Monday, July 14, 2008

HOLLYWOOD CALLS... sort of

A few months ago I received a call from Tracey N., a young lady who said her boss who owned a production company in Los Angeles had read The Moral Premise and wanted her to track me down so he could talk with me. She said she had a hard time finding me because there was another Stanley Williams that kept showing up in her Internet searches. But she figured that the Stanley Williams she was looking for was not on death row in a California prison. It turns out that Stanley TOOKIE Williams III, the gangster, was executed in California a few years back, but Google gives him a lot of "hits."

When she felt it was safe (that I was not in prison) I asked her the name of her boss' company. She said, "Overbrook Entertainment". Now, that sounded familiar, but I don't know my production companies that well, and I felt kind-of dumb, but I had to ask: "So, who's your boss? She said, "Will Smith."

Well, I knew who Will Smith was, but I didn't believe it was the same Will Smith this lady was working for... until I scrambled my webrowser and looked up Overbrook. Oh yeah!

When I regained my cool I told her I'd be glad to get a call from Mr. Smith anytime, and to please tell him that I was a fan of his movies.

That night Pam and I rushed out to see I AM LEGEND, just in case he called the next day. That was months ago. No call. LOL! But it was still cool getting Tracy's call and seeing her name in the credits as Mr. Smith's Executive Assistant at the end of I AM LEGEND.

Tracey told me Smith reads "everything he can get his hands on about the business." That probably explains why he keeps making such good decisions. I've been anxious to see HANCOCK for months. If for no other reason, it looks like the first superhero movie that actually respects the laws of Physics.

I'll let you know if Mr. Smith calls. Hope he liked the book.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Helen's Lost Arc in THE INCREDIBLES


My Moral Premise pen pal from Greece, Geroge C. wrote me with this very good analysis of Helen's arc in THE INCREDIBLES, thus pointing out a weakness in my book.

George, this is great work. I'm glad you understand the power of the moral premise so well.

Here's Geroge's email, verbatim:

====

Stan, You mention somewhere in your book that in ancient Athens they didn't allow works of art that were damaging to the citizens' moral values. Well, actually that is only a proposal Plato makes in his work regarding how an ideal city should be like, but there wasn't such a law in Athens. And thank goodness, cause, who gets to decide which works of art are good and which ones are bad?! In ancient Greece, the thing which I believe is the most indicative of the close bond between stories and moral premise, is that the origins of theater and the presentation of plays can be found inside religious events. It was within such events that theater and drama was first born. I think that tracing the roots of drama gives us a whole new perspective that doesn't allow us to accept the notion that movies should be simply brain candy.

Thanks for the correction, George. That's important information. (SW)

Stan, I watched the Incredibles and I discovered there's a beautiful character arc (Helen Parr's) that has escaped you! :-) And it's an arc that brings a whole new dimension to the story. You propably don't recall much from the movie right now, but if you ever happen to watch it again, I think you'll agree with me!
Actually, I've lectured on THE INCREDIBLES several times since the book came out, and enjoy showing the clips to groups. As a result, I've seen more clearly Helen's arc, which, as you point out, I did not fully understand when I wrote the book. (SW)
In the arc tables of 'The Incredibles', pg 130-133, you say: "The moral premise is that battling adversity alone leads to weakness and defeat, while battling adversity as a family leads to strength and victory." You also cite how Buddy Pine/Syndrome (the baddie) practices a distorted version of the moral premise: He and his partner, Mirage, appear to be working as a family, but in truth Syndrome just uses her and doesn't really appreciate her. When he's given the opportunity to aknowledge the importance of relying on his family, he rejects the idea and shows he's willing to sacrifice Mirage...

Regarding Helen Parr's arc plot (Mr Incredible's wife) you say that "she practices the good side of the moral premise most of the way..." And that's where I have a very different opinion: I think that Helen Parr, just like the villain, starts out by practicing a distorted version of the moral premise's virtue! Helen Parr appears to be the family's bedrock, but what she really does is suppressing the other family members. She doesn't let them be themselves! She strives for a united family, but on her own egoistic terms. And this results in misery and a dysfunctional family. Later, confronted by a moment of grace, she abandons that attitude, embraces the true virtue of the moral premise, and becomes the heart and soul of the family. I've included some story beats which I think prove my point:

We see Helen being called to the principal's office due to her son's problematic behavior at school. When she talks with her son, we find out that Dash's frustrated because she won't let him go out for sports. Dash is naturally competitive and loves sports, but Helen just won't allow it. Dash tells his mom: "You always say, 'Do your best'. But you don't really mean it. Why can't I do the best that I can do?"

Later, at the dinner table, Helen scolds Bob (her husband) for being impressed with their son's superspeed. She says "We're not encouraging this!" Bob himself is very unhappy cause he cannot be Mr Incredible, and it's because of that reason that he has trouble connecting with his family. Even Violet (their daughter) is unhappy; she has an outburst, saying that she's forced to be 'normal' although she isn't. In other words, she's forced to fit a stereotype, and she's not allowed to be real.

Later, when Bob comes home late, he and Helen have a fight. In that scene it's clear that Bob and the kids suffer because they aren't allowed to use their powers. Bob says to Helen, "You want to do something for Dash? Then let him go out for sports." And Helen rants defensively:"I will not be made the enemy here!" She's the one who tries to hold the family together and meet their needs, but she doesn't realize that by trying to make them 'fit in' and by not allowing them to be who they truly are, she sabotages her own goal. In a way, she is the enemy!

Later Helen finds out Bob's been lying to her and that he does superhero work behind her back. She starts crying when she realizes it. She goes to find him and the kids sneak in with her in the jet. There's a big moment of grace here as danger appears, and from that point her attitude becomes very different. She puts on her costume and when things get dangerous she tells her daughter to put a force field around the plane. Violet responds,"You said not to use our powers." Helen says," I know what I said. Listen to what I'm saying now!"

Helen abandons the distorted version of the moral premise's virtue from now on. There are sequences where Helen works with the family and coordinates them so that everyone's power works harmoniously in conjuction with the others. It's fascinating how Helen's character changes; she becomes a true field leader!

Later at the cave, Helen once more encourages the kids to use their powers. She says to her son, "Dash, if anything goes wrong I want you to run as fast as you can." Dash cannot believe his ears. He responds, overjoyed:"As fast as I can?!"

In the movie's final scene when a new supervillain appears, Helen doesn't prevent anyone from using their powers. In fact, she even puts on her mask before Bob does, and gives him an approving look.

Let me know what you think, Stan. Thanks again!

George

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Midnight Run

Almost a year ago I received this analysis from a reader in Greece, George Chatzigeorgiou. My delay in moving his comment from the comments section of this blog to a main entry proves only one thing. I keep "to do" lists, and some of them are long.

I have since seen the movie, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Indeed, George's analysis is correct, although I may not agree with everything he says, there is no need for my dissection of it. What he writes stands on its own. I'm honored, George. Great job. This film has a wonderfully strong moral premise.

Stan

------

Mr. Williams:

I've been looking for ways to illustrate themes in my stories, and also studying movies that had a strong effect on me, trying to discover the techniques the writers used to make the themes work so well. I read your book, but I'm not particularly fond of any of the movies that are offered as examples in it. So I decided to test the book by applying its principles on a favourite film of mine. I had studied this film ("Midnight run") in the past, but I still couldn't figure out how the premise worked in the narrative so well. Studying the movie from the 'Moral premise' lense, I was astounded by how perfectly the book's conclusions applied to the movie. The results were amazing.
I'd written down some notes, and I decided to turn them into an essay regarding how the book's conclusions apply to this film. I think it'll be of interest to anyone who has read your book and seen the movie.

Okay, here it is: The movie's called 'Midnight run', written by George Gallo, directed by Martin Brest, starring De Niro and Charles Grodin. The plot goes like this: Jonathan Mardukas (Grodin) is an accountant who embezzled millions of dollars from a Vegas mobster, gave them to charities and then jumped bail. Jack Walsh (De Niro) is the protagonist, a skip tracer who arrests Mardukas and tries to deliver him to his boss, so that he can collect a big payment. But their cross-country trip is not that simple. The mob who wants Mardukas dead is after them, and so is the FBI. Not to mention another skip tracer who wants to steal Mardukas from Jack... So basically, the movie's about a skip tracer who tries to evade the mob and the FBI, and deliver a prisoner across country; if he does that, he'll get a big payment which will allow him to fulfill his dream of opening a coffee shop.

But what the movie is REALLY about? It's really about a guy who learns to open himself to understanding. As a result of making this moral choice, the protagonist has a new hope and embarks on a new beginning in his life.
Now let's articulate the premise that's present throughout the movie and within each character's arc:
Understanding leads to hope and new beginnings.
Lack of understanding leads to chaos and demise.

We can see that the protagonist's goal and the desirable consequences of the moral premise are related. The protagonist wants to quit his job, open a coffeee shop, and make a new beginning in his life. In William's words, the story's physical and psychological spine meet. Moreover, as the movie unfolds,the physical story metaphors the psychological story: Every time the protagonist takes some weak steps toward accepting the truth of the moral premise, there is progress. When he rejects it there are complications and problems. Finally he makes the moral choice to accept it, and achieves his goal.

Now let's see some examples on how the premise is reflected and proven through each character's arc:

Jack Walsh (the protagonist)

In his book, Williams says, 'I was tempted to write a chapter on how the Moral Premise is reflected in character names'. Well, this character's no exception. The name of our protagonist (Walsh) sounds very close to the word "walls". Jack Walsh has shut out understanding; he's the hero who raises 'walls' between himself and others. Jack refuses to understand the people around him and to let others understand him. At some point Jonathan says to him, 'You have only two forms of expression: Silence and rage.' Jack exhibits his lack of understanding by being cynical, sarcastic and condemnatory toward other people.

An important note though: These aren't Jack's only traits. If these traits were the only things we see in Jack then we wouldn't be able to identify with him and root for him, cause no one likes to root for a jerk. But that isn't the case; Jack's a complex character (for an action comedy at least). Very early in the film we realize he's an honest person. When Jonathan tries to bribe him, Jack snaps back at him, 'I never took a payoff in my life and I'm not gonna start with you.' In short, Jack is a man of integrity. Later on, when we find out what happened to him back when he was a cop in Chicago, we begin to suspect that this terrible experience he had is the reason why he has shut out understanding and why he exhibits these negative traits. So we start to sympathize with him even more and we want him to achieve his goal, despite all his character flaws.

From the very start Jack's prejudiced against Jonathan. He refuses all communication by constantly telling him to 'shut up' and is unwilling to hear Jonathan's side of the story, Every conversation starts with Jonathan asking Jack questions. As the story progresses, Jack shows some willingness to understand Jonathan and to open himself up to him, but it's a back and forth motion. Jack has shut out understanding cause he has become disenchanted with people due to what happened to him back in Chicago. Jonathan says to him, "There's good and bad everywhere, don't you know that?" Later in another scene Jonathan points out to him, "See? For every shit in the world there are six nice people."

Jack has his first moment of grace when he visits his ex-wife to ask her for money. During this subplot we see Jack resorting back to his usual sarcasm and a fight ensues. However, the emotional stress of seeing his ex- wife again makes him change his ways: "I just need some money to... and get out of this miserable business forever. Can't you understand that?" He tears down a wall and tries to be understood by his ex-wife. Because of this breakthrough Jill decides to give him the keys to her car. When Jack asks her what her husband is going to say about this, she just looks at Jack and says, "He'll understand."
As he leaves, his daughter who overheard their conversation exits and offers him her baby-sitting money. She undersatands his predicament and the suffering he goes through, although she hasn't seen him in nine years. There, Jack gets a second moment of grace by his daughter's example. She shows him the way; what he needs to learn.

Jack's still reluctant to embrace the moral premise, and more complications ensue. However, his behavior toward Jonathan gradually changes. We see Jack conversing more with him and their relationship changes. A few scenes later another moment of grace occurs. Jonathan jokes that if circumstances were different they'd still hate each other. But Jack responds, "We might've been friends..." He doesn't condemn Jonathan anymore; he respects him and is able to sympathize with him.

But due to his reluctance to fully employ the premise, Jack has Jonathan taken away from him and he also gets arrested by the FBI. This is the story's main crisis and a major turning point. It's then that Jack drastically changes his ways and embraces the moral premise. He tries to reach an understanding with Mosely (the FBI agent) and make a deal with him. This leads to success in saving Jonathan's life. Even the plan Jack comes up with is based on what Jonathan has told him; if Jack hadn't reached a level of understanding with Jonathan, he'd never know about the discs and would fail in his quest. Finally, Jack gets more money than he'd imagined, gives Jonathan the broken watch and embarks with a new hope in his heart. (By the way, it's amazing to me that this scene takes place in an airport. What better setting to enhance the idea of Jack embarking on a new beginning than an airport?)

We can see how the truth of the moral premise is consistently applied to other characters too:

Jonathan Mardukas succeeds because he practices the virtue of the moral premise. In the beginning he deceives Jack by telling him he suffers from aviophobia, but his behavior soon changes. He tries to understand Jack and get to know him; he's also eager to make Jack understand him. He explains his motives and what led him to steal money from his boss and give it to charities. Understanding is essentially the feeling of shared suffering; the knowledge that suffering's shared by everyone. Jonathan senses Jack's suffering. Early on he asks Jack, "What happened to you?" He's also totally honest with him. He even says, "Sooner or later I'm gonna have to give you the slip." When Jack chuckles, he says, "I'm glad you find it humorous." The fact that Jonathan practices the moral premise's virtue is very important because in the end he succeeds thanks to his virtue. If Jonathan had succeeded by practicing the vice, the moral premise wouldn't be consistent.

Alonzo Mosely, the FBI agent, practices the vice. When he first meets Jack he's critical toward him and doesn't try to come to an understanding with him. As a result, not only he loses his badge, but also fails throughout most of the movie. It's only when he listens to what Jack has to say and decides to strike a deal with him that Mosely gets his man. When he and Jack plan on how to nail Serano, we can clearly see how strikingly different is both men's attitude toward each other than it was when they first met. They no longer look down on each other; they both practice the virtue of understanding. Mosely appreciates Jack's ability ("Get a wire on this man"), and Jack respects Mosely's responsibilities as an FBI agent.

Jack's employer, Eddie Mascone, (Mask-Con, a name of significance if there ever was one) has shut out understanding by being deceitful and dishonest. He has no qualms about lying to his associates if he thinks there is something to be gained. He practices the premise's vice through the whole movie, and in the end he loses the bail bond and he's out of business. Nobody respects him, not even his assistant who secretly works with the gangster's goons. On the phone, we see Eddie yelling in frustration, "Everybody's tellin' me to go f..k myself!"

Whereas Eddie shuts out understanding by being two-faced, the villain Jimmy Serano (Sir-no) has shut out understanding by being arrogant and disrespectful toward even his closest associates. He disregards his lawyer who advises him not to go to the airport. When he goes and meets Jack, he practices the premise's vice by being sarcastic, critical and by trying to hurt and humiliate Jack. He's somehow a mirror image of how Jack was before embracing the virtue of understanding.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

The Double Moral Premise

Almost a year ago, a screenwriter (known to me only as PopcornFlix) wrote me the following email, and we had a couple of follow-ups, that I will try to post as part of this one long post. (I'm sorry I haven't posted anything in such a long time. I've been involved in a start-up company, and I've been heavily absorbed in marketing duties.) But here is the email that I find very intriguing, and obviously worthwhile else I would not have held onto it for so long, and finally posted it. My delay, believe me, had nothing to do with questioning it's validity.

----------------

Dear Stan,

I bought your book, and found it useful. I'm a long-time pro screenwriter, so I've read my Egri. You added some interesting distinctions that were worth a ponder.

Your analysis of THE INCREDIBLES sent me back to the DVD, and I discovered something very interesting that prompted me to write this note.

THE INCREDIBLES has, in fact, TWO Moral Premises: The first, as you described, is "working alone" vs. "working as a family." The second, no less articulated is "using your talents authentically" vs. "denying who you really are."

It's particularly interesting that the second Moral Premise uses the same structure as the first. Syndrome uses a "distorted virtue" to gain his success. His talent is inventing things, and he uses his talent to become rich and powerful. Then he turns to vice (being something he isn't) by staging a robot attack so he can pretend to be a superhero, his robot destroys his control technology and he loses.

The signs are very clear in the movie. When Buddy Pine first bothers Mr. Incredible, he says "you always say, be yourself, and I've decided who I am." Then he explains that even though he doesn't have powers, he invents things. Later, when superheros are outlawed, we get to see Bob Parr's conflict between trying to be ordinary (inauthentic) and a superhero (his true self). Dash complains that he's not allowed to use his abilities to compete. "You always say 'do your best,' but you don't mean it." There's also the catch phrase and call back: "If everybody's special, then nobody is."

It seems very obvious to me that THE INCREDIBLES has two Moral Premises, and they each function as they should, complete with Moments of Grace. This raises the question of WHY, and in what narrative situations is it of benefit to have dual Moral Premises?

I started looking for other examples of Dual Moral Premises. JURASSIC PARK has one premise about family vs. single life, but another about nature vs. technology. It's also worth noting that nearly all the technology-supporting characters get killed by the dinosaurs. (Dr. Grant, the hero, is introduced as a man in tune with nature who feels that machines "have it in for him.")

TERMINATOR 2 has the Moral Premise about "sacrificial love," as you mentioned, but it also has a second Moral Premise about fate vs. free will. "The future is not set, fate is what we make." is the mantra of that premise.

MATRIX also seems to have Dual Premises. First, there is "faith vs. skepticism," which is articulated in Neo's journey to believe he is The One. The second premise has to do with "free will vs. fate." There are numerous moments in the film where the premise is discussed. The real world vs. the Matrix is a metaphor for free will vs. fate. To be in the Matrix is to accept fate. To choose to unplug into the real world is to claim your free will.

The easy examples are from sci-fi movies. I'm interested in finding examples in other genres, figuring out how the second premise functions, and what benefit it brings. I do notice that the examples so far are big hit movies, which makes this even more interesting.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

Thanks, PopcornFlix.

-----------------

So, I wrote back & told him I liked his theory and suggested some further tests. Here are my questions to him, and his responses.

-----------------

Stan,

Glad you like it. I really want to crack this. Let me know if you can think of any other examples.

Let me break down the Second Moral Premise of THE INCREDIBLES: "Use your talents to be who you really are."
[STAN: Each moral premise must have: a. Two opposing psychological values.]
Be your unique, authentic self vs. force yourself to be something you're not.
[STAN: Each moral premise must also have: b. Two opposing physical consequences that are logically connected to the values.]
Being authentic leads to victory, heroism and love, vs. being something you're not leads to anger, strife, humilation and failure
[STAN: There must be a true-to-life relationship between a. and b.]
The lawsuits force the Parrs to renounce their authentic selves and pretend to be ordinary. Their inauthentic lives are filled with conflict and misery because all of them are straining to be themselves.
[STAN: There must be a Moment of Grace where the Moral Premise is accepted or rejected (even if only subliminally).]
Bob never gave up being a super, he just hid it. When Syndrome offers him a job using his powers, he accepts it.

Helen gave up her authenticity for the family. When her family is threatened (Bob the breadwinner is in trouble), she calls in the old favor and becomes Elastigirl again. Edna gives her the Moment, and she takes the suits.

Syndrome is subliminally give the MP because governments have been buying his inventions, and he's rich. But he refuses to embrace his Bill Gates-like success. Instead, he squanders everything (including his life) trying to use his technology to pretend to have superpowers, and then to give his technology away to eliminate the specialness of the Parr's authenticity. Syndrom is the symbol of eliminating the authentic life.
[STAN: d. All main characters decisions and consequences are in sync with the moral premise's predictions.]
The Parr's become successful when they embrace their true identities as THE INCREDIBLES. Frozone becomes successful when he insists on his superhero identity and gets his super-suit from his wife, who wants him to be ordinary so she can have a night out.

Syndrome uses his gifts to pretend to be something he isn't, and his robot attacks him. He is stripped of his false powers -- be he doesn't learn.

In the epilogue, he uses his false powers to pretend to be a supervillain and steal Jack-Jack, who is a symbol of pure innocence and authenticity. Before he can get away, Jack-Jack uses his real powers to slow Syndrome down, and Bob makes him drop Jack-Jack by throwing the car into Syndrome's jet -- the authentic powers overcoming the inauthentic. But Syndrome is killed by his pretension; his cape kills him. If he had been a real superhero, with real powers, he would have had his costume designed by Edna, who knew the dangers of capes. Syndrome dies because he has refused the Moral Premise.
[STAN: M. I think your analysis of The Incredibles with the Moral Premise you came up with is better than the one in my book. You've also reinforced what makes a good story great— the reinforcing of themes and values on multiple layers, as I suggest in the Preface of the book.]
I'm still looking for patterns in the Dual Moral Premise (DMP). In INCREDIBLES, JURASSIC PARK, MATRIX and T2, there's an obvious fantastic element, and the second MP seems connected to it.

For example, MATRIX is about the nature of reality, and its SMP is "free will vs. fate" JPARK is about cloning dinaosaurs, and its SMP deals with "nature vs. science." T2's SMP is also about "free will vs. fate," but its fantasic element is time travel -- which also connects to fate.

My hypothesis is that in stories that have sharply separated A & B stories (superheros+family life = INCREDIBLES) may be prime candidates for DMP. I suspect that it may be useful because the stories are so thematically separate that they each need a theme to connect with the audience. The question then becomes where is the trigger point for adding the SMP? I'm not sure about this yet, just a hypothesis.

Let me know what you think.

PopcornFlix

------------

Well, P.F., I think that any good story construction is well served by its creators trying to make sense of what the story is really about on as many layers as possible. I don't talk about it in the book, but one of the best structured movies is Rubin and Ramis' GROUNDHOG DAY (1993). I recall in a screen writing workshop diagramming the movie using the THREE ACT structure, and then the 12 STEPS OF THE MYTHIC HERO, and then over lapping ALLISON FISHER PURCHASE FUNNEL (used in romantic comedies) , and finally the FIVE STAGES OF GRIEF. And guess what THEY ALL FIT. For everyone of those models the story had turning points. It was amazing. And that's why the movie works, because it worked on so many subconscious levels. So, I see the Dual Moral Premise the same way. The more TRUE moral premises a movie has the better chance it has of working, and making sense to more people.

Now the big problem I'm sure many writers have with my book and this whole idea is whether or not it's a "good" idea to start with the moral premise, as I suggest, and from it construct a story. I definitely support that process in the book, and I guarantee it will eliminate writer's block. As to whether it will create a block-buster story, I have no vote. Chapter 4 talks gives aa few examples of how genius works, and coming up first with the moral premise IS NOT necessarily one of the factors. But coming up with at least ONE moral premise is definitely necessary, whenever it is done.

So, thanks, P.F. for the great post.

Much blessing, and I hope you all let us know when your movies are on the big screen.

Stan

Friday, April 20, 2007

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.

Monday, April 9, 2007

FINDING FORRESTER (2000)

Director: Gus Van Sant
Mike Rich - Written by
Sean Connery - William Forrester
Rob Brown - Jamal Wallace
F. Murray Abraham - Robert Crawford
Anna Paquin - Claire Spence
Busta Rhymes - Terrell Wallace


Finding Forrester takes place in the Bronx where William Forrester, a white, recluse novelist, makes an unlikely friendship with, and mentors, a black 16-year old boy who is gifted at both basketball, literature, and writing, Jamal Wallace.

Finding Forrester (FF), however, is really about finding hope by venturing into the unknown. We make assumptions about the unknown that become legendary prejudices, urban myths, which in turn reinforce our unfounded fears. When chance, fate, or Providence breaks down the barriers, and if we open our heart, we are given new life, and can face the ultimate unknown, death, with peace.

Physical Goals: Jamal Wallace wants to be accepted by his urban peers and so excels at street basketball, purposely hiding his intelligence behind a C average. He secretly writes in notebooks, something he's done since his father left home. His standardized test scores, however, indicate a brilliant mind. He's recruited by Mailor, a private and somewhat exclusive Manhattan school that needs help on its basketball team. Jamal's physical goal is to be accepted by those around him for what he's capable of doing. But he's held back by his own prejudice toward his peers and the prejudice of others that a black kid from the Bronx can play basketball but nothing more.

William Forrester, also a kid from the Bronx, however, wrote a famous novel 50 years earlier that is still creating a wait list at the New York Public Library. He only wrote the one novel, however because he was offended at the crack reviews, and because the deaths of his brothers and parents sent him into a long depression. Forrester, says screenwriter Mike Rich, like many other famous novelists, wrote for themselves, and not the public. Forrester wants to "get out" but he's afraid of what the public and the world outside have in store for him.

In FF, Jamal has to fight his way into Forrester's life, onto the Mailor basketball team, into the acceptance of his literature professor, Robert Crawford, and into the broader culture of Manhattan.

Forrester has to fight his way out of his top floor Bronx flat where he's quadruple locked himself in -- at the door -- but leaves his window, accessible by the fires escape, unlocked . Although his former life involved mountain treks in search of rare birds, now his outside adventures are limited to sticking the top half of his body out the window and sitting on the still to clean the pane's exterior. The clean window allows him to watch Jamal and friends play basketball, and occasional videotape the stray bird from the park.

The Moral Premise. FF can be summarized in this moral premise statement:
Ignorance and avoidance of the unknown
leads to fear, isolation, and despair;
but
Knowledge and embrace of the unknown
leads to faith, friendship, and hope.
Expanding on this premise, FF is about how to achieve our dreams that are out of our present reach. The movie suggests that to extend our reach we have to enter territory that often appears dangerous.

This moral premise is ubiquitous in many metaphoric and didactic ways.

A. Fear of the Unknown. The opening rap is about how the force of will allows us to make decisions which allow us to achieve our dreams, even in the face of an establishment that wants to hold us back. In this case the reference is the "white" establishment holding back "blacks". The story, however, isn't as much about racial prejudice, as it is the greater prejudice toward people that are unlike us in a multitude of other ways, white or black. This affinity of keeping to our own kind is one of those mental roadblocks that takes on, unnecessarily, racial identify. FF does a good job of revealing that such prejudice is much deeper than race, and that race becomes the escape goat. One of the reasons racial prejudice will never go away is because there is a deeper and broader distrust of anyone that is not exactly like us in a hundred other ways — race, yes, but also culture, class, language, height, weight, fashion, intelligence, language, business affiliation, school affiliation, and social standing. It is the fear generated by ignorance of these different categories that leads to false assumptions, which in turn breeds fear.

B. The Raven. Ironically, in Jamal's public high school literature class his teacher asks the students if they are familiar with Edgar Allan Poe's The Raven. A cursory examination of The Raven suggests that Poe's poem was Mike Rich's inspiration for FF. In the poem, Poe is distracted from his depression and grief over the death of "the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels named Lenore." In the movie, an ebony raven comes rapping at Poe's window. In the movie it's Jamal who enters Forrester's window (first) and door (second). When Poe, the recluse writer, lets in the insistent Raven, it perches upon a bust of Pallas, the Greek God of wisdom. Similarly Jamal comes into Forrester's life in search of wisdom. This reference is doubled in the movie when Forrester, a bird watcher, videotapes a bird outside his window that has "strayed from the park" as Jamal has strayed from his urban culture into Forrester's. Poe's raven is a symbol of sadness and depression that will not go away, because the hope that love has offered has gone away. Rich's screenplay explores what would happen if the raven, which enters the sad writer's life, were to renew hope, rather than reinforce it. The connection to the moral premise, here, is Poe's (and Forrester's) reluctance to mount the courage to leave the land of destitution and enter the land of hope.

C. Entering the Lion's Den. On a simple dare, late at night, Jamal enters Forrester's flat via the fire escape and unlocked window. It's a "rickety" entrance that reveals Jamal's willingness to explore uncharted territory. The first thing Jamal does in the flat is unbolt and open the entrance door. It is a practical move that allows him to quickly escape if found-out (which is he), but it also foreshadows his goal for Forrester, and where the story is leading. Jamal is spooked by Forrester and runs out of the flat, leaving his pack behind. Forrester finds it, reads his "notebooks" and marks up his writing with red highlighter, asking at the end of one of the notebooks, "Where are you leading me?" It's a writing instructor's rhetorical question that also moves the story forward. Indeed Jamal is leading Forrester out the front door, now, figuratively unlocked.

D. Questions Point to Unknown Fear. In an early discussion between them, Forrester says to Jamal:
There's a question in your writing about what you want to do with your life. That's a question your present school cannot answer for you.
This comment suggests that Jamal needs to brave the unknown in order to find a way out of the urban parking lot metaphor that his brother, the parking lot supervisor, as succumbed to.

E. Forrester Fears Discovery. After Jamal discovers who Forrester is, he confronts him and wants to tell Forrester what he thought of his novel, Avalon Landing. Forrester wants nothing to do with Jamal's opinion, and is sacred that Jamal will reveal Forrester's whereabouts. Forrester has been invaded and he's scared. He's been found out. His life is no longer private, and he gets Jamal to promise to keep the secret from others. Jamal promises if Forrester helps him be a better writer. Here we see Jamal forcing Forrester into a constructive confrontation with the outside world, in exchange for gaining wisdom about his inside world. (43 min)

F. Playing by the Rules. Shortly after Jamal starts at Mailor, he has trouble opening his locker. Along comes the chairman's daughter, Clair Spence, who bangs on the locker to make it spring open. "At least they look good," she offers. It's small, but it's a metaphor for the moral premise, nonetheless. The locker door presents a barrier to the unknown. How to cross its threshold requires unconventional methods, and even a little confrontation. We're afraid sometimes to go places when the methods are not our style. So Jamal tells Forrester while watching Jeopardy,
If you're going to play the game, then you need to know the rules.
You don't enter the new world using techniques from the old world. On the otherhand, Jamal's courageis the opposite of conformity. He refuses to run from things that others would fear.

Following the rules, in anunknown world" is also metaphored to us during Jamal's early visit to Forrester's flat. This is a literary lion's den, as the DVD chapter title suggests. It is not a basketball court. Jamal, a basketball always at the ready, absently mindedly starts to dribble the ball in Forrester's flat. Forrester stops correcting Jamal's essay and looks uneasy at him. Jamal stops dribbling. The rules for playing the literary game and not the same as playing basketball. Jamal puts the ball aside.

Again, we see this play out in two scenes were Jamal first avoids a confrontation with Professor Crawford and later when he confronts Crawford and beats old man at his game of pity quotations. In the first instance, Jamal avoids Crawford's wrath because he played by the game rules of the new environment. But later he incurs Crawford's wrath when he plays by rules not suited for Crawford's lion's den. The lion threatens to eat Jamal. In all these instances of playing or not playing by the rules, Jamal demonstrates his resolve of not being restrained from his dream. He shows us that bravery is necessary for claiming that hope which we all desire.

G. Avalon Landing. Forrester's (one) wunderbook, Avalon Landing, is referenced by Crawford as the great 20th century novel, which suggests how life never ever works out. It describes Forrester's lament and fear of breaking out of the despair that surrounded him after the war and the deaths of his brother, mother and father. Rather than bravely entering the new world offered to him, Forrester retreats from the unknown and lives a life of isolation and fear.

H. "The Season of Faith's Perfection" is a New Yorker article that Forrester wrote about the Yankee's World Series pennant race in 1960. Forrester's family rarely missed a Yankee's home game played in the Bronx at stadium that Babe Ruth built. But in 1960 the Yankee's lost the championship to the Pittsburgh Pirates in the last half of the ninth inning of the 7th game. The article's title is a metaphor of how there is a season where faith can take hold and produce hope, even in the midst of grave disappointment.

I. The Unknown of the Blank Page. About half way through the movie (at about 53 minutes) Jamal faces the unknown...a blank page stuck in a typewriter. Even though Forrester demonstrates how to cross the barrier into the unknown, Jamal is not sure how to pursue his dream. Forrester tells him to write from his heart, and use his mind later. But Jamal is still stuck. Finally Forrester retrieves his 1960 New Yorker article (above) and tells Jamal to re-type his words until he finds his own. Jamal musters the courage and starts in -- tentatively. Forrester yells at him to "PUNCH THE KEYS". Shortly, Jamal does, and in so doing embraces the moment of grace to write from his heart — the strong sounds of the punched keys resonate throughout the flat. At that, Forrester yells in Jamal's street vernacular, "Yes! Yes! You're the man now, dog."

J. What is the Scarlott Tanager? Jamal and Forrester are watching Jeopardy on TV and the question for the answer is: "What is a scarlet tanager?" Forrester quotes a James Lowell poem about of a scarlet tanager "Thy duty, winged flame of sprig, is but to love and fly and sing," and explains to Jamal how the poem is about "the song of the tanager, a song of new seasons, new life." Indeed, the moral premise even on Jeopardy.

K. Street Courage. Later, as Jamal walks home, he demonstrates his comfort, if not courage, in an environment that others would run from. He shuns what would seem like the safer sidewalk and walks down the dark street's center, even as: a police cruiser (lights flashing) passes him closely checking him out, a car burns on the other side, and then it downpours. Jamal is aware of all this, but walks steadily on, offering no defense, or courtesy to any of the elements. This shot could be interpreted as Jamal's comfort in the Bronx neighborhood, but it also underscores his embrace of the moral premise by summing-up the bravery to confront unflinchingly that territory that robs mankind of hope.

L. Under the Outer Worlds. When Jamal and Claire spend an afternoon together at a museum, they have the courage to discuss the budding romance between them and the difficulties implied by their different backgrounds of class, culture and race. He also asks her about how she happened to go to Mailor, which only a few years ago was an all boys school. The conversation occurs under oversized models of the outer planets of the Solar System that hang from the glass ceiling. The scene again reinforces the dream of mankind to venture into the unknown in order to uncover our hope for the future.

M. Getting Out. On Forrester's birthday, Jamal persuades him to get out and go to a baseball game. But Forrester gets lost in the crowds and cowards in a corner of the stadium's belly. They leave, and Jamal, with the pull of his brother, takes Forrester to the pitcher's mound of old Yankee stadium in the Bronx. The evening is the beginning of Forrester's finding himself and leaving the confines of his self-imposed prison. He finally shares with Jamal the ghosts that have kept him holed up during the past years, and in so doing finds hope for the future. Jamal quotes him his own words,
The rest of those who have gone before us, cannot steady the unrest of those to follow.
In other words, to find peace, to find ourselves, we must each summon our own courage to enter the unknown future.

N. The Challenge of Integrity. Jamal is accused of plagiarism on an essay entered in the school's writing contest' he has quoted Forrester but doesn't cite him. It is the essay that begins with Forrester's title and first paragraph of "A Season of Faith's Perfection." Not knowing that the article was previously published, Jamal doesn't know he could cite the article from the public record, but rather fears that to reveal his source would force him to break his promise to Forrester. When Jamal confronts Forrester about the problem of possibly being kicked out of school and they discuss the bitter prejudice that Crawford exhibits toward Jamal, Forrester offers an explanation:
FORRESTER: Do you know what people are most afraid of?

JAMAL: What?

FORRESTER: What they don't understand. And when we don't understand we turn to our assumptions.
In other words, our fear comes from ignorance of the unknown, and our inability to enter the unknown with courage.

O. Writing From Your Heart. Another important scene that reinforces the moral premise is the city championship basketball championship at Madison Square Garden. The game comes down to two foul shots that Jamal is given to shoot, with time already run out. If he makes them both, they win. But Jamal has just been offered an illicit settlement in the supposed plagiarism scandal. As he stands at the free-throw line, he realizes that he will be defined by what happens here, not only to the school and Crawford who looks on, but by himself. He doesn't want to graduate from Crawford and be pushed through the academic system simply because he's a jock. He wants to be acknowledged for all that he is. He faces a dilemma but makes the decision that requires the most courage of his young life. It's been clearly shown that Jamal never misses a free throw, and under pressure can shoot 50 consecutive. But on this night, he will define his life for the future. He misses both shots.

This is a huge barrier that takes an immense amount of courage. He is entering unknown territory, but he is determined not to be restrained from his dream as the opening rap foreshadows like a Greek chorus. He will claim his dream to be a writer, and a man of integrity. Making those two shots, would define him as a jock from the Bronx who cheated his way through school and probably cheater on his essay. Jamal faces Forrester's earlier challenge of "writing for himself" and not to write for others. Forrester's exile was in part because he let the opinion of others define him. Jamal was going to be the defining process, not the crooked board of directors who just wanted the school to win basketball games.

That night, after the game, he writes Forrester a letter at the New York public library. Forrester cleans his windows. It's time to see more clearly, even at night. Forrester seemingly knows that Jamal has chosen to define his life for himself and not for others. Finishing the windows, Forrester pumps up the flat tire on his bicycle and rides freely, happily, and without fear through the Bronx streets.

Jamal's ultimate act of self-honesty and integrity, free both him to define what others will say about him, even as it frees Forrester.

P. Forrester's Return. With his new freedom from fear, Forrester has the courage to go to Mailor and defend Jamal during the writing contest. With a surprise visit that is honored by Crawford, Forrester reads a paper that Jamal has written, although Crawford doesn't know it at the time and praises Forrester for what he assumes are the old writer's words. The essay is about both Forrester and Jamal and their fears. What we hear of it is this:
"Losing family obligates us to find our family. Not always the family that is our blood, but the family that can become our blood. And should we have the wisdom that would open our door to this new family, we will find that the wishes we once had for the father, who once guided us..."

The only thing left to say will be 'I wish I had see this, or I wish I had done that or I wish...
Q. A Peaceful End. At the end of the movie, Jamal, three years later, learns that Forrester has died of cancer in Scotland. In a letter to Jamal, Forrester makes it clear that had it not been for their friendship, Forrester's dreams of returning to Scotland would not have been fulfilled. Jamal gave Forrester the courage to make the decision to end his exile from society and go home before it was too late.

There are other elements in the movie that reinforce the moral premise for each of the main characters, including Professor's Crawford's embrace of the vice side of the moral premise. But, we'll save that for another time, or your own essay.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

THE ULTIMATE GIFT (2007)

Michael O. Sajbel - Director
Cheryl McKay - Screenplay
Jim Stovall - Book

Drew Fuller - Jason Stevens
James Garner - Red Stevens
Ali Hillis - Alexia
Abigail Breslin - Emily
Lee Meriwether - Miss Hastings
Brian Dennehy - Gus
Mircea Monroe - Caitlin
Donna Cherry - Sarah Stevens
D. David Morin - Jack Stephens
Bill Cobbs - Ted Hamilton

In trying to come up with the moral premise of The Ultimate Gift (TUG) I didn’t have to think very long. The dialogue wants to tell you, over, and over, and over, and over. If you like stories where you have to figure things out; if you like a mystery; if you want to see the protagonist learn things on his or her own the way you are forced to learn on your own, then TUG is not for you.

THE STORY

Jason Stevens is a trust fund baby, who has never worked a day in his life, and money has always been there for him. It is probably true that the rest of his aunts and uncles, all greedy, selfish people, were raised the same. Jason’s grandfather, Red Stevens, dies and leaves most of the aunts and uncles nothing. For a reason that comes off as manipulated, Red thinks that Jason is redeemable, whereas the rest of his related humanity is not. So, Red leaves a series of video messages and assignments for Jason to complete, hoping that Jason will learn to reject vanity and the self-absorbed playboy life, and become a charitable, generous, self-less community icon. And what happens? Just that. After the trailer there is nothing more to discover. Jason acts the brat, but his greed forces him to work, respect money, make a true friend, value learning, etc.-times 12, until at the end of the movie, his grandfather's attorney rewards him with control of the two-billion dollar estate.

MORAL PREMISE NO. 1

It would be a good challenge to take just one of Christ’s parables (say the Rich Young Ruler) and make a good movie about how through natural, organic circumstances the Rich Young Ruler comes to learn the importance of giving and not hording his wealth. People change values slowly, VERY slowly, and it would take 120-minutes just to reveal, in a realistic, identifiable, organic way, how such a person would just BEGIN to change; yet, at the end, still have weaknesses and imperfections to work on, just as we all do.

But in TUG the writers take 12 parables, and in 114 minutes try to convince us that a 22 year old greedy, playboy can totally change from black to white in 12 different character traits, and at the end of the movie have no faults, no worries, all the money in the world, a beautiful wife, and have the respect of local banks and business authorities to demand that they will pro-bono their time and money to create his pet project…altruistic as the project may seem. If I hadn't been watching the movie for my radio program I would have turned it off and washed the dishes.

It is Jason’s vanity and greed that drives him to pursue his grandfather's will, but he's resentful and angry at having to play the game. Vanity, greed, and their natural consequencies of bitterness and anger, are also evident (overly so) in Jason's aunts and uncles. After having been motivated (by greed) to find a true friend, Jason recognizes (in a Moment of Grace, that occurs before a statue of Jesus’ outstretched arms) that his young friend, Emily, is dying of leukemia. From then on Jason tries to use the wealth he’s been given to help Emily and others survive their pain and suffering. So, the true moral premise of the movie can be stated this way:
Greed leads to resentment and disrespect; but
Generosity leads to love and honor.
So, here’s a movie, again with a true moral premise.

NARRATIVE PROBLEMS

But TUG is an example of how a true moral premise cannot save a story from dismal performance at the box office, even though the book upon which it was based sold 3 million copies. Why? Because, as another reviewer mentioned, the one gift that the filmmakers did not get, was the gift of good narrative filmmaking.

First, however, there are some things the filmmakers did right. The photography is good, and they lined up an all star cast who do well in their roles.

But there are fundamental narrative problems with TUG. Let me describe three.

1. The first cardnial rule of narrative filmmaking is to show, don't tell. But TUG is nearly all words. It is an illustrated book. The sound track alone tells the story. The pictures are not needed. In a well conceived film the movie will allow the audience to experience what the protagonist experiences as both are led organically to some conclusion. But in dialogue, TUG tells the audience exactly what is to be understood and believed predominantly through the presence of Red Steven's video messages. It's a contrivance that works in the book because we have no visuals, and we need to explain motivations and things that cannot be shown. Novels are about thoughts -- plays are about words -- and movies are about pictures. When a movie uses too many words to tell the story, the visuals become impotent. Without the Red Stevens scenes we might have seen how Jason figures out the truth on his own, thus allowing the audience to make the message their own. Red's explanations were a little like having someone like me whispering into your ear all through a movie about what the movie is trying to say. You'd want to smack me in the puss, and tell me to shut up, and that's exactly what I wanted to tell the filmmakers.

2. There is a near absence of metaphors in this film, and metaphors are the lifeblood of visual story telling. There are two basic kinds of moral communications: visual tropes (narrative allegories and metaphors) and propositional statements (what you find in a catechism, e.g. "Do good unto others as you would have them do unto you"). A good film will give the protagonist a physical goal that is really a metaphor for what the movie, at a psychological level, is really about. Now, TUG does have one on-going analogy that sort of works—Red Stevens is analogous to God who teaches his children (i.e. "us" represented by Jason) hard lessons through trials and suffering. Jason, at first, rejects the lessons and tries to return to his bitterness and resentment. But finally he embraces the necessity of the trials for the sake of obtaining the "ultimate gift." In Jason's eyes that ultimate gift is initially the money, and eventually the gift is the love he needs to express by using the money for charitable purposes. But underlying that analogy, the real ultimate gift is the gift of God's charity that we receive in salvation and heaven provided we joyfully submit to God's trials and sufferings.

But I say the analogy only "sort of works." Analogies are figures of speech (in this case visual tropes) that parallel dissimilar story elements designed to help the reader or audience to organically internalize, synthesize and assimilate a truth. A analogy, simile or metaphor are the linguistic opposites of TUB's didactic delivery. Jason is continually being preached to. Thus, in TUB we are not allowed to "discover" truth, but rather we are hit over the head by it. Jason must be told several dozen times that the hard lessons he is learning are each gifts, designed to redeem him. He is rarely given a chance to figure this out by himself, and thus the message come off more like preaching than self-discovery.

3. The flow of the story is mostly manipulative and not natural. Another cardinal rule of good storytelling is that the fiction writer can allow one overt jump in logic or break in the natural order of things, and not lose the audience. In the movie version of TUG there is more than one of these jumps and each seems coincidental for the convenience of the writer. The first is the introduction of Emily into Jason's life. It occurs as Jason is living on a park bench, and young Emily spontaneously (and without good motivation) engages him in pointed conversation. This happens again, in another scene, when Emily's mother, Alexia, sets up a picnic a few feet away from Jason's park bench. It happens a third time, when Jason finds Alexia's stolen purse in a park trash bin, and it just so happens that her unpaid bills are wadded up in the purse, and it just so happens that he goes to the hospital to look for them, instead of walking to her home, and ALL of this is wrapped up in the melodramatic coincidence that Emily is dying of leukemia. A similar sort of coincidence is that Jason's overly greedy and sexed-up girlfriend looks like trash when compared to the winsome and wholesome Alexia. There are many such situations in this story that play to the desire of the writer to paint a plot and protagonist that are without any blemish or need of on-going redemption. Altogether it will be hard for the audience to identify with Jason, root for his success, or feel any compassion for him. And, in the end, who really cares about a perfect young man who is given 2 billion dollars to control? It's far too close to the heretical "heath and wealth" Gospel.

A SECOND MORAL PREMISE

All of this suggests to me a second moral premise that is laid on top of the first. In part it is reinforced by the riches his aunts and uncles who continue to live out their selfish lives without much natural negative consequence, except for a lot of bickering and jealousy. And in Jason's story arc, the more perfect he becomes, the richer he gets, setting up this moral premise:
Vanity and greed lead to wealth; but
Moral perfection leads to obscene riches.
This moral premise is false, although, unfortunately, a great many people, including so-called Christians, hope and believe it to be true.