Archive for the ‘Motifs at work’ Category

Robin Hood and the Making of an Outlaw Hero

Monday, June 14th, 2010

Ridley Scott’s 2010 film Robin Hood has been touted as being “Robin Hood as you’ve never seen him.”  Well, it depends on the “you” and the “seen.”

[What follows contains Spoilers, so if you haven't seen it, you've been warned.]

Certainly, many of the tellings of Robin Hood are about Robin’s life as the leading outlaw of Sherwood Forest.  Some versions have touched on what went before, how he came to be an outlaw, or what happened late in life.

The British television series in the 1980s showed how first a yeoman

and then an Earl’s son

became Robin Hood.  The Kevin Coster film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

shows Robin as a nobleman crusader who returns home to fight injustice.  1976’s Robin and Marion

also showed Robin as a crusader, who followed Richard the LionHeart off to war (after many forest adventures) and then returned home a much older man after the King’s death.

The literature and legends of Robin Hood cover many variations of how Robin became Robin Hood.  So, the claim that Scott’s Robin would be nothing like what you knew before is actually stretching the point, even if just limited to film appearances (and yes, I skipped mentioning the Flynn version).  Scott’s film doesn’t really stray very far from the core of the myth of Robin Hood as it has become.

First off, Robin Hood is one of the key examples of what an Outlaw Hero is.  Of the community, but not in it.  And the hero addresses some flaw in society.  So far, so good. We’re on track.

One thing that Scott’s Robin Hood does do is make our hero, Robin Longstride, a Transformer.  By being present in a scene, this Robin changes things.  More usually, one would expect Robin Hood to be a Trickster, the underdog who punctures illusions and outwits “bigger” opponents.  But Scott doesn’t go that route.

Early on in the film, King Richard explores his camp with his aide Robert Loxley, looking for an honest man.  They encounter a brawling Robin, who has been entertaining fellow soldiers with the shell game.  Then he is asked by the King to be honest and tell whether he thinks the King’s actions have pleased God.  Remember, as a Transformer, Robin changes things.  Even though Loxley tries to surrepticiously warn him against honesty, Robin says no, and cites a massacre Richard ordered in the Holy Land.

His honesty gets him put into stocks, where he is sitting when the King is killed.  Robin and his co-horts use the situation to cover their escape from Richard’s army.

As they head back to England, they encounter the ambush of the English messengers taking the news of Richard’s death - and Richard’s crown - back to England.  And Robert Loxley is the leader.  With his dying breaths, Loxley charges Robin with returning his sword to his father.  Robin decides to honor the request and does so by taking on Loxley’s identity.

Taking on a new identity certainly does transform things for a character.  But in doing this, Robin not only changes his social identity, he takes up the “burden” and responsibilities belonging to Loxley.  And in taking on that role he changes himself.  Likewise, in taking on Loxley’s identity, he has to take on Loxley’s wife.  This is yet another change for Robin (and for Marion).

Once he takes on this identity, his presence changes the way people react around him.  Their response to his perceived status strengthens his inherent resolution and leadership abilities.  That too changes him.

Onward the story goes, with the circumstances changing Robin and him changing the circumstances.  Right up to the point where King John rejects the changes in the power structure that had been prepared by Robin’s father and the Barons years before.  John declares Robin to be outlawed and so the “Legend Proper” begins.

There’s not much here that is alien to the nature of the Robin Hood legend.  Scott’s changes are, in effect, a distinction without much difference.  The one key “difference” in Ridley Scott’s version is that instead of a Trickster, he has given us the story of how a Transformer becomes an Outlaw Hero.

As always, feel free to comment here, or on the MESSAGE BOARD.

Pictures from Robin of Sherwood property of Goldcrest Films Int., Harlech Television, ITV.  / Picture from Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves property of Warner Bros. Pictures / Picture from Robin and Marion property of Columbia Pictures / Pictures from Robin Hood property of Universal Pictures.

Rick Castle - Trickster or Shapeshifter?

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

When we encounter a comedic character in stories, we often quickly categorize them as belonging to the Trickster archetype.  After all, most sidekicks are Tricksters, providing the comic relief, often serving to deflate the ego of the main character (think Star Trek and Dr. McCoy: “I’m a doctor, Jim, not an engineer!” or “… a bricklayer!”).  The clash between the Trickster and the main character frequently provides the comedy we see in stories.

When we look at the character Rick Castle, of ABC’s series Castle, are we looking at a Trickster character?  His sense of humor does work a bit in needling Detective Kate Beckett.  But I don’t think that is what is happening in the series.  Especially when Beckett needles and punctures Castle in return.

So, if Castle isn’t a Trickster, what is he?  I contend that he is a Shapeshifter.  We don’t see this archetype quite as often in stories, especially as an on-going character.  Let’s review some of the characteristics of the Shapeshifter.  The most important aspect is that the Shapeshifter is a keeper of special information.  The “trick” is to get the information out of the Shapeshifter, because the Shapeshifter often doesn’t want to reveal all that special knowledge.  The options for the character seeking the information are to either hold onto the Shifter as he or she goes through changes to hide the information, or to keep pace, changing with the Shifter.

Castle puts on many different shapes in the series.  And he’s not pretending in any of the shapes — he really does become them.

Most obvious to start with is Castle’s shape as a best-selling author.  He’s not pretending in this shape: he works for it and has a string of titles that justify the attention he gets in this shape.  He uses it frequently to evade intrusion into his personal life (including warning his daughter against visiting the “fan websites”).  This shape gives him entre to many special areas of life.

One of those “special areas” is that of “High Society.”  In that arena, Castle turns into the “wealthy, elegible bachelor” who mixes with the upper crust of New York social life.  Again, his presence there is not a pretense.  He knows the functions (such as the quarterly fund-raising benefits for a city dance company) and is considered a legitimate member of those circles.  In this shape, Castle can give Beckett access to information she might not get in her own guise of “detective.”  And note: she has to change shape with him to access that knowledge.

He does, of course, put on some guises for the mere fun of it.  But the fun and playfulness are actually necessary features for a well-balanced psyche.  He dresses up for Halloween, he plays fencing games with his daughter, he makes silly bets with the detectives.  Is he hiding a truth in this guise?  Perhaps.  Not one for himself, but rather one that Beckett needs.  She needs the playfulness he brings to counter the real emotional weight of the work she does investigating murders.

One of the realities of life that Castle deals with in the series is the fact that he is the single parent of a teen-aged girl.  He makes comedy out of it by putting on the exaggerated aspect of the “Prom Dad” (where the father of the girl frightens the date into behaving himself).  But even though Rick exaggerates it, it is also the reality.  He is not a neglectful parent.

Indeed, his shape as “Parent” is one of Castle’s truest forms, revealing the truth about his personality underneath all his playfulness, evasions and flippancy.  He is genuinely concerned about how Alexis proceeds in life.  And likewise, he does not conceal much from her — except perhaps the depth of his feelings for Beckett.  She, however, is a wise child, practiced in learning the secrets of a Shapeshifter and she already has an awareness of the connection between the adults.

But along with being a father, one of Castle’s most essential shapes is that of a researcher.  He has been shown doing careful research for his books.  He knows how to ask telling questions and he knows where to find sources.  When Beckett’s cases take them into strange territories, Castle’s research abilities (either past or present) give the pair special knowledge they need to solve the current mystery.

Castle and Beckett work as a team, and that, as much as the multiple guises Castle has, is another thing that shows Castle is a Shapeshifter and not a Trickster.  Remember, a Trickster’s job is to deflate the over-blown aspects of other characters.  But Castle never does that to Beckett.  He supports her in her pursuits.  He might be slightly more accommodating to her than Shapeshifters usually are — and yet, he does not (or at least has not yet) reveal to her all his hidden truth.  And that’s part of the fun of the series.

So … my call on Rick Castle is that he is not Trickster, he’s a Shapeshifter.  Hold on tightly and you will learn the truth.

Please feel free to comment or ask questions here or on my MESSAGE BOARD.

All pictures are copyright ABC Studios.

Beyond the Avatar

Monday, February 1st, 2010

Although there are many things I could critique about James Cameron’s blockbuster film Avatar, I’ll limit myself to a discussion of his principal character, Jake Sully.

Although there is an archetype known as the Wounded Healer, I think it would be a mistake to assign this title to Jake.  As we will see, “healing” is not what Jake brings to the situation.  But he is wounded, and this is something that needs changing, which indicates that Jake is archetypically a Transformer.  I have said that all doctor stories are likely to be about Transformers, but not all stories with a Transformer figure are doctor (or healing) stories.

Jake enters the story as a replacement.  His scientist twin brother has died, and rather than waste the large amount of funds used to create the Pandoran avatar, the runners of the program have decided to plug in the genetically compatible Jake.  The fact that Jake is bound to a wheelchair doesn’t matter to them, because the Riders lie in a unit while linked to their avatar.

But everyone (except the malicious Colonel) overlooks the fact that what Jake wants more than anything is to walk again.  The moment he wakes in the Na’vi avataar form, he is fascinated by the transformation, expressed in wiggling his new toes.

But Jake is a Transformer and things change because he is present.  He pays no attention to the warnings to go slow.  Instead he gets to his feet, excited to be able to move freely again, discounting the problems that go with being a ten-foot tall, tailed biped.

The balance in the Avatar program gets changed by the fact that Jake is a trained soldier.  Whereas before all the Avatar Riders were scientists, Jake’s position as a soldier gives him a different point of view and a different way of reacting to the experience.  He changes the course of events simply by being that person.  Because he is chased by animals and separated from the rest of the team, everyone expects Jake to die in the Pandoran wilderness.  Instead, his soldier’s survival training kicks in and he manages to fend fairly well for himself.

It is because he can fend for himself (in spite of not understanding the impact of death in the Pandoran biosphere) that Neytiri’s opinion of him is transformed.  She knows he is an outworlder (his Na’vi body has five fingers per hand as hers does not), and as such she was ready to kill him herself or leave him to die.  But his determination not to go down catches her attention.

Neytiri’s attitude is transformed even further when the flowers of the Spirit Tree settle on Jake in large numbers.  He goes quickly from swatting them away as a nuisance to being the one they are drawn to and accepting them.

Jake transforms his own mindset as he learns more about the ways of the Na’vi.  When daring is needed to inspire the Na’vi after Hometree is destroyed, Jake takes it upon himself to bond with a Toruk, the largest Pandoran flying beast.

His arrival before the refugees turns their hatred of his betrayal (he had told the Colonel about Hometree) into awe and a willingness to follow him.

And that is his final transformation in the story, from the human grunt soldier to the Na’vi warleader.

Jake transforms the situation, to be sure, leading the Na’vi in an assault that defeats the human mechanical forces.  But again, the transformations he brings are not those of healing, rather of combat and conflict.  He brings destruction down on the Na’vi, and then, changing his allegience, he brings destruction and banishment down on the humans.

He does change things by being present — which is the definition of the Transformer archetype.

Feel free to talk about this here or on my MESSAGE BOARD.

All pictures property of Twentieth Century-Fox.

A Functional Father Figure

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

When I was doing the research and development of The Scribbler’s Guide to the Land of Myth, one thing I discovered was that there is not much literature on parental figures.  Joseph Campbell makes glancing references to Father Figures and Mother Figures, particularly in their negative manifestations, but little else.  So I tackled the problem of developming a systematic structure for just what these figures ought to be, so that I (and of course, other storytellers) would be able to analyse the dynamics when I put one of these figures into a story.

The first thing I realized is that although mentor figures are also representatives of parental figures, they are not completely so.  Thus, while a Mentor may be a Father Figure, a Father Figure is not necessarily, or not only, a Mentor.  So what else is going on?

What it boils down to (if you want a fuller explanation, get the book!) is that a Father Figure has five functions: Protector, Mentor, Priest, Judge, Ruler.  Any particular story relationship might focus more on one function than another, but they all contribute to the over-all picture.

Which brings me to one of the best examples of a Father Figure currently running in popular culture: Leroy Jethro Gibbs on the show NCIS.

Now, because of the bantering and teasing play of Gibbs’ support team, some have called the regular characters a dysfunctional family.  This is a mistake: this group is highly functional.  The sibling-like squabbling and pranking should not be mistaken as dysfunction.  Each team member understands his or her place in the group and delivers on the responsibilities.  Trust runs strong among them and there is very little abuse of position — all signs of effective functionality.  Perhaps we are so used to seeing the failure of functionality that it has become the “standard” and true functionality seems “dysfunctional.”

In any case, the successful functionality springs from the effectiveness of Gibbs as a Father Figure.  So let’s consider it at work.

As a Mentor, Gibbs uses his “strong, silent” manners to demonstrate to Timothy McGee and Ziva David how to be an excellent investigator.  These two, for different reasons, have needed the instruction a Mentor can provide.  And they have learned successfully from Gibbs.

McGee, when sent into a women’s prison to question a possible suspect on a cold case, finds himself the on-scene investigator of a killing.  Because he has learned from Gibbs how to read the evidence and how to read people, he is able to sort it out.

For Ziva, trained in espionage and assassination, learning to investigate and interview has run counter to her impulses.  But because Gibbs by every indication shows her that he believes her capable of the new methods and expects her to act on them, she learns.

The Priestly function of a Father Figure is the aspect that acknowledges the achievement and mastery of “the child.”  And Gibbs always delivers that affirmation when it is really needed.  He has given McGee affirmation that he has become a good investigator at a time and in a way that makes public Timothy’s growth, by saying it in front of Tony DiNozzo, who relentlessly exercises the “superior” priviledges of an older brother to Tim.

But Gibbs has also done the same for Tony: during a case in which Gibbs had given Tony the lead, Tony becomes so frustrated that he begins verbally abusing the team.  Gibbs takes Tony aside and tells him he had been doing a good job … up to that point.  The fact that this is a “priestly” action is shown by the fact that Gibbs addresses DiNozzo as “Anthony,” something he almost never does.  Tony is both chastened and encouraged by this.

As the boss of the team, Gibbs is in fact the Ruler of them all.  But one of the duties of the Ruler is to command the discipline of his subjects, and this is the need Gibbs fills for DiNozzo and Agent Kate Todd.  Although Tony is actually a good investigator, his own impulses are to flake off, chasing pretty women or playing games.  Gibbs enforces discipline and so gets excellent work out of Tony.

Kate, though she came to NCIS from the Secret Service, also had some need of the discipline Gibbs requires.  In the pilot, she is shown as having become romantically involved with a co-worker on the Presidential detail, something that would never have happened if she’d been under Gibbs’ rulership.

As a Protector, we see Gibbs protecting both Abby and Ziva.  When Ziva was framed for the assassination of someone under FBI protection, it is to Gibbs (and not her own father) that she turns to, to get her out of it.  And he does. 

When Abby is stalked by an ex-boyfriend, Gibbs becomes very fierce in resolving the matter.   (As all the team acknowledges, Abby “is his favorite.”)

To all of the team, he is their Judge: he evaluates their work, and they turn to him for his opinion on everything other than romantic attachments (his three ex-wives serving as a warning to them that he is not perfect, especially in that).

So far, the points I’ve made have been about what Gibbs gives to his team, what needs he addresses for each of them.  But what does he get out of it?  What makes it possible for him to continue playing Father Figure to this unlikely “family”?  He gets their nearly undivided devotion.  Abby in particular bestows on him the love of a daughter, which addresses the biggest hole in Gibbs’ own life, since his first wife and only child were killed long ago.  He is not the Father Figure to this group just because they need him.  He is such also because he needs them.

As I said, this team is a highly functional family unit.  If they were dysfunctional, the incidental pains of failure and abuse would be considerably less appealing to the audience.  It is the functionality that propells the show into success and audience affection.

Burning Jeopardy

Thursday, August 13th, 2009

One of the many things I talk about in The Scribbler’s Guide to the Land of Myth deals with franchise storytelling.  This can cover comic book series, sets of movies, television shows or a string of novels.  Most such creations are built on what I call the “Incidental Jeopardy” context: that means that in any specific story, your main character (upon whom the franchise depends) has a 50/50 chance of failing to meet his or her goal.  But some other series get set up where the main character is driven by some burning goal.  I call this the “Constant Jeopardy Syndrome,” where the set up is such that if the main character ever reaches his goal or solves the Big Problem of his life, the series ends.

In the book, I discuss the problems encountered with the Constant Jeopardy Syndrome, especially that involved in keeping the characters emotionally realistic.  The point is that when over a long span of time a character fails to solve the Main Problem in his life, he tends to lose emotional credibility, especially if the constant failure doesn’t seem to faze him.

Cable’s USA show Burn Notice is constructed on a Constant Jeopardy Syndrome: Michael Westen used to be a spy and got burned — this means he has been black-listed and rendered an official non-person, no bank accounts, no official records (driver’s license or passport).  The series deals with his attempts to find out who burned him, why, and his getting himself reinstated.  (And if he ever achieves all of these, it’s likely the show would end.)

Since Michael is presented from the beginning as being one of the very best at his job, if he did not make some progress in his quest to solve his Big Problem, we would quickly lose interest.  Fortunately, the series creator and writers address this by giving Michael progressive stages of existence (professional and personal problems) to deal with.

One of the first obstacles he has to face is that he has been dropped into his hometown of Miami, Florida, where he has to deal with his mother.

Madeline Westen is expert at wielding emotional blackmail over Michael — which works because at rock bottom, Michael is a good guy and does love his mother.  Madeline also serves to show that although Michael may be officially a non-person, he also needs to relearn how to be a real person, with a real (ie, emotional) life.

Madeline is assisted in this by the presence of Fiona — the love of Michael’s life.

Fiona’s “official” position is “not his girlfriend.”  Except that she is his ideal partner.  The ups and downs of their relationship ring true, for they are dealing with real issues: the nature of Michael’s old job, what that job requires of his character, how to accommodate another person deeply into your life.

The two characters are alternately obstacles and assistants in Michael’s hunt for information and reinstatement.

First after being burned, he was watched by FBI minders.  He upped the stakes on them, to the point where a special overseer was assigned to keep Michael subdued.

It’s a new problem in Michael’s way, which he removes over the course of a few episodes by creating the appearance that the overseer has been compromised.  This leads to the mystrious organization that burned him revealing itself slightly.

The series very carefully continues revealing obstacles for Michael to overcome.  Each step forward also reveals more of his own character to Michael.  First, he seeks to put a face to his new “manager”, Carla, and in fact draws her out to revealing herself.

She tells him she helped burn him in order to recruit him to the secret organization she serves.  She sets Victor to “manage” Michael.

Victor is like Michael (ie, burned), “but with rabies” (according to Sam Axe, Michael’s friend and sidekick).  Michael transforms Victor from opponent to ally and the pair remove Carla, forcing the organization’s Management to reveal himself.  Michael is offered better conditions in the organization, under the threat of removal of their protections (from enemies and authorities).

Michael opts to reject the protection and the job.  The new set of obstacles in his way toward reinstatement include dealing with a police detective who has suspicions that Michael is behind some unusual occurances in town.

Michael succeeds in turning her from opponent to an at least hands-off observer.  So the next obstacle steps up.  “The Devil” (Strickler) offers Michael assistance at reinstatement, in exchange for Michael working for him.

This is too much for Fiona, who questions what this deal will do to Michael’s character.  This emotional “real person” challenge conflicts with Michael’s desire to be an “official person” again.

Every time Michael progresses closer to his goal, either a new obstacle gets in his way, or the goal becomes slightly redefined and moved.  The writers avoid all the traps of the Constant Jeopardy Syndrome: failure to make any progress toward the goal and/or lack of emotional reality.  The audience is satisfied by the proof that Michael is indeed as competent as claimed (he makes progress), and also maintains a realistic emotional response to both his successes and failures.  The show is a fine example of how to handle the Constant Jeopardy Syndrome.

[I was going to write about Burn Notice in regard to other motifs, but I may come back to them later.]

(Pictures and characters are property of Fox Television and Fuse Entertainment.)

I invite your comments here or on my MESSAGE BOARD.

The Problem with Wonder Woman

Sunday, August 2nd, 2009

Every so often readers (and writers) comment on problems they have with the comic book character Wonder Woman.

The Amazon princess, Diana, was created in 1941, by William Moulton Marston.  On the heels of the appearances of superheroes like Superman and Batman, Marston felt that girls deserved their won role model.  His creation was beautiful and strong, and carried the Lasso of Truth.  Detecting truth was a matter of interest to Marston, as he invented the polygraph, popularly known as the “lie detector.”

Wonder Woman has a number of contradictions attached to her — she is a warrior and yet she is also an ambassador of peace from the Amazons to “Man’s World.”  Try as they might to downplay the incongruity of a warrior society such as that of the Amazons also purporting to be more peaceful than the rest of humanity, writers have been stuck with it.  It just will not be shaken off.  Recent writers have shown the Amazons as less than perfect in their adherence to peace.  Yet, “warrior for peace” remains an element in the character of Princess Diana.

The Lasso of Truth also forces an unusual quality upon the nature of Wonder Woman.  By using it, Diana can force a perpetrator to face aspects of his or her own nature that they have been denying.  Even if she doesn’t use this pwoer, its presence with her is a constant reminder of what she could do.  It bestows a certain implacibility to her character.

Molded in clay by her mother, Queen Hippolyta, given life and powers (strength, flight, and apparently immortality) by the Greek gods, Diana is in her origin somewhat removed from normal humanity.  And yet she is not really a goddess (although one writer did have her become the Goddess of Truth for a time).

However it came about, there is something in the nature of Wonder Woman that defies easy pigeon-holing.

She won’t be easily pegged and yet, readers do have a sense when she’s being taken off track, when she is “out of character.”  She is caring and merciful, and yet if she goes too far into emotional territory, something feels “off.”  She’s passionate about her family and protecting those under her care, but romance inevitably seems unbalanced when brought into proximity with the Amazon princess.  (It might be that readers feel she has no peer, so that all possible romantic partners are “beneath” her.)

Some of the factors that create this unsettling nature spring from how closely Wonder Woman’s character parallels that of the Greek goddess Nemesis.  Nemesis was the daughter of Night, which places her in the realm of the mysterious and unaccountable.  We have come to treat nemesis as a negative force, but she wasn’t such originally.  She was all about keeping things in proper balance.  She made sure virtue was rewarded and injustice was brought to balance.  She is, in fact, the figure of Justice we see in courts these days; blind-folded for impartiality (she doesn’t care about your social status), holding both a sword and a balance scale — and she will use that sword to help put the scales in balance.  Nemesis is very unsettling — and Wonder woman, for similar reasons, carries the same effect.

Diana is a “divine hero” — in a community, but not of it, and she brings a boon to society.  We are a bit ambivalent as to whether we want to take the whole of her boon: truth and peace require things of us that are hard to give up.

But one of the other crucial elements that figure in the nature of Wonder Woman is that, unlike Nemesis, she is not a figure of Night.  By nature, with her openness and her commitment to reason and truth, Wonder Woman fits the dynamics of a solar figure.

She’s “a babe,” a confident woman, beautiful and bold.  And yet, Wonder Woman remains difficult to peg.  That is, perhaps, part of her enduring power to fascinate us.  We try to sort her out, to figure what makes her tick, because we don’t really want to deal with someone as completely committed to truth and justice as the Amazon princess is.  She’s not some wild woman who needs taming, nor some insecure heroine who needs coaching.  She is, as she has always been, Wonder Woman and something more than we expect.

Feel free to comment here or on my MESSAGE BOARD.

(Wonder Woman images are copyright DC Comics, or their designates; the character is a property of DC Comics.)

Before Going “Up”

Monday, July 6th, 2009

It’s one of those rules you learn in screenwriting courses: don’t front-load your tale with your Hero’s backstory.  Sure, you the author need to know it, but don’t explain it all up front.  Get on with your story, and explain it later, in little bits and pieces.  Write it out for yourself if you need to, but don’t stick it in the actual story in one piece.  My friend Blake Snyder calls this “Act Zero”.  Most of the time you do not need to explain the backstory before you begin the adventure.

And then, there is Disney-Pixar’s Up.

Let us be clear: the story-adventure of Up actually begins when Russell shows up on Carl’s doorstep insisting he has to help the elderly man.  That is Carl’s Call to Adventure, and he’s not having any of it. (His Refusal of the Call makes for a bit of comedy: he sends the kid on a snipe hunt.)  That is, structurally speaking, where the story starts.

So, that wonderful, poignant stuff that went before that moment, what was that?

Backstory.  Act Zero.

Usually, we do not have to see that up-front.  But let’s consider why we need it for this story.

The Hero’s Journey (and Carl is our Hero in this story) begins in the Hero’s Ordinary World (or his Old World).  Usually, something needs to be changed, and he ventures out from that world.  But in Up, if the presentation of the story really did start with Russell at the door, what follows would still be entertaining and engaging (crusty old man learns to care about someone while on a wild adventure), but it would not have the depth of meaning that Up possesses.  We actually do need to see this Act Zero.

First off, we see that Young Carl is almost exactly like the young Russell we will shortly meet.  He dreams of adventure, but his scope is small.  Until he meets Young Ellie.  In the boisterous Ellie, he meets someone who startles and entrances him with her active response to the call of adventure.

Of course they fall in love.  Their enjoyment of each other is its own adventure.  Their dream of a real adventure is a shared dream, but not the real glue of their lives (though it will take Carl a while to understand that).

It is important for us to know that Carl is capable of love and that he does understand the call of adventure that has a hold on Russell.  And that we are given the chance to love Ellie too, this gives us the powerful gift of wanting Carl’s adventure to succeed.  We connect with the forces that drive him on, in a very powerful way.

The storytellers use Act Zero to also set up the Opponent, and very nicely compact it with Carl’s youthful hero worship of Muntz.  Because that hero worship is something we understand, it adds a poignant bite when Carl learns his Hero is no hero.  Carl has to be his own Hero.

Up is one occasion where the storytellers present at length how the Hero’s Ordinary World became what it is.  And unusual as that is, they made it work — basically by giving it its own three-act structure and telling it swiftly, without over-dwelling on it.  Beautifully done and perfectly structured.  (Warning: these storytellers are trained professionals, so “don’t do this at home.”  Remember, Up is an exception when it comes to revealing the backstory.)

[Pictures are property of Disney-Pixar.]

For more on the Hero’s Ordinary (or Old) World, read The Scribbler’s Guide to the Land of Myth.

Feel free to comment here or on my MESSAGE BOARD.

“Divine” House

Thursday, July 2nd, 2009

Dr. Gregory House has a genius for diagnosing unusual medical conditions..  And he sets about changing illness to health, Transformer figure.  As I say in The Scribbler’s Guide, all doctor stories are Transformer stories.

But House is also an example of what I call the “Divine Hero.”  Now, this doesn’t mean that the Divine Hero has superpowers.  It means that the hero comes from outside the community, bringing a boon to it.  He is in the community, but not of it.

Gregory House is in the community of the hospital, but he is not really of it.  He refuses to conform to the dress code, he is always at odds with Cutty’s administration, his only friend is Wilson (whom he regularly provokes).  But the boon he brings to the community is his skill as a diagnostician, and they genuinely value it.  So they keep him.

What makes for the dramatic tension in the show is the fact that Gregory House does not want to be this Divine Hero.  He is a misanthrope, disliking people.  He doesn’t really want their praise or appreciation.  His personal conflict is that the one thing he does well, that he loves doing, is the one thing that actually requires him to be in contact with other human beings.

House is just one of the possible ways of using the Divine Hero archetype.  And an excellent, off-beat one.

The characters of House, M.D. are property of the Universal Media Studios (for Fox TV).

Discuss this entry here or on my MESSAGE BOARD

Star Trek Trinity

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

The release of the 2009 Star Trek movie re-sparked my interest in the character archetypes of Kirk, Spock and McCoy.  I made some initial comments about them as a guest blogger on Colleen Doran’s blog.   But that was comparing Kirk and Picard.

A well constructed character will have at least one archetype at the core.  When multiple archetypes are blended, you can create very interesting dynamics.

Let’s start with McCoy.  In this particular trinity of characters, he is firmly in the position of sidekick.  Sidekicks are often Trickster archetypes, for their job is to puncture the excesses of the principal hero.  Cranky McCoy frequently does this to Kirk and to Spock.  When Kirk pushes for some outrageous solution, McCoy puts the brakes on.  “Damn it, Jim! I’m a doctor, not a bricklayer!”  He also relights the fire when Spock dampens things too much with logic.  I read one critic who commented that McCoy was a bigot.  One assumes the comment was inspired by McCoy’s comments about Spock as a “pointy eared hobgoblin.”  But I think it is an error to call McCoy a bigot: he has no such reaction to other Vulcans or other aliens.  This reaction is specific to Spock.  It is another manifestation of his function as a Trickster, to puncture the excesses of Spock’s logic.

As a doctor, of course, McCoy is also a Transformer, changing the things around himself.  But this is often secondary to his function as a Trickster.  In the film, when McCoy first arrives on the scene, he transforms Kirk’s situation from being solitary to having a friend.

Spock is in many ways Kirk’s Shadow.  In being such, he also highlights the point I make in The Scribbler’s Guide to the Land of Myth that a Shadow is not necessarily an evil figure.  In this case, where Kirk is often passionate disorder, Spock is the opposite of that, emotionless (apparently) order.  But Spock is also a Threshold guardian: he oversees the possibilities of Kirk’s choices.  In the film, he is the one who has constructed the Kobayashi Maru test which winnows out candidates for command.  Kirk, of course, thwarts this  judgement, so Spock plays the next checking move of questioning Kirk’s ethics.  By doing so, he forces Kirk to become more than just contrary, to find the justification for his actions.

However, the one thing Spock is not, or rather is not best at, is being a Ruler.  He treats his judgements as absolute, and so does not readily attend to the advice of his subordinates, at least not when he is in command.  In the film, when Kirk (fulfilling his function as First Officer in putting forward his criticism of Spock’s choice and offering an alternate) counters him, Spock over-reacts.  He uses his authority not simply to remove Kirk from the bridge, but to abandon his appointed First Officer on the inhospitable and nearly deserted planet.  This is not wise leadership one would expect from a Ruler.

Kirk, however, is a Ruler.  Although he frequently pushes the envelope of a circumstances (a manifestation of his being a Transformer and Trickster), he does pay attention to the skills of his subordinates.  He delegates tasks appropriately.

This trio of characters provide balance and challenge to each other.  The dynamic between them continually shifts about; it is never static.  This is why they continue to be a fascinating set of characters.

You are welcome to comment either here or on my MESSAGE BOARD.

(Pictures are property of Paramount Pictures.)