's death, but getting his hands on Borden's secret.

Tesla "perfects" his cloning device, but warns Angier that the box will only bring him misery. Tesla's advice is to drop it in the deepest ocean. The box, of course, the physical object of Angier's pursuit, is a metaphor for Angier's psychological obsession with revenge, which should be dropped into the deepest ocean, as well.

But Borden is as much involved in the obsession, at least for his craft. Sarah pleads with Borden, who is probably the evil twin:

SARAH: I want you to be honest with me. No tricks, lies and secrets. Do you love me.
BORDEN: Not today, Love.

Distraught at their dysfunctional relationship, Sarah goes to Alfred's workshop, looks at the birds that are mostly destined to death, and then hangs herself. She's a bird, who is willingly sacrificed (by the Borden's) for the sake of the ultimate trick (which she does not understand). Her hanging sounds like the fatal snap of the birdcage.

In the end, after Borden is scheduled to die by hanging, his little girl, Jess is brought by Lord Cordlow to visit before he dies. Borden looks at Lord Cordlow, it's his nemesis, Angier, as it has always been. Borden tries to tell the guards that he's been tricked and that the man that just walked off with his daughter is the man he's accused of killing. But no one believes him.

Cutter delivers Angier's devices to Lord Cordlow and is shocked to see Angier.

Borden says goodbye to Fallon, who will live on for both of them. Borden says he's sorry for a lot of things. He wishes he had left Angier to his trick.

As Borden mounts the gallows, above the trap door that will kill him, just as the trap doors killed Angier's clones, Cutter and Lord Cordlow push the Tesla's box to end of a dilapidated theater warehouse. Cutter explains that his earlier description to Angier about the sailor who almost drowned who said drowning was like he was going home, was a lie. Cutter says to Angier that the sailor said, "It was agony." Angier dreadfully looks in the tanks holding his dead clones...100 of them. He reminds himself: "No one cares about the man in the box."

He hears a noise. Is it Cutter? No, it's Fallon, who throws the rubber ball at him -- the rubber ball that symbolizes the transportation of a man from one place to another. Angier, distracted, picks up the ball, and Fallon shoots him, just as Borden says "Abracadabra!" and is hung.

Then Fallon/Borden explains the trick, to the dying Angier.

BORDEN: Sacrifice, Rupert, that's the price of a good trick. But you wouldn't know anything about that would you?
Angier: It took courage not knowing if I'd be the man in the box or the Prestige. You never understood why we did this. The audience knows the truth. Their world is miserable, solid, all the way through. But if you could fool them, even for a second…then you cold make them wonder….it was the look on their faces.

Pride. Lord Cordlow dies, next to 100 of his clones that he has killed.

In retrospect we might figure out that Angier sets up his death during the 100th performance, by luring Borden back stage, and then Cutter, not knowing the trick, and Angier not appearing that night as The Prestige, is able to pin his own murder on Borden to get revenge.

The Moral Premise

In consideration of the moral premise we typically have a vice that leads to some physical detriment; and a virtue that leads to some greater good.

But in a tragedy, such as The Prestige, you have the two prongs of the moral premise that both descend. That is, a vice that leads to some physical detriment; and the vice's extreme that leads to some greater detriment.

Thus, our tragic moral premise can be stated this way:

Obsessive Pride leads to dysfunction; but
Obsessive Revenge leads to destruction…100 times over.

If you have additional insights or a contrary opinion, let me know. Add a comment.

Sound of Freedom vs. Indiana Jones: The Dial of Destiny

This blog post is a cry for reason in the pursuit of excellence and a plea to destroy the love of mediocrity. The Sound of Freedom movie, starring Jim Caviezel, is a good movie, and I'm glad to see the good it is doing to raise the salience of sex trafficking evil in the world. 

However, in terms of its story execution and its promotion I believe it could be better. For writing that, I've run amuck of "ideologically" driven Christians. For pointing out things that should've, could've been better I've been called a pedophile, and a MAP. I've been told to STFU, that I'm wrong, and that I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill. (BTW: mole hills can break your ankle if you step in one just right; underneath the small pile of dirt is an unseen hole.) The worse argument I've encounter, however, is this: "If it's doing some good, why criticize it?" 

Why indeed!?  Because the end never justifies the means. Because the movie could have done a lot more good. Why settle for affecting six-million minds when you could reach twelve-million? Is that the bane of the human condition? Settle for just good enough...let sleeping dogs lie...don't cause trouble...you can't do anything about it...just shake it off...critical thinking is too hard...go with your gut.

A. SANITIZED STORY

Last week, Pam and I screened SOUND OF FREEDOM (SOF) at the local multiplex. My lovely and sensitive wife loved it and wept. I though it was boring...very little action, some scenes were a stretch to believe. The initial luring of children, however, almost had me walking out of the theater. I was easily angered at the gall of the traffickers and the stupidity of the father. But horror of all horrors (in terms of filmmaking) the Act 3 climax (the final and necessary hand-to-hand fight between the hero and the villain) was sanitized by several SILENT and BLACK screens for seconds each...no doubt so as not to offend the easily offended Christian audience. I'm a Christian and I found the sanitized black offensive. Why? Because they hid the real sacrifice that Tim Ballard was making to save the girl, and it hid the real sacrifice called on all of us to stop the evil. It was too quick, too neat, too tidy, too bloodless, too neatly packaged to reveal the reality (the verisimilitude) of the situation. Shame on the filmmakers. (cf: complaints about the violence in The Passion of the Christ)

B. EMOTIONAL IDENTIFICATION

SOF tells a true story (documented with actual footage at the end), but it isn't TAKEN (2008 - Pierre Morel, Director, starring Liam Neeson). Both films are rated PG-13. TAKEN went on to earn $226M worldwide over 20 weeks plus several sequels which together earned $928M plus two TV series. Let's see if SOF does that well. The big difference aside from the verisimilitude of the TAKEN story is that SOF is missing the key emotional connection of fatherhood. Bryan Mills (Neeson) is trying to rescue his daughter (whom he had been trying to reconnect with due to a divorce) from the sex traffickers. The SOF filmmakers try to make that connection but fail because Tim Ballard is trying to save children unrelated to him. Yes, it's "based" on a true story. But there is a serious lack in emotional connection with the audience; the audience will NOT emotionally identify with Ballard as they did with Mills.  

C. ALEJANDRO GÓMEZ MONTEVERDE

Part of the reason for an imperfect understanding of story structure is that SOF comes from Writer-Director Alejandro Gómez Monteverde  whose earlier two films, BELLA and LITTLE BOY (links are to my Moral Premise analysis) tried to appeal to Christian audiences, but bombed at the box office with poor story structure. Otherwise Alejandro is an excellent filmmaker. 

D. BOX OFFICE COMPARISONS

I also found SOF filmmakers and distributor Angel Studios dishonest in their ballyhooing of how they supposedly beat out Indian Jones: The Dial of Destiny (IJ:TDOD) and every other film on July 4.  On the Angel Studio website (the day I wrote this) they claim that SOF was Number 1 at the box office. While technically true for the domestic box office, it is misleading considering the overall performance worldwide of other films, like the Indy film. When the box office receipts are compared fairly, IJ:TDOD whipped (SFX: CRACK) SOF. Here are a few details.

Different Films Not Comparable

The factors are many: The release frames (day and date schedule) were not the same, the genres are not the same, the screen count is not the same, the star ratings are not the same, the balance between drama and humor are not the same, and the release countries were not the same. 

For starters: SOF opened domestically (2,634 screens) on Wednesday, July 4, 2023 with $14M in pre-sales to their core Christian audience. IJ: TDOD opened internationally (with 4,600 domestic screens) five days earlier on Friday, June 30, 2023 with $124M worldwide.  (the number of international screens is not tracked.)  $14M beats $124M?

Domestic Comparisons:
IJ: TDOD first seven days = $94.7M.  SOF first seven days (domestic only) = $45.7.
IJ:TDOD per screen/per day average  = $2,941.   SOF per screen/per day average = $2,479.

International Comparisons: (2X domestic extrapolation)
IJ: TDOD first seven days = $189M.  SOF first seven days (domestic only) = $45.7.
IJ:TDOD per screen/per day average  = $5,880.   SOF per screen/per day average = $2,479.
Who won this contest?

July 4 (Opening Day Comparisons
Opening day for SOF, was Day 5 for IJ:TDOD
IJ:TDOD did $11M domestically with $22M projected Worldwide.
SOF: $14.2M domestically with no International.

As of Sunday, July 9 (totals)
IJ:TDOD WW: $249M
SOF WW (actually only domestic) $41M. 

Based on these reported numbers the SOM promoters have misrepresented the truth. In a very narrow way one can say that SOF beat IJ:TDOD.  But by passing on and repeating this narrow window of comparison, the general impression is that SOF is the better movie by far. 

But that is far from the truth. The SOF filmmakers should stop comparing the two. When compared at face value the comparison puts SOF at a disadvantage. It's really not possible to compare them fairly because they are so different in many ways.  As Jordan Peterson would say, "Tell the Truth, at least don't lie." 

(All numbers from https://boxofficemojo.com the industry reporting standard, which are also reported on pro.IMDB.com)

E. DISNEY'S INVOLVEMENT

My take (without inside information) is that the SOF filmmakers also misrepresented Disney's involvement in the film's distribution, and some minor matters of fact which lessen the SOF promoters credibility. According to IMDB Pro, SOF was completed on Nov. 28, 2019, not 2013 as some have claimed. It's also been claimed that Disney shelved SOF because they are supporters of sex trafficking. I think this is a hubris conspiracy theory started by conservatives, if not Christians.  In 2018, 20th Century Fox picked up SOF for distribution, but when Disney purchased 20th Century Fox in 2019, SOF was put aside. Per Fox Business a Disney spokesperson told Newsweek that Disney had no knowledge of the film given the nature of the international acquisition pre-merger agreement. The SOF filmmakers reclaimed the film from Disney's shelf, and shopped the film around for three years before making a crowd finding deal with Angel Studios for distribution.  It is hard to know what or how the actual decisions were made at Disney about SOF. Disney has proved to be morally corrupt in a number of its decisions, both filmmaking and entertainment parks. I can say that IJ:TDOD is far from woke, and an excellent family film with clear emphasis on family and the fight between good and evil. 

F. SOCIAL DIALOGUE

Finally, a comment if Instagram thread participants on this topic come here to read this. I participate in an occasional social media thread, but it is very unsatisfying. I'm convinced that most commenters do not read the entire thread of a conversation but react subjectively and ideologically, making wild, irrational and irresponsible remarks to score a point or a like, like those I mentioned at the start of this post. Social media threads have contributed largely to the dissolution of culture and rational dialogue. It would be different if the social media engines would somehow thread together a conversation so it could be logically followed—a difficult task when multiple people are making comments simultaneously. I got wrapped up in an Instagram thread because of the issues I raise above.  The real corruption is society is the lack of intelligence.

POV: An Emotional Suture in Screenplays and Novels like WCH

(found on the web)

The most successful stories create deep emotional empathy between readers (or audiences) and the story's characters. A critical skill for writers, therefore, is making and maintaining that emotional connection. One important technique for accomplishing this connection is the clear and consistent use of  POV (Point of View). 

Unfortunately, I continue to see published writing that ignores or incorrectly uses POV. Such misuse leads to cognitive dissonance (which takes the reader out of the story long enough to figure out what the writer intended).

Properly used POV creates a "suture" between the audience and the characters. In medical practice a suture is the stitching together of an open wound that allows separated flesh to fuse and grow back together, hopefully without a scar.  "Suture" therefore, is a good metaphor for the use of POV in narratives as the writer stitches the reader emotionally into the story without leaving a scar.

IN SCREENWRITING a proper POV technique requires three shots.

1. A closeup of the POV character who looks, stares, or glares off screen in wonder, disgust or shock. (CUT TO)

2. What the POV character sees from their perspective, as the character's eyes are replaced by the camera's lens. (CUT TO)

3. Return to the POV character who emotionally and physically reacts to what is seen.

Shots 1 & 3 visually communicate the character's emotion (the effect), which is explained by shot 2 (the cause). 

You've seen this sequence is every film you've watched. BUT what is often missed in the scripts I see is how the writer portrays the sequence. Too often a script will skips shots 1 &  for the sake of supposed efficiency, e.g. "Doug sees Mary wink at Jake and becomes jealous."  Doing this robs the reader of emotional connection with Doug and his wonder, disgust, or shock.  It also confuses the reader as to who is jealous, Doug, Mary or Jake? 

IN PROSE (e.g. novel) establishing the POV character is a bit more involved, but the same three "shots" or lines of text, are necessary if we are to connect with the intended character.  For example, in the following three paragraphs everything is experienced from Peter's perspective (i.e. POV):

1. Peter, hearing Melody's scream, entered the kitchen and was greeted by his irate wife and a pile of chaos on the floor. His heart fell and his knees shook.

2. Stacey, their three-year old daughter sat on the floor in a pool of chocolate syrup she had squeezed from a bottle she held upside down, high over her head. Her blonde hair, face, and romper drooled with the sweet goo. She smiled with pleasure.

3. Peter took a deep breath and stepped carefully backwards, his flailing hands groping for the door handle to the wet mop closet.

Note:  We use 3 paragraphs because each paragraph directs our attention to a different subject in a location different than the one before. Putting these in one paragraph suggests our view is in the same direction for each. But our view changes, thus three paragraphs works better than one, and the white space breaks up the page for easier reading. (Do I follow this rule? Ah...well...not when I'm trying to cut down on the page count.)

Often, however, what I see in prose is this, in one paragraph:

"Come see this mess. Right now!" Stacey, very pleased with herself, was on the kitchen floor in a pool of chocolate syrup. It tasted sweet and yummy. Very disappointed he shook in anger and grabbed a mop.

Now this paragraph is much more efficient. But it involves three points of view and not a little confusion:

"Peter! Come see this mess. Right now!" is someone's POV but we're not sure who. In context we can assume it's Melody, Peter's wife, if Melody was in the kitchen moments before.

Stacey, feeling pleased with herself... it tasted sweet and yummy..." is Stacey's POV. It's telling us what's inside Stacey's head.  

 Very disappointed, he shook in anger and grabbed a mop...is Peter's POV or Universal POV.

This causes the reader, in one short paragraph, to jump between three perspectives and thus dilutes any emotional empathy the reader might have for any one of the three. 

Jumping POVs can also happen across three paragraphs. For example here is an abbreviated and edited cold opening for a book I was recently asked to review:

I will never forget when the father and his young son arrived at the clinic. Both were battered and bloody. The boy's eyes were swollen nearly shut and he had a chest wound from which fluid pumped with every breath he took. 

Nearly dead, Muhammed looked up at the strange medic sticking a tube into his chest. He feared for his life because the medic was white and he had been taught that white people hated him and wanted to kill the children in his tribe.

When not wearing scrubs the medic was a soldier in the U.S. Army who had been warned to avoid contact with the locals.

These abbreviated paragraphs force the reader to disconnect and jump emotionally from the medic's POV, to Muhammed's POV, to a universal POV. Each jump dilutes if not disconnects emotional involvement with the characters, and lessens the impact of the story.

It would be better to write those three paragraphs from one POV and build up the emotional connection.

I will never forget when the father and his young son arrived at the clinic. Both were battered and bloody. The boy was nearly dead. He had a chest wound from which fluid pumped with every breath he took. As I inserted the chest tube into the boy's wound and began pumping fluid from his pleural cavity, he looked up at me from swollen eyes with fear and not a little trembling. I had heard that his tribe had been taught that white people, like me, wanted to kill their children. How sad. I wanted so badly to keep this child and his father alive. What would he think, I wondered, if he discovered I was a soldier in the U.S. Army?

One final hint about POV writing.

In all storytelling I think it's best to write each scene from ONLY one POV. When you change scenes you can change the POVs perhaps to the most ironic and unpredictable character in that scene. And when you do change scenes and POV, the VERY FIRST IMAGE or WORDS should be the IMAGE or NAME of the character that is going to tell the story of that scene—the POV character, thus explicitly shifting the reader's perspective.  Then, stick with that character's POV until the scene ends. 

There is no short cut to clear and consistent communication. 

I follow these rules in all my writing (or so I claim) and have received consistent and congratulatory feedback particularly for my use of POV. It allows readers to get deeply into my characters and understand their motivations and souls. In my historical fiction epic (of a true story) WIZARD CLIP HAUNTING, there are 7 Parts, 54 chapters, and multiple scenes in each chapter. This gave me tremendous flexibility to enter the heads of both heroes and villains (one scene-at-a-time), and explore the motivations for their despicable and noble actions. The results were what I had hoped: 

"...From the very beginning the characters sprung to life. I laughed, celebrated and mourned with the characters. I was there with them, and I cried..."  —Kathy M.

"...The character development is excellent..." — Betty  S. 

"...wonderful character development and page turning plot..." — Hope S.

"...skillful portrayals of the cast of characters whom he brings to life - and for some - to death..." Mike M.

You get the point. POV works, but it takes some work.

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.

Gerry Mooney's Modules

Gerry Mooney - http://thegravityposter.com/

If you have attended my workshops you'll recall my reference to Natural Law and how no human can escape it, and how successful story structure is the consequence of Natural Law. One of the illustrations I use is Gerry Mooney's popular GRAVITY POSTER; (purchase it at the link under the picture at right). As I explain, your characters, like real humans, can make any choice they want, but they have no choice over the consequence of their actions.

That inescapable cause (by us) and effect (from nature) relationship is why stories work and why humor works. The laws of nature transcend our physical realm and also pervade our psychological, spiritual, emotional, and moral worlds.

The productive juxtaposition of science, religion, politics, humor, and storytelling has perhaps never been so poignant than in a series of one-frame cartoons by Mooney, which appeared in Asimov's Science Magazine back in the 80s (that's the 1980's for the vampires reading this).  In each of his 51 creations, there is, like in all stories, a physical reality that metaphors the psychological reality -- which is what each module or story is REALLY about.

Below (left) is the first in the Mooney's Module series that links to the Modules, and a second image (right) to a wonderful story about a little boy and his teacher, Sister Mary Dracula that I recently purchased and "devoured".  CLICK ON EITHER IMAGE FOR THE SERIES, OR TO PURCHASE THE GRAPHIC NOVEL.

  

How to Change the World at Bedtime - The Art of Storytelling - Didactic vs Narrative

There are many ways of trying to convince someone that something is true. There is the "BOP!" method, frequently employed by our parents and school teachers.

"I'll tell you what you're suppose to believe, and if you don't repeat it faithfully I'll bop you on the head with this here book."

Such is the method currently being used in segments of our political sub-culture. Either you toe the party line or I'll kick you off my Facebook page, out of my store, or the safe zone at the local university. So much for the pursuit of truth through dialogue and tolerance.

Many of us grew up in such fascist environments. But I don't think those who think much, think much of the effectiveness of such methods. In a pedagogical sense we might describe the BOP method with terms like rote, punishment, telling, didactic, or tyrannic. But most of us more likely appreciate learning through personal experience, discovery, experiment, showing, and simulation. Oh, yes, I should add the verbal pedagogies like dialogue, debate, and argument (as long as the arguments are the logical, not the yelling kind).

To those in the communication professions these two styles of communication can be identified simply as "TELLING" or "SHOWING."  Or, I could use more esoteric terms "DIDACTIC" and "NARRATIVE."  Experience is the best teacher, of course, but TELLING a little boy not to touch the hot stove is safer than actually letting him touch it. And yet, telling him may only elicit the question, "Why?" And that's where SHOWING or perhaps a simulation through a story is better.

Jeremy, you're too young to remember, but one time your Auntie Francine touched the stove when it was turned on, and her hand went up in flames. She screamed and hollered, and cried so hard. We took her hand and put it on ice, but that was so cold she cried even harder. Then the doctor came and took her hand completely off her arm and kept it a bandage for 2 months way up there on the shelf, and she couldn't reach it, or use it, even to pick her nose. How would you like that? Wouldn't it be sad if you couldn't pick your nose?"

Stories are like simulations if you can get your audience to emotionally identify with your protagonist and internally make decisions for the protagonist as the story goes along. There are many techniques for getting your audience to identify with the characters in a story...but we have not the space in this blog. See the on-line training. Yet, when you do it right, your audience will make the transition to believe that THEY are IN the story, and that THEY can HELP the protagonist toward the goal.

Oh, Daisy, don't open that door, there's a monster on the other side and he might eat you and it would really be ugly and I don't want to see that.

But of course, Daisy, being immortalized on the celluloid, can't hear you, so she walks through the door and is eaten by the monster. Blood everywhere. Quit memorable. Next time she'll listen. Oh, right, there won't be a next time. But the "Daisys" in the audience who are living through the simulation WILL remember...which is the point.

[Where does preaching fall into the above lists? Well, it depends on whether the preaching primarily involves didactic or narrative techniques. A good rule of thumb based on research of best selling books is 75% narrative and 25% didactic. Hook the heart, imagination and memory with the story, and then sum up the message with a short didactic explanation. Now, I've heard preachers who will a tell a story that has nothing to do with their message...which only hinders and create cognitive dissonance. The assumption is that that story embodies the applicable moral premise. ]

What Happens When We Tell Stories

I so much want to tell a story here, but your time is valuable. So let me NOT practice what I'm trying to preach and just share with you (e.g. tell you) what happens when you rightly use a story to communicate a particular truth, assuming you're using the Audience Identification Techniques described below.

When you tell a story correctly your audience will:

• Work mentally to fill in the narrative gaps, and figure out what is going on and why. (Narrative communication is inductive. It provides information but the audience has to figure out the premise that holds it all together. That "figuring it out" requires mental engagement.)
• Follow the narrative hook created by the story and try to answer the "story question." Listening to narrative communication is thus very active and engaging.
• Identify with the flawed character, because they (the audience) are flawed.
• Be intrigued about how the protagonist will successfully achieve his/her goal.
• Be held in suspense as the protagonist overcomes obstacles.
• Root for the protagonist at turning points to make the right decision and progress.
• Be sad when the protagonist makes the wrong decision and falls back.
• See themselves in the protagonist's journey.
• Learn with the protagonist what to do and what not to do to have a good life themselves.
• Subliminally recognize the moral truth, even though the outward story may be fictional.
• Ride the emotional roller coaster of the story's ups and downs. This creates adrenalin rushes that burn memories into the brain. 
• Remember the story and its subliminal message because it's visual and a simulation of a life experience. 

Now granted, I'm short-handing a lot of theory and practice here, but perhaps this blog will encourage you to learn how to tell better stories and change the world. ...Now, onward and upward!

What Happens With Didactic Communication

Let me contrast Didactics with Narratives. Unfortunately this will be a lot of propositional pronouncements...the very thing I'm preaching against:

• Didactic communication tugs on the brain. Narrative stories, properly told, tug on the heart.
• Didactic communication involves precisely defined propositional statements, logic, and syllogisms -- (think theology). Narrative communication involves suspense, intrigue, irony, conflict, and metaphors (think bedtime stories).
• Didactics use abstract formulas that pertain to all time, all places and all persons. They are thus impersonal and objective. Narratives pertain to one time, one place, one person and are thus personal and subjective. 
• Didactics make intellectual connections but generally produce no adrenaline rush to burn-in memories. Narratives make emotional connections by producing adrenaline rushes that do burn-in memories.
• Didactics are void of emotional cantharis and are easily forgotten. Narratives, properly told, lead to emotional catharsis and are easily remembered.
• Didactics frequently require rhetorical embellishment (volume, gestures, and pacing)  to keep an audience awake. Narratives can benefit from rhetorical techniques but don't require it. The audience's imagination supplies the embellishment to keep tuned. 
• Didactics require deductive thinking where the conclusion is pronounced up front by the presenter and assumed to be true. Narratives require inductive thinking where the conclusion is derived by the audience through assimilation of the character's experiences. Thus, the conclusion is owned by the audience, not the presenter, and is thus remembered longer.
• Didactics offer theoretical and general descriptions of life leading to the embrace of ideologies that may not  have practical meaning to the audience. Narratives offer visceral and specific portrays of life leading to personal verisimilitude. 
• Didactics treat "cause and effect" intellectually and philosophically. Narrative treat "cause and effect" emotionally and practically.
• Didactics explains truth. Narrative imbues truth.
• Didactics tell audiences what to think, so they leave believing, "It's the presenter's idea, I'm skeptical." Narrative leads audiences to discover for themselves, so they leave believing, "It's my idea. Ah-ha!"

Audience Identification Techniques - How to Tell a Story That Connects with Your Audience

There are numerous ways to get your audience to emotionally identify with your characters and thus learn through your character's successes and failures how to make their lives better, which is the subliminal reason people loves stories...they're like safe simulations of life that teach what is good, true, and beautiful.  But there are "catches" to telling successful stories. Here are some of them. They apply to short and long form stories. If you learn more about these and use them, you'll connect with your audience and they'll learn what you're trying to teach them through the experiences of your characters.

• Imbue in your story a true and consistently applied moral premise. This means that the underlying moral truth of your story must not conflict with Natural Law, although the outward physical story may be a fairytale.  This is the definition of a myth—a story vehicle, which may be true or fictional, but nonetheless communicates a universal moral truth. Much of my book, "The Moral Premise," the on-line "Storycraft Training," and this blog is about this.
• Start with a strong, ironic physical hook.  e.g. your protagonist's goal is out of his or her league and sounds impossible to achieve.
• Articulate an engaging log line. There is a good blog post on this.
• Be sure the conflict of inner values is universal to your audience and not parochial. (That is, don't beg your message and assume something is true your audience may think is false.)
• Your hero or protagonist must be flawed but wanting to be better.
• Your hero must pursue a physical and visible goal that may metaphor a deep moral goal.
• Your hero must be passionate and active, not passive or slothful.
• Structure your story's emotional ups and downs so that there is a regular emotional roller coaster with ever increasing risks. Using the technique in the Moral Premise book, the Storycraft Training, and this blog you can learn that every other scene or sentence must be an ironic, nearly impossible journey for your hero.

Well, there is more!!!  ...and if you're familiar with all of this stuff, you will have recognized this last list as some of the "Secrets of Successful Story Structure" from my free bookmark.

BRIDGE TO TERABITHIA (2006)

GABOR CSUPO - Director
JEFF STOCKWELL - Screenwriter
DAVID PATERSON - Screenwriter
KATHERINE PATERSON - Author

JOSH HUTCHERSON - Jesse Aarons
ROBERT PATRICK - Jesse Aarons Sr
KATRINA CERIO (Kate Butler) - Nancy Aarons
BAILEE MADISON - Maybelle Aarons
ANNASOPHIA ROBB - Leslie Burke
LATHAM GAINES - Bill Burke
JUDY MCINTOSH - Judy Burke
LAUREN CLINTON - Janice Avery
CAMERON WAKEFIELD - Scott Hoager
ELLIOT LAWLESS - Gary Fulcher
ZOOEY DESCHANEL - Miss Edmunds
JEN WOLFE - Mrs. Myers

Let me get into a discussion about this great movie by sharing a little about the author of the book upon which the screenplay was based.

AUTHOR KATHERINE PATERSON

Bridge to Terabithia was originally written as a book (1978 Newbery Medal for best children's novel) by Katherine Paterson, daughter of Presbyterian missionaries to China. She wrote the story to help her young son, David (co-screenwriter), understand his best friend's death — Lisa Hill was eight when she was struck by lightening. Understanding such an event requires a worldview that is cogent, and good writers write what they know.

In an on-line interview (www.terabithia.com), Paterson states:

I think it was C.S. Lewis who said something like: 'The book cannot be what the writer is not.' What you are will shape your book whether you want it to or not. I am Christian, so that conviction will pervade the book even when I make no conscious effort to teach or preach. Grace and hope will inform everything I write

THREE RULES OF STORYTELLING

Indeed, BRIDGE TO TERABITHIA is a rich Christian myth filled with symbols of faith and grace that undergird the moral premise. Fortunately, Paterson is a gifted storyteller who understands the first rule of good communication: (1) Entertain. She has the second rule of communication down cold: (2) Tell the truth. And she practices the third rule of successful communication: (3) Respect your audience.


Employing those three rules results in classics like The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, and The Bridge to Terabithia. In all of these classic stories, truth resonates with audiences, even as the propositional statements of religious faith are avoided.

I do not mean that propositional statements of faith (such as you find in a catechism or the direct teachings from a religion's bible) are wrong or unnecessary. To the contrary, do I believe (said Yoda). But communicating truth to the masses is the place and time for myth (storytelling about truths), leaving catechesis (explaining the truth propositionally) for another, more analytical time.

In that regard, Paterson says in the same interview:

The challenge for those of us who care about our faith and about a hurting world is to tell stories which will carry the words of grace and hope in their bones and sinews and not wear them like a fancy dress.

In other words, tell the story with humility and joy, and don't preach with arrogance a pomp de fear.

A final quote from Paterson's quiver is this arrow of encouragement to all of us who are drawn to create:

Unless I was willing to risk mediocrity, I would never accomplish anything. There are simply no guarantees. It takes courage to lay your insides out for people to examine and sneer over.

Ah, yes, the drakes of mediocrity, we know thee well. (God, how I hate mediocrity, especially when I produce it myself -- see Addicted to Mediocrity by Franky Schaeffer and Kurt Mitchell.)

ON TO THE MOVIE

BRIDGE TO TERABITHIA tells the story of tween Jesse Aarons, whose goal is to break free of the mediocrity of fifth grade. A nice boy with a great but stifled imagination, he turns to running and practices for a foot race at school. When the big race comes, he pulls into the lead against his bully nemesises, only to be passed by the friendly, new girl in school, Leslie Burke. That he got beat by a girl is bad enough, but it turns out they are neighbors, and in time develop a friendship.

The darkness in Jesse's life comes from several sources. We discover that Jesse's family is poor and a cloud of poverty and dullness hangs over his large family of five sisters, and a loving, stern father who works hard but without satisfaction. Their family seems to be on the edge of emotional and fiscal depression. Jesse is also the brunt of jokes and ridicule at school for being a little different— he's introverted, and not given to the cruelty of his "peers." Although we are introduced to Jesse's imaginary world through his drawing, it is a closeted imagination than lacks vitality and hope.

Leslie, on the other hand is a bright, confident, outgoing girl with a streak of compassion that is never-ending. She befriends Jesse out of a genuine respect for the dignity of another person and his drawings, which he tries to keep to himself. Leslie quickly makes friends with Maybelle, Jesse's younger sister, by offering Maybelle her collection of Barbies when Jesse rudely rejects Maybelle's tagging along. Where Jesse is good at drawing, Leslie is good with words. When Mrs. Myers (their English teacher) asks Leslie to read her essay on SCUBA diving, Jesse imagines air-bubbles coming from Leslie's mouth, and is further engaged when she tells him afterwards that she just made it up —out of her imagination — she's never been SCUBA diving before.

We are not introduced to Leslie's parents until later, but when we are we discover that they too, like Mr. Aarons, work hard, but their lives are alive with imagination, and are richer on several levels. One of the movie's moments of grace is when Leslie's father, after he and his wife complete their book and re-painting the dinning room (a family project in which Jesse' helps) -- happily quotes Theodore Roosevelt:

Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.

As the story progresses that attitude is adopted by Jesse who proudly delivers it to his dad, when once again Jesse is told to do his chores.

ENTERING TERABITHIA

To escape the occasional persecution that both Jesse and Leslie endure at school, and because they are next-door neighbors in a rural setting, they run into the woods to play. Leslie is the leader here, and freely engages her vivid play imagination, inviting, and coaching Jesse to play along. She knows he has it in him (from his drawings). But to Jesse his imaginary world is something to escape to and keep private, and not something to exhibit by swinging from trees, or to yell about from mountaintops. But that is what Leslie teaches him.

When they find a rope that swings across a small river, she encourages him to give it a try. She does and freely enjoys the freedom of looking up into the clouds. He's afraid that the rope will break, but she tells him it won't. He swings, and listening to her exuberant hope, throws his head back and looks at the clouds above. It's a rush of excitement he's rarely felt.

On the other side of the river, they establish their own imaginary land—Terabithia she calls it. A place where they can be King and Queen, and where their imagination conjures up a land of the supernatural.

Now, in the supernatural world, we are closer to what the movie is really about — the need for hope, a virtue that allows us to see what naturally is invisible. In a Christian context, the key ingredient is "faith." And it plays significantly in the story. Hope results from understanding who we were meant to be, and seeing a way to express it in the larger world.

Early during their creation of Terabithia, Leslie challenges Jesse: "Close your eyes, but keep your mind wide open." They are surrounded by creatures of the imagination. She asks him "Do you see them?" He says "yes" but he sees only the natural world of birds and squirrels. She asks again, "Do you REALLY see them?" And then he sees the supernatural world of squogres and giant bats that only hope and their imagination can bring...what the movie is REALLY about.

Shortly thereafter, Leslie raises her arms in a prelude to the movie's triumph and announces:

"Prisoners of the Dark Master, we've come to free you."

And the wind blows, like the Holy Spirit entering the Upper Room where the Apostles huddled in fear of the dark forces that surrounded them. But in our movie, the proclamation by our Terabithia Queen is aimed directly at the Terabithia King, Jesse, who is a prisoner of the dark master, of which she's come to free him.

MYTHIC SYMBOLS

Terabithia comes from the name of the Terebinth tree found in Southern Europe and the Mediterranean, and the Old Testament. The Terebinth is mentioned in Sirach 24:

Like a Terebinth I spread out my branches, and my branches are glorious and graceful. Like the vine I bud forth delights, and my blossoms become glorious and abundant fruit" (16-17).

The on-line Jewish encyclopedia states that:

Both the oak and the Terebinth offered favorite resorts for religious practices (Isa. i. 29, lvii. 5; Ezek. vi. 13; Hos. iv. 13), and are employed as emblems of strength and durability (Amos ii. 9; Isa. lxi. 3).

When life is difficult we gather strength and durability from hope and our imagination to see what could and will be. Thus our ability to imagine becomes a key component of Catholic sacramentality, where we experience the presence of God in all creation, in our contemplation, and in the Mass. Specifically, imagination is necessary to understand the Mass, its connection with eternity (where there is no time), and the meaning of life. Only then are we able to embrace hope for a better tomorrow.

ROLE OF THE PRIESTHOOD

In Bridge To Terabithia we see the beginning of that kind of sacramental, supernatural imagination in Jesse Aarons' life. For Jesse Aarons is a special person called to that imagination and hope. Jesse is our everyman, the person we identify with. Jesse is us. And as Jesse has a special role in the movie's story, so we have a special role in our personal story. This becomes a story of the priesthood of all believers, and perhaps a little about how someone is called to the vocation of the sacramental priesthood. Thus, it is not insignificant that our protagonist is Jesse Aarons.

The name is significant. Aaron is the name of Moses' brother who becomes Israel's first high priest, who is the first to venture into the Old Testament Tabernacle's Holy of Holies. In that sacred place he confronts God, and brings Yahweh's grace and hope back to the people. And that is what Jesse learns to do in this movie. He enters Terabithia, a sacred and magical place, and brings back hope for his sister, Maybelle, and his Dad.

But that's not all, consider our protagonist's first name: Jesse. In Isaiah 1:11 it says, "And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse..." That is, from Jesse's blood we get King David and Jesus Christ, both Kings. Jesse Aarons is the King of Terabithia and called to be a priest to bring hope to the kingdom of man.

Leslie Burke, for me, is an angel, if not the Christ figure, that is sent to Jesse to teach him and prepare him for his role to change his world view. Until Leslie suddenly shows up, Jesse is being crushed — by his stern but loving father, by Mrs. Myers his good English teacher ("If you down load this essay, you'll be downloaded into detention"), by the bullies at school, by his family's financial situation, and by not having any hope for his future. But Leslie brings to Jesse the gift of faith in the imagination and the hope that is suppressed within him. Leslie also brings that hope to others in the story by showing them compassion.

And once Leslie has firmly established those virtues of faith, hope and compassion in Jesse, the story transitions. Ms. Edmonds takes him to an art museum, which he has never seen before. He's awed -- and sees the world in a new way. When he's caught the vision of his calling, Ms. Edmonds proclaims over him like a prophet: "You can change the world."

The next thing we know, Leslie and her parents are gone from the scene, leaving behind a pile of lumber.

Now it is up to Jesse to find work that is worth doing and change the world. After a short period of grief and mourning for Leslie, Jesse wastes little time.

The first thing he does is asks his little sister, Maybelle, for forgiveness. On numerous occasions he's been rude and excluded her from following Leslie and him into Terabithia. Then, he works toward a grand restitution, and builds a wooden bridge to Terabithia, and in the arch over the entrance, he hangs a coat of arms that reprises one of Leslie's proclamations, "Nothing Crushes Us." When it's done, Jesse becomes the priest that ushers his little sister into the land of hope; and as they enter crowns appear on their heads, the wooden bridge behind them glistens with gold, and beautiful and clever mythic creatures, including Janice as a Giant, greet them.

JESSE'S VOCATIONAL CALLING

In retrospect we see that Jesse has a calling to faith, a faith so great that it can change the world. It's a calling to the "real" world. For Terabithia is more real than the dark world he comes from. This harkens back to C. S. Lewis' "reality" in THE GREAT DIVORCE where the natural world is no longer as real as the supernatural experience of heaven.

We identify with Jesse, because we all have gifts that God has given us, but until we are encouraged to trust the Old Swinging Rope ("The Old Rugged Cross" is sung in the one church scene) that dangles across the river, we cannot swing across the river of baptism to the supernatural land where squirrels becomes squogres, and dark despair becomes a gold covered bridge to hope.

Leslie teaches Jesse Aarons to have faith, cross over the river, and enter the world of imagination, and hope. As Jesse embraces that lesson, his eyes are open (he's blind no more) and he discovers who he was truly meant to be—a person of hope, a person of vision, and a person of compassion.

Likewise, we are blinded until someone leads us to faith on that rope, and into the land of imagination and hope on the other side of the waters of baptism.

...A BROKEN ROPE

At the end of the movie, it is implied that it is the breaking of the rope that leads to Leslie's death. But, isn't it interesting that it is the rope again that brings her to the "other side" and assists in the transcendence from the natural world to the eternal world of the supernatural. And it is in the image of the broken rope that results in a physical death that reminds us of the Old Rugged Cross that resulted in another physical death, and gives us all hope of eternal life in the realm of the supernatural.

Terabithia, then becomes a sacred place. It's a place of imagination that can only be brought about by faith, hope, and charity.

THE MORAL PREMISE

Bridge to Terabithia has dual moral premises that support each other.

The first is seen significantly in the arc of Janice, the 8th-grade bully who forces kids to pay money or give up their lunch treats in order to use the playground bathroom. She also plays dirty tricks to get Jesse in trouble. But later when Leslie shows Janice uncommon compassion during a dark time, Janice's meanness is turned around, and then shows compassion toward Jesse. It is shortly after that show of compassion that it is Janice who becomes the inspiration for Terabithia's gentle and protective giant.

In this way, the sub-moral premise can be stated like this:

Meanness leads to a curse of rejection; but
Compassion leads to the grace of acceptance.

We see the meanness (and sternness) of Janice, Scott, Gary, Mrs. Myers, and Mr. Aarons converted or challenged by compassion, and when compassion (which is charity motivated by confident hope) is promulgated, grace and acceptance are the result.

But more importantly the movie is about how meanness is related to skepticism, which embraces the dark forces in our lives. Remember Leslie's call: "Prisoners of the dark master, we have come to free you!" That freedom from meanness, which is the result of skepticism, can be relieved only by hope that comes through faith, in the Old Rugged Rope to carry us to the other side. The broken rope gives transcendence to the story's arc, and motivates Jesse. It is because of what Leslie has taught Jesse that he is able to build a more substantial Bridge to Terabithia, and begin to usher others across it

So the more significant moral premise, about which the entire movie is really about, can be stated like this:

Skepticism leads to dread of a dark tomorrow; but
Faith leads to the hope of a bright future.

And the last shot of the movies, we peer into Jesse's eyes. He sees now, that which before he was blind to, now he sees clearly a vision for what the world can be. He doesn't know what he'll do next, but he'll think of something with his eyes wide open and full of hope.

DVD

Blu-Ray

VOD