This is an example of feedback and collaboration moving a story along. Here is what we got and how it generated change in the idea:
On 22 August 2011 12:37, Chas Fisher wrote:
Hey pirateers!
I have a challenge for you. Khrob and I are perilously close to starting a beat outline and then, shortly afterwards, a 1st draft. Exciting times. However, there is one sequence in the film that is troubling me.
Would you all mind reading the last three blog posts in the following order and then sending us your thoughts?
Many thanks and much love
Chas
From: Stu Willis
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:04:10 +1000
While discussed by many authors and script gurus, it was Stephen Cleary in his VCA lectures that really clearly put across the principle that character creates plot (in that the character motivations and decisions lead the character from obstacle to the next) and that plot creates character (without sources of antagonism, the character would never change).
I haven't finished reading through the documents, but this stood out to me.
For my money, Cleary's "formulation" is this: Plot is character expressed over time.
In your particular instance, if you have a firm idea of who you want the character to be - but you don't feel it is being expressed - then the only way to fix it is to change the plot.
Sounds like to me that you're not happy with either Scenario 1 or 2.
So start with what you *need* the audience to understand about your character by this point and work backwards to find ways to show it.
Yeah, it might mean rethinking things like "the device" or "the papers" but so be it. That's the stuff at rewriting. But it shows that the process is working. Normally this kind of mismatches wait until first drafts or whatever to rear their ugly head.
On 22 August 2011 14:09, Chas Fisher wrote:
What do I need the audience to understand about Sam?
Simply that for her to be fulfilled in life, she needs to live for others - as her father before her did, as Aloysius regretted not doing, as Shah does. This does not mean she should never do anything for herself, but that leading her life only thinking about herself and what she needs only brings her short-term pleasure (if any) and leaves a lot of wreckage on the way.
So over the time of the film, she needs to:
a) Recognise the damage she does to others;
b) Recognise the value in living for others; and
c) Choose to live that life.
From: Stu Willis
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:13:36 +1000
And how do you show the audience these*:
a) Recognise the damage she does to others;
b) Recognise the value in living for others; and
c) Choose to live that life.
*And, as far as I'm concerned, action isn't the only acceptable answer.
(And, how does showing these relate to the sequence we're talking about?)
From: Chas Fisher
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:51:51 +1030
Man, I want your job Stu. Let's torture the writer with questions he obviously doesn't know the answer to. Possible answers in red below.
And how do you show the audience these*:
a) Recognise the damage she does to others; Aloysius is whipped and then killed. She kills Jock. Shah is sentenced to death because he had faith in her. Her recognition of this happens in the scene with Shah (like any great antagonist at the end of the 2nd Act, they can in dialogue describe the character's problem and choice.
b) Recognise the value in living for others; and
This one is tougher and possibly what is currently missing. Again, Shah could simply point out that if she had at any point truly committed to finding the murderer instead of looking out for her own hide, she would have prevented her current situation. While I am happy with question a) in how it is shown then told, I am less happy with this one. Not much showing and telling feels like my only option.
c) Choose to live that life.
Finding the killer. Confronting him. Risking her own life in the process.
*And, as far as I'm concerned, action isn't the only acceptable answer.
(And, how does showing these relate to the sequence we're talking about?)
The sources of antagonism become stronger in the 2nd half of the film (these sequences run from the end of Act II to halfway through Act III, just short of the climax). They are no longer satisfied with her doing the least possible. She must now commit, in this sequence, to doing more than what is necessary to survive or secure her best interests.
Just in case I sounded ungrateful: I do appreciate the questions and, yes, the process is clearly working. I would much rather be banging my head against the table now rather than between 1st and 2nd draft when it is so much harder to unravel.
Anyone have any out of leftfield plot points that could convey the same character traits?
From: Steve Goldsworthy
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:01:16 +1000
As an extra rock-and-hard-place to throw at you:
Recognise the value in living for others:
Again, Shah could simply point out that if she had at any point truly committed to finding the murderer instead of looking out for her own hide, she would have prevented her current situation.
But is this living for others - or just pointing that if she'd made a different set of decisions, her own hide would be better off?
If the lesson is to recognise the value in living for others, then she needs to make sacrifices, not just realise that looking after other people is often better for her in the long run, too.
But this creates a bigger problem: berating your most vulnerable character (the hostage girl on the pirate ship in fear of being raped and killed) for not being willing to take more risks and make more sacrifices...
There has to a turning point where the audience go from simply wanting her to survive, whatever it takes, to wanting her to survive, with honour and altruism. Where is the turning point?
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Stu Willis wrote:
I realise this is a question for Chas, but its far more exciting than approving timesheets.
For me, these kind of turning points are tough. To make them work I think you need to take a character turning point and frame it within a shift of point of view (ie to use cleary speak, to go from curious sympathy to concerned sympathy).
Mad Men does it in its first season by revealing the backstory of Don Draper. Don's reminiscing about his past is the character moment, but its revelation to us is a shift of point of view. We've gone from being curiously sympathetic to Don to being empathetic with him (or at least having as much knowledge as he does). Its a powerful moment because its the alignment of those things.
In the case of Creed, I think for it be the most emotionally effectively, we would need to be with Sam when she decides to act with honour and altruism.
just my US$1
From: Chas Fisher
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:46:47 +1030
I hear ya Steve, but that said her alternative choices would have seemed to her to be sacrificial. Also, her decision to blow a hole in the bottom of the ship in order to save the crew and root out a murderer... very sacrificial.
In terms of berating the vulnerable character, I feel that by that stage of the film (once she has climbed the rigging to confront a banshee, used a dead body to find a secret compartment, etc) the audience will feel that it is ok to confront her decisions. Certainly would not be appropriate early on! But her power in becoming the investigator can shown in how the crew treat her in the interviews. Begrudging respect means that she has the space to make decisions, rather than simply reacting to external forces in the only way possible. And the making of decisions reveal her character: her need to preserve her own interests at the expense of all others.
From: Steve Goldsworthy
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:37:46 +1000
Actually, I've changed my mind on this - because of the opening scene where Sam callously abandons her fellow actor to the pirates. So right from the start, the audience is thinking 'I hope she survives, but I wish she wasn't such a bitch.' No need for a turning point.
So then it's a question of balance - Sam has to be sympathetic enough for us to want her to survive, but not so sympathetic we don't want her to change.
On 22/08/2011, at 20:10, Chas Fisher wrote:
I think we can hit that balance.
There are other scenes where she becomes less "bitch-like" (i.e. less self-centred):
- Where she tends to Aloysius' wounds
- The interviews where she is embarrassed and slowly exposed to the callous evil of the society she herself has been expelled from
- Where she seduces Shah but they genuinely connect
- Her reaction to Aloysius' death
- Her climbing of the rigging to possible death
- Her discovery of the compartment
- And then the final push - confronting Nathaniel, being blinded, stopping a massacre and delivery unto Nathaniel his just rewards.
The "turning point" as such is the issue. Where to put it and, as Stu asks, HOW to put it.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Stu Willis wrote:
Man, I want your job Stu. Let's torture the writer with questions he obviously doesn't know the answer to. Possible answers in red below.
Ha.
a) Recognise the damage she does to others; Aloysius is whipped and then killed. She kills Jock. Shah is sentenced to death because he had faith in her. Her recognition of this happens in the scene with Shah (like any great antagonist at the end of the 2nd Act, they can in dialogue describe the character's problem and choice.
In dialogue... Hmm.
How could you do it without dialogue?
b) Recognise the value in living for others; and
This one is tougher and possibly what is currently missing. Again, Shah could simply point out that if she had at any point truly committed to finding the murderer instead of looking out for her own hide, she would have prevented her current situation. While I am happy with question a) in how it is shown then told, I am less happy with this one. Not much showing and telling feels like my only option.
Again, how could you do it without dialogue?
c) Choose to live that life.
Finding the killer. Confronting him. Risking her own life in the process.
How is this a consequence of (not just subsequent) to (a) and (b)?
(And, how does showing these relate to the sequence we're talking about?)
The sources of antagonism become stronger in the 2nd half of the film (these sequences run from the end of Act II to halfway through Act III, just short of the climax). They are no longer satisfied with her doing the least possible. She must now commit, in this sequence, to doing more than what is necessary to survive or secure her best interests.
Hmm.
So how does either of your scenarios show her doing more than what is necessary to survive / secure her best interests? (Emphasis added because they're three discreet bits of info)
From: Chas Fisher
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:38:06 +1030
Answers, such as they are, in blue.
How could you do it without dialogue?
I am already attached to this scene without even having written it. It is romantic, charged, full of antagonism and desire. Every film I have watched recently has this scene, where the protagonist's weaknesses and choice are enunciated clearly for him. I watched the Bourne Supremacy last night (total dialogue for Matt Damon is about 5 lines) and still the scene with Brian Cox in the hotel room is dialogue where an antagonist states the protagonist's conflict: "You'll always be a killer Jason. Do it! - She wouldn't want me to". A wonderful scene.
Nevertheless, considering you took 8 seconds to type "how could I do it without dialogue?" and "what can you do to show her doing more than what is necessary to survive", I will try to do the exercise:
- She finds the papers. She now has (in Jack Sparrow parlance) leverage. She can have her cake and eat it too. Jock is dead. She can hold the papers ransom to protect Shah and herself. That way she doesn't feel guilty and she is safe.
- She makes her way to see Shah. Only Mister is guarding the door. No matter what she says, he won't let her in. This complete lack of faith in her, his complete certainty that anything that comes out of her mouth will come to no good, breaks her down. She sees that it is true. She breaks down and sees her choice...
- All the audience see here is her discovery, her ingenuity and determination in getting to see Shah only that she is stopped. Completely. For the first time in the whole film, we see her sad, distraught, broken. She rails against Mister, slapping, hitting, crying as loudly as she dares that it is not her fault. He is not moved. Finally, one the cleansing tears have passed, she can simply say: "All around me people suffer for doing the 'right' thing. But no one else is going to die because I do the wrong thing."
- This leads me to the realisation that, as a little girl, she subconsciously blamed herself for her father's death. Maybe her father actually asked her (an 8-year-old girl) what she should do and she told him he should do the right thing. She feels, secretly, that it is her fault her father died. And then with Aloysius, and now with Shah...
I feel like I am getting somewhere...
b) Recognise the value in living for others; and
Again, how could you do it without dialogue?
So: to do it without dialogue we need to present examples of the value in living for others positively (Shah, Mister, Aloysius), examples of living for yourself negatively (Sam, Jock, Nathaniel) and then again present Sam with two courses of action, and show her choosing something that, at the beginning of the story, she would not have chosen. Agreed?
Into all this comes Nathaniel's offer. I really like it as a choice because it highlights her plight well. Do I let the crew and Shah rot with a murderer on board or do I try to find out who it really is? So the timing of this proposal in the plot and her decision is pivotal. I have always been in favour of her accepting (because I think she must be a real bitch before being redeemed) but maybe, maybe, it is the litmus test of her change. That she leaves Nathaniel hanging. That at the beginning of the film we see a sailor propose to her and she says yes if you have money and security and means. Then, when offered another proposal with money security and means, she says no.
What do you think? Maybe the order has been bugging me because I was always set on Sam saying "yes", when in fact she could just say no.
c) Choose to live that life.
After having watched Bourne Supremacy (and the same applies in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang or in LA Confidential) it is expected of a thriller that the protagonist simply commit to a course of action, risking life and limb, without doubt. If Sam were to do the same, it would be in stark contrast to her plotting, scheming and calculating actions previously. This could be deliciously highlighted by her taking Nathaniel into her confidence (much like the detective sidekick to explain what the detective thinking, a "Watson" if you will), explaining to him (and the audience) her machinations.
This is a very round-a-bout way of saying that once the leaps into action, tumbling towards the climax, uncaring of her own safety, she is choosing to live for others in a very real way. Plus the audience tends to stop caring and just wants the baddies' uppance to come at the hands of the protagonist.
How is this a consequence of (not just subsequent) to (a) and (b)?
It can only be a consequence if it is presented as a choice. She could chose to continue notwithstanding knowing that she is responsible for what has happened and now values living for others. Which is why this sequence is a series of choices. She could knock Nathaniel back. Admit to Mister (and to herself) her role in the events and commit to a new course of action.
From: Stu Willis
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:39:28 +1000
I watched the Bourne Supremacy last night (total dialogue for Matt Damon is about 5 lines) and still the scene with Brian Cox in the hotel room is dialogue where an antagonist states the protagonist's conflict: "You'll always be a killer Jason. Do it! - She wouldn't want me to". A wonderful scene.
The scene works not because of its dialogue. It works because (a) its the midpoint of entire trilogy; and (b) the dialogue merely summarises what we have already seen. Brian Cox's character CLEARLY is convinced that Jason Bourne is nothing but a killer; meanwhile Jason's whole journey is about not being a killer. The film is very careful to show him NOT kill people.
When they beated out this scene it wouldn't have been written; "Jason talks to Brian Cox", It would have been "Jason pulls out a gun, sticks it to Brian Cox's head, who begs for him to kill him, but Jason walks away". The scene could've played without dialogue and it still would have been clear.
I know thats what you're going for here. I'm just tying to push you in a place where you go beyond mere dialogue, and the dialogue becomes an expression of what we've already been feeling.
NB: I realise I'm a hypocrite here. The deal scene of Payload is pure dialogue, and I knew I'd get away with it because of the story's structure.
NBx2: I actually agree with David Mamet and think dialogue can be action.
Nevertheless, considering you took 8 seconds to type "how could I do it without dialogue?" and "what can you do to show her doing more than what is necessary to survive", I will try to do the exercise:
8 seconds? Seems I spent more time thinking about it than you did ;) (Two can play at facetious)
I feel like I am getting somewhere...
Still sounds
So: to do it without dialogue we need to present examples of the value in living for others positively (Shah, Mister, Aloysius), examples of living for yourself negatively (Sam, Jock, Nathaniel) and then again present Sam with two courses of action, and show her choosing something that, at the beginning of the story, she would not have chosen. Agreed?
Yeah.
What do you think? Maybe the order has been bugging me because I was always set on Sam saying "yes", when in fact she could just say no.
That seems better to me.
It can only be a consequence if it is presented as a choice.
And boom.
[I, Chas, added the bold on the boom because I found it so satisfying.]
No comments:
Post a Comment