Inside the Brain of E.C. Henry

Work Ethic

Do you have "good" work ethic?  What does that even mean to you?  And how does that apply to screenwriting?  And what does the opening picture of this blog post have to do with work ethic anyway?

Well-p, the opening picture was of me, E.C. Henry, and my 4-year-old nephew: Brycen, or Obo, as I like to call him.

And on this particular Sunday afternoon I was washing my Toyota Corolla.  And with Obo lurking about I thought it would be a good idea to have him try his hand at helping out.  You see even at a tender age of four, it's never to early to start working on one's work ethic.

So how'd little Obo do?  Well-p.  His work ethic left a lot to be desired, as evident by the 2nd picture which I now submit for your consideration:


THIS is a more accurate portrail of what it's like when you try to get a 4-year-old to "help out".  I know with slave labor tactics like this what am I doing in this country I should be in Malasia, or Micro-nesia, as Hansel from "Zoolander" (2001) would say.

Work ethic can mean different things to different people, but to me I see work ethic as being, do you try hard at what you're doing.  It's an effort thing.  Now to a male model like Ben Stiller's Derek Zoolander, or to Owen Wilson's Hansel, work ethic can just merely mean just show up and let others revel in your beauty and presense.  But that's pretty weak -- if you asked me.

So do I, E.C. Henry, have good work ethic?  You bess believe.  I work my tuckus off at work.  Wouldn't even take breaks or lunch, if left to my own devices.  My lead at work has to remind me/force me to take breaks.  Much of this has to do with an inner fire inside of me that wants to get everything done.  I TRY to set the shift that follows mine for the best success I can.  I work as hard as I can, and try to be as accurate as I can too.  Basically, I just try real, real hard.

Does the same mind-set transfer to my writing, I do call myself a pre-pro screenwriter after all.  Yes, and no.  Yes, I do try.  But no in that I don't think I try hard enough to write on a regular basis.  I still think it's in the pre-pro screenwriter's best interest to carve out 1-2 hours EVERYDAY to write.  You need the consistency of that.  And through I try, for past 2 years I really haven't been doing that, and my productivity has suffered as a result.  Truth.

Juggling "real life" and one's creative life can be hard at times.  In the back of your mind you know what the creative life needs -- it needs your time.  But real life matters too: family, jobs, paying bills, maintaining one's health. 

True, I need to amp up the hours spent at the keyboard, but I also need to make sure I'm living a ballanced life and meeting other's needs too. 

As far as being a writer overall I think I have great work ethic.  One of my bedrock writing principals is: FINISH WHAT YOU START.  If I start a script, I finish that script.  True, it always feels like I should have been faster at doing it and getting it done.  BUT there are a lot of factor which slow the process down.  A key component of having "good" work ethic is one's ability to bring projects to completion.   And E.C. Henry the writer does just that.

Speed.  Does speed play a role in having "good" work ethic.  No.  It does not.  I have seen a lot of people work fast and cut corners.  Sometimes that comes back to bite them in the butt, other times they "get away with it."  Sure sometimes it's nice to work fast, but you need to temper that with the resolve that the end product of your work is worthy, that it is good.

Another thing about work ethic is that it comes from withing.  It's the about being able to look oneself in the mirror and say you did the best you could.  Your brand of having good work ethic or not does not come from those outside you, it comes from within. 

I am always looking to become a better writer.  Right now my focus is on scene articulation; breaking down action after a main slug line has been called out.  I want to get good at this, as I think this the heart of screenwriting: one's ability to write description in a manner that directors respond well too.  And it's not like I wanna do the director's job for him.  He has the ultimate say in what gets shot and what doesn't.  But I really want the reader of my scripts to be able to visualize the movie I've written.  Like or hate it, I want the cinema of the mind through the words on the page to come through. 

Now little Obohas a long way to go before he's proven to me that he has "good" work ethic, but I'm resolved to keep working with that little tike until he has it.  That's what uncles do.  And in my own life I'm resolved to keep working on my own work ethic.  Back to 1-2 hours behind the keyboard starting tomorrow.  And who know still got some time today to put some time behind the keyboard.

And as for "Zoolander", I just looked on IMBD and there is a "Zoolander 2" in the works for a 2014 release.  LOVED "Zoolander" (2001), remember it being VERY FUNNY, best of any movie that Ben Stiller or Owen Wilson has ever been in by a long shot.

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

P.S. Hopefully at mid-week I'll have another post made.  As that's always the goal.  Big post over the weekend, smaller post at mid-week.

P.S.S. The two pictures of me and Brycen washing my car were part of my birthday present from my brother and his wife.

Prometheus (2012): E.C.'s Review

Have you seen Ridley Scott's "Prometheus" yet?  If so, what did you think of it? 

I saw it last Sunday night, then watched it again yesterday after work, in 3-D.  As you should know I was really looking forward to seeing "Prometheus" for some time now, as evident by this October 11, 2011 blog post.  Went online and watched the trailers, read a plot synopis -- which proved to be false from the actual plot shot in the film.  So before I even saw the film, as you can probably guess by now I had some strong, pre-concieved notions of how I thought this movie would unfold.

So before I go any further let me say I'm still quite conflicted as to what I really think of this film.  On one level I really want to hail "Prometheus" as the best film of 2012.  I am so sick of seeing movies like "Transformers" (2007: Shia LaBeouf) as the main sci-fi staples sent out for mass release.  On one level "Transformers" and "Prometheus" are the same; both can be lumped in the sci-fi category.  But those two worlds couldn't be more different.  "Prometheus" is a dark sci-fi, whereas "Transfomers" is an action/adventure/comedy sci-fi.  In watching a "Transformers" movie I feel like I need to turn my brain off or take like 5 stupid pills to bring me down to the level of believablity that its asine premise of Autobots vs. Decepticons requires.  

That said, on another level Ridley Scott's "Prometheus" has some rather fatal flaws that are hard for even its most adamant wanna-be-supporters (me) to dismiss.   But let's begin the review of Ridley Scott's "Prometheus" by going into what this film does well.

The Great:

1. Stunning visuals. Ridley Scott has a great cinematic eye.  Haven't been this impressed by a films visuals since Joel and Ethan Coen's "No Country for Old Men" (2007).  A) The shots of the Prometheus ship in space, spinning camera.  Then later landing on the planet.  B) The way Charlize Theron's Vickers was introduced: low angle as she's doing push-ups dripping wet just out of the shower.  C) Fifield's launch of the "pups" into the air and out into the catacombs to map out the Engineer's lair.  D) The poster shot of Elizabeth Shaw shining her light up on the giant statue of the Engineer's head while she stands in the midst of the bioform urns.  E) David's marveling over the Engineer's star map.

2. The set-up of "pre-adventure" David. The Prometheus starship is soaring on a 2 year journey to the alien planet.  And durring that time David is spying on crewmembers dreams, learning ancient foreign languages, and watching classic movies.  What does this set-up?  A) David has insight into the crewmembers.  B) David has his own ideas of what it's like to be human, and what he wants to be.  C) David is going to be the point-of-contact with the humans to the aliens -- should they encounter alien life. 

This is brilliant characterization off a type made famous in the "Alien" franchise: Ash in "Alien" (1979) and then Bishop in "Aliens" (1986).  Great call Ridley Scott Scott AND screenwriters Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof.  And Michael Fassbender'sacting is top-notch as David the adroid, who we're never quite sure if he's a bad guy or good guy.

 

The Bad:

1. The crew's reaction to the alien life-form aborted by Shaw.  No one ever called it into question -- and that's despite the fact that Shaw had to knock-out two crew members, and sneak into the medical chamber to get it to perform the alien abortion. 

Now I understand that Fifield came back and caused a ruckus, which is another plot point which registered poorly with me, but to just leave an aborted alien in the pinchers of that medical device chamber, and have a bloodied and weakened Shaw running around the ship afterwards was unacceptable to me.  This is the kind of thing that Ridley, Jon Spaights and Damon Lindoff should have handled way better.  Its this kind of plot gaff that can derail the entire movie for some people. 

We'll call this, plot point gaff # 1.  Yes, unfortunately there's more to come!

2. Fifield's re-arrival.  All of a sudden Captain Janek notes Fifield outside the door.  So the crew investigates and Fifield roars to life, starts acting like a re-animated Sasquach and starts to smash any and all crewmembers it can get his hands on.  This was ridiculous, and it fell like a rip-off.  Some kind of cheap, cheesy, failed, low-budget horror movie stunt.  WHY did Spaight, Lindoff and Scott decide to go this route?  Boggles the mind.  I guess it's to reduce the body count.  But it really sucks, and didn't come off well at all.

3. The Enginers lair'sacess to secret rooms through secret doors.  Press the right panel and a stone door, that hasn't been used in thousands of years just suddenly opens?  Gimme a break.  This felt like a forced tie-in to the "Alien vs. Predator" (2004).  Remember that movie?  Took place in a pyramid in Antartica.  Anywho, I didn't buy the secret door stuff.  Did like the rest of the lair, though.

 

The Good:

1. The crew of the Prometheus: Holloway, Shaw, Captain Janek, Millburn, and David.   

Realize that this is a plot-driven movie.  Thus with quest king, not a lot of screentime can be given to flesh these characters out.  With this in mind, I was very impressed with Millburn.  He is a contrast character.  He believes in Darwinism, and ribs Shaw and Holloway in the into meeting.  Then he ends up roaming the catacombs with Fifield, and they meet their demise from a bioform infected worm.  Good stuff.  

Captain Janek was good too in the few scenes he had.  Liked how he made a play for Vickers when Fifield's "pups" were mapping the catacombs.  Here's your character scene in a plot-driven movie -- and it's realistic.  I used to work on a fishing boat and I saw first hand how people "hook-up" for casual sex when they're in an isolated enviroment.  So good job there, Jon Spaights, Damon Lindeoff, and Ridley Scott.  

2. The bio-form worm.  This was set-up by the low angle boot shot when the Engineers urn lair is first discovered.  Then the mind can put the pieces together that when the bio-form begins to ooze out, the worms will get infected.  Liked how Millburn thinks he can treat this alien life-formlike a regular animal in the wild.  Oh, how that desision went awry.

 

Stuff that left me scratching my head:

1. Why David chose to infect Holloway with bioform.  David's opening the urn, and breaks open a tube and gets a dab on his finger, then utters, "Big things have small beginnings."  Great line, but what prompted David to say that?  Had he been affected by the bio-form?  If so, and he'd changed the screenwriters should have alerted the audience to this by some sort of device.  Maybe he hears the Engineers speaking to him telepathically through voice-over narration guiding David to do their will.  Or just have David speaking to himself, where he rationalizes what he's doing.  

2. How David seemed to know so much about the Engineers.   Like at the end of the movie how he knows that there's other ships.  Seemed a little far-fetched.  That needed to be set-up better.  Like maybe via David hearing voices as I stated in the earlier paragraph.

3. The urns all oozing at the tops with black goo.  I guess this is a fail safe in the room.  But it felt hokey.  Kinda cheezy horror flick hokey.  

4. The ghostly images of the space jockeys running in the catcombs.  Cool visuals, but how exactly where they being projected?  They were in a stone structure that had been dormant for thousands of years. 

5. End of the movie Shaw and her jack-o-latern headed David taking off in another alien spaceship. The adventure continues, I guess.  Felt too convient for me.  

 

Things in "Prometheus" that you'd think might bug E.C. Henry, but suprisingly didn't:

 1. The portrayal of Christianity.  Elizabeth Shaw wears a cross.  And at one point has to take it off and put it in a decontamination jar.  Her faith is questioned by David and Holloway, and Elizabeth Shaw really doesn't defend the reasons she believes, just that she does.

This whole movie provides a "possible" explanation as to our origins, but it's just a movie.  Yes, I am a Christian.  I believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins, but I'm not so sensitive that I can't handle alternative perspectives.  A true study of history doesn't discount the bible, rather it affirms it.  "Prometheus" isn't fact, it's a work of fiction.  And as such I think artist should be granted some creative licence when making a piece of art -- so long as they don't bridge that art into the realm of the profane.     

Examples of how some movies have ventured into the realm of the profane: "Face/Off" (1997: Nicholas Cage, John Travolta)where there is a battle between Nicoloas Cage and John Travolta in a church.  Totally unnecessary and disrespectful of the holy.  Zombie and vampire movies are all predicated on a profane concept: people given over to feeding on other people's blood which is forbidden in the books of the law as recorded by Moses in the bible.  I also despise ANY and ALL mockery of Jesus Christ.  No need to do that. 

 

What E.C. Henry would have done differently had he had any say on the plot:

1. Put a greater demonic supernatural emphasis on the Engineers.  I like the idea I read in an  on-line synopsis of Prometheus' plot, which proved to be one that wasn't used.  It had the crew running into something called the "bio brain."  Say David managed to activate the star map and trigger a re-awaking of the "bio brain" inside the Engineers lair.  Have David ask some questions, then have the "bio brain" respond.  BUT then somewhere along the lines of this question and answer session the "bio brain" turns on the "Prometheus" expedition, and then all hell brakes loose.

I really like how the Engineer played the flute which called to other ghostly Engineers.  This reminded me of something I heard about the devil, how he is sometimes referred to as the piper.  That's probably what Ridley was playing with in using the flute.

2. I would get the crew members infected with bioform then quarantined. Then the infected band together in mutiny attempt to get back in the main Engineer's lair to active the alien ship and go to earth with the misguided belief that doctors on Earth would be able to reverse the bioform and restore them back to being fully human.

3. I would have the bio-brain attempting to control infected crew members.  And infected crew members would be divided.  Some fully given over to the "bio brain" while others resist -- though they still want to get back to Earth under the belief that they can be cured.

4. The great battle would take place between crew members, not against the Engineers.  The Engineers are now only spirit beings part of "bio brain."  The bioform is simply the catalyst that has the ability to morph body dna into monstrous forms, as imagined by the crewmember: they pick their own monstrosity that they're becoming. 

5. Holloway remains one of the infected, but doesn't die as early as he did.  Rather he's the last one that Shaw has to deal with, in a final showdown.

 

Well-p, I've said a lot about "Prometheus."  Overall I liked the movie.  If I had to rate it on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being highest, I'd give "Prometheus" an 8.  And I'd LOVE to get the chance to work with Ridley Scott someday.  What a visionary.  Just hope he learns a few things from the plot-point shortcomings in "Prometheus."  Doing a sequel to "Prometheus" is going to be tricky.  Tricky indeed.  The die has kinda been cast, and the Engineers really weren't that interesting...

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA   

P.S. Sorry again about not posting a mid-week post, will try to do so this week, probably a follow-up the demonic forces in rock-n-roll, we'll see...

Writing the Funny: Exploring Issues in Rom-com Movies Volume VIII

What makes you laugh when you go to the movies?  Is it as simple as just getting the right guy or girl in the roles, and letting them ham it up?  Is a stand-up comic the way to go?  How much should the writer be held accountable for writing in comedy, or is the writer's responsibility solely the story, THEN the comedy can be fused in later?  Does comedy in a script form even exist, or is that something that can only be evaluated once a scene has been shot?

Wow!  Lots of questions in the intro. paragraph.  Sounds like E.C.'s headed towards another deep-water post.  Well, I hope so. 

What makes something funny from one person to the next can be a highly subjective field.  Personally I like almost all forms of humor -- except for maybe puns/play on words, which I find for most part snarky and stupid.

Let me start off by saying I think ALL COMEDY MOVIES should impore a multi-pronged attack to tickle the funny-bone of their viewers.  Their should be verbal humor: dialog that's funny.  Their should be cinematic humor: film shots building on the next film shot which result in a humorous climax.  I think you also need physical humor; pie in the face kind of stuff, "Three Stooges" style pushing arroud kind of stuff.   And then there's characters playing off other characters.  I call that sit-com humor, because that's the chief humor device used in TV network sit-com programs.  One character says or does something, then another established character react to what the proceeding character said or did in a funny way, be that with a verbal punchline or by acting out in another way.  What is not really needed is a stand-up act, a comedian delivering a funny montage for a prolonged time in a static, one shot setting.  Movies need to do just that -- move!  And that includes the incorporation of different shot selections.  The camera is not stationary in movies, it moves around, and the comedy writer needs to know how to move that camera around in such a way that builds to a humorous climax.

Verbal humor.  A lot of British comedies specialize in this kind of stuff.  This is where actors or actresses say something humorous in dialog.  Shot call outs and action by other actors can set this up, but its verbal humor as delivered by an actor.   One of my all-time favorites has to be Rodney Dangerfield in "Back to School" (1986).  The googly eyes, the horny old man act, Rodney Dangerfield does it for me.  When I just see him I'm prone to smile, ready to laugh, and typically Rodney Dangerfield delivers the laughs via punchlines driven by actions which take place just before his dialog.

Cinematic humor.  Think of the humor that's diriven in "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" (2005)when at a coffee shop Paul Rudd's character tells Andy, Steve Carrell's character, to go hang-out with him and his buddies after exposing his secret, to which Andy agrees with the stipulation that he's not going to have sex with anyone, to which Paul Rudd's character counters, "Sex should be the last thing on your mind."  THEN the story time cuts to a montage where Andy roams the streets where that's all he's biraged by is sex: sex in books, sexy women brushing up against him, a sexy billboard on a buss appears to chase Andy, and then even when Andy thinks he's safe from all things sexy he runs into two dog humping in the park. 

How the Andy can run away from sex sequence works.  A) Set-up: Andy is not to think about sex, and its agreed upon by a guy whose trying to befriend and help him.  B) Transition to the real world: Andy's just walking around town -- something any of us could do.  C) Montage: a screenwriting device where set against the James Brown song, "I Got Ants in My Pants" Andy roams around town and keeps bumping into things that make it so sex is all he can think about, because that's all he sees around him. 

LOTS of good use of cinematic humor hear.  The song, "Ants in My Pants" by James Brown sets an upbeat, yet sexually charged undercurrent tone.  This comedic sequence starts in a cafe, then time cuts to a scene taking place around town.  Dialog sets up the joke, then the scene shots in a montage draw that joke to its punchline. 

For some reason a scene from one of the movies in "The Naked Gun" (1988)series comes to mind.  The set-up is Leslie Neilson's Frank Drebbin's character is out on a ledge.  And it ends up with him holding onto a male's statues ding-dong trying to pull himself up, BUT then that gets seen by a fellow patron in hotel, and it looks like Leslie Nielson is staining to approach someone's manhood to give it a b.j.   Humor works by the audience's superior position.  We know that Frank Drebbin is just trying to pull himself up, but as seen from someone else's point of view -- which is done by calling out a different shot, it can be construed that Frank Drebbin may be doing something else entirely. 

Physical humor.  Love that scene in "There's Something About Mary" (1998)where Matt Dillon's character is having problems with Mary's dog, and accidentallykills it, and is forced to necessitate it with electroshock stimulation via a light's power chord, all the time not letting on to Mary's who's in the other room how bad things have gotten.  Comedic premise: man wants to show a girl he likes that he is liked by her dog, but ends up killing it.  The humor comes in the farce actions Matt Dillon's character takes to cover his tracks and how the dog reacts and looks as a result of Matt Dillon's character's action.

"Romancing the Stone" (1984) also has a good example of physical humor through action when Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner's characters get swept down the mountain in an rain-storm-induced water slide, which ends with Kathleen Turner sitting with legs spread wide in a pool of water - and Michael Douglas landing in between the split of her legs.  Then Michael Douglas' head rises up from the split her legs with a mighty laugh.  The humor comes from Michael Douglas' reaction to the wild ride -- it put his head in between Kathleen Turner's legs! 

Character playoff.  This normally happens in a rom-com when characters sit arround in a group and discuss things.  Sound like a sit-com?  It should.  It's virually the same.  Normally doesn't require a lot of different shot call-outs.  Its just inner-character reactionary stuff.  Like in "How To Lose a Guy in 10 Days" (2003) where Benjamin Barry's friends are ribbing him for how things are progressing between him and Andie Anderson.  Or the Steve Carrell and Romany Malco exchangein tactics for Andy to use to improve his chances with drunk chicks at a bar.  Character playoff humor works after you establish a given character's world-view and relation to the other characters in the movie.  Jay is Andy's coworker at the store.  Jay is a streetwise womanizer.  Andy is a naive simpleton who respects Jay and considers him an expert on the subject of being good with members of the opposite sex.

Being a stand-up comedian may give an actor some comedic cache with audience member and pre-prime their pump in expectation that they will make them laugh, BUT it doesn't guarantee that affect.   Movies are not single shot monologues.  Movies have plots and character arcs to deal with. 

So where do I, E.C. Henry, stand as pertains to comedy.  Well, for starters, I can't tell a  joke to save my soul -- yet I still ascribe to be a comedy writer...  Now my dad has the verbal flare to tell jokes, but I alas do not.  In fact I'm not much of a conversational humorist -- except when my mind is set free, and that doesn't happen very often.  In personal relations I tend to be a bit of a dimwit.  Sorry, but I'm just not good with comebacks or thinking fast on my feet.  So how do I write comedy?  Well, let me say that I think ANYONE can write comedy.  You simply need to hone your take on life, and bend it to the realms of the comedic. 

So how does E.C. Henry do that in his scripts?  Well, as I alluded to RIGHT AWAY in this post, I think in ANY comedic script one needs to implore many different varieties of humor.  You need a mix.  Some funny dialog.  Some funny character exchanges.  And most certainly some cinematic humor, where second shot call-outs and action builds to a comedic punchline.  To me, right now, THAT'S where the real comedic humor is king in writing comedy for feature length movies.  Can you, in your script, put a series of images in the reader's mind that build to a comedic climax?  Can you make comedy setpieces? 

Gulp...  I hope so.  Creating memorable scenes is the staple of any kind of genre writing.  

To a degree funny can be learned.  I preface that with "to a degree" because I think at some point ones own mind needs to take over and be creating original material themselves -- not just stealing off the masters who paved the way. 

As a writer one needs to feel comfortable knowing the tennants of comedy.  Learn about reversals, farce, comedic distance, the power of threes to set up and deliver on jokes, the proper use of an audience's superior position, and the proper use of an audience's feeling of justice.  These are the nuts and bolts framework upon which comedy is built. A good place to start is "Comedy Writing Secrets" by Melvin Helitzer.  And as pertains to the romantic comedy, Billy Mernit has a chapter devoted to just that in his, "Writing the Romantic Comedy" book.  And y'know their may be other great comedy books out there -- and if you know of any please share because I'm ALWAYS looking to learn more and grow as a writer.  No, I don't have it all figured out, I have to struggle and slosh through it like everyone else. 

Hope you have found this post useful.  And no I will not post excerpts from scripts I've written -- even ones I've copyrighted.  All I can say is I'm trying to grow as a writer, and write every story, every scene as good as I can.  That's all that can be expected of any writer.  Did you do your best? 

I try.  O how I do try...

- E.C Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

P.S. Sorry I didn't post earlier this last week.  Been putting in 10 hour days, been very tired after work -- and I'm still trying to make some headway on the latest teen comedy script I'm working on.  The going is slow, BUT I am making progress and having a lot of fun.  E.C. the writer LIVES!  Will try to post again at mid-week, circling back and doing a follow-up on heavy metal music.

P.S.S. Just got back from seeing "Prometheus" at the Bonney Lake Multiplex.  Stunning sci-fi visuals.  But I thought the story really lost its edge after Holloway died, and Shaw performed an emergency abortion on herself -- and no one ever called that to question.  Not as much action as I thought I'd see.  The story was different, but not "this is a classic" kind of different.  In fact I liked "Aliens" MUCH more than "Prometheus" -- sorry Ridley.  I did sooo wanted to like your masterpiece.

P.S.S.S. Sunday, June 10th was my 43 birthday.  69 posts.  Born in 1969.  Kinda strange huh.  O well, all glory to God, I've lived a lot longer than I ever thought I would.  Did you know that I was born with pyloric stenosis?  And that as a newborn baby I was puking up all my food and could have died because of that?  Had I been born in the 18th century I probably wouldn't be here today.  Then later there was my parents who payed to give me scoliosis surgury so that in my 30s and 40s I wouldn't be crippled.  All glory to God.  His hand has been on my life from the get-go, and I'm soo happy about that!  I'm happy that God gave me 43 years of life -- and good parents too boot.  I just hope that along the line, some times, I manage to make Him happy.  Having God be happy with me means EVERYTHING to me.  Getting discovered as a screenwriter pale in comparison to knowing God and growing in my relationship with Him.  I love you, Jesus.  Thanks for 43 years of life.  No matter what happens from here-on-out You've exceeded my expectations. 

Plot vs. Characters: Which Came First; the Debate Rages On

Which comes first the plot or the characters?  This week's post is a writer's take-off of the age old causality dilemma, now imposed as pertains to the world of story creating.

So which is more important to you?  An interesting plot, or interesting characters?  Hmmm... You may have never looked at movies, and thought on lines like this before.  Maybe as deep as you go is, "All I know is, I either like it, or I don't like it."  If that's how you think, well I've got good news for ya, I'm going expand your horizons.  So you can kiss being a superficial knownothing goodbye!  'Cuz today we're delving deep.  

So let's begin the discussion by cracking open E.C. Henry's trusty, handy-dandy American Heritage Dictionary and getting a clearer picture of what is meant when the terms "plot" and "character" start getting vollied about, as pertains to movies and the stories within them: 

Plot: the series of events consisting of an outline of the action or a narrative or drama.

Character: The combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group or thing from another. 

Okay, so plot is the action.  Characters are on the ones involved in that action. 

Point: by mere definition plot is more important than characters in story creation.  Do you get that?  You have to have action to have a story.  THEN you have to have characters involved with that action.  Debate over.  The egg came first -- as pertains to story development: you have to have action BEFORE you have characters which fill that action. 

But in the evoution from nothing into something, can characters come first before the author has the series of events which take place (the plot) worked out?  Of course, don't be stupid!  The initial seed which ultimately evolves and is taken by the writer and goes on to become a completed script and ultimately, if one is so blessed, a feature film.   

Character driven movies.  A fancy way of saying you're boasting about the people in the story.  "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" (2005: Steve Carrell, Judd Apatow).   Take a man that's different from the norm, and explore what happens to him and the affect he has on others as his personal story unfolds in various scenes.  "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" is a textbook character driven story.  Why?  Because everything springs out of Andy's need to have a fuller life.  Sure the virgin part is big part of Andy's need, BUT Andy (Steve Carrell's character) real need is relationships with other people.  And that's what drives the story.  As is the case with "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" plot flows out of Andy's life.  Do you get that?

Go watch any Judd Apatow movie and you're watching a character driven story.  This guy really tailors his stories around people -- in a good way, I am by no means taking a shot at him.

Plot driven movies.  A master plan or quest drives the story forward.  "Raiders of the Lost Arc" (1981: Harrison Ford): Indiana Jones must outsmart the Nazis in both finding treasure, then in keeping the utimate treasure, the Jewish arc of the covenant, away from the Nazis.  "Alien" (1979: Sigorney Weaver): Members of spaceship encounter a foreign life-form, then find themselves in a desperate attempt to contain it.

An interesting point with the whole Indiana Jones franchise is that through a plot driven movie an iconic character emerged -- and that's Indiana Jones, you idiot!   As franchise moved on the filmmakers built up Indiana Jones, and let the audience see his father, Sean Connery in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade", then later his son, Shia LaBeouf in "Indiana Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull")

Despite what Indiana Jones' misgivings about plot are, it's not as easy as it looks.  I slave over plot MUCH more than the nuts and bolts wording and poetry of verse -- even characters!  Why?  Because if you don't get the plot right everything else will be skewed.  I say as a writer: get the plot right and everything else will follow.  

Point: Plot is the vessel out of which everthing else flows. 

Okay, so we've got one over-sized, fire-breathing, mutant lizard who disagrees with me.  Sorry Godzilla, didn't mean to offend you -- and in your defense all your movies are character driven stories -- and you're the one driving them.  What?  How can Godzilla movies be construed as being "character driven"?  Easy.  If you look at them the way I do, a Godzilla movie is like a WWF match.  Like Hulk Hogan against Andre the Giant.  The story flows out of the known: a man in a rubber suit is going to get into the ring with one of his fellow monsters: their is no plot!  The plot comes out of building up the character so he can do what he does, which is wreck havoc on the island of Japan, and fight against his fellow monsters.  Get it -- character driven: what the Godzilla character does dictates the story's trajectory/plot. 

Okay, so now in this post I've even dealt with Godzilla!  What blogsites do that?!  Ha-ha, I'm feeling quite pretentious again!

But in all honesty no matter what theories I'm working on, or believe in, I think it's in the pre-pro screenwriter's best interests to be adaptable.  If someone wants to look at the world through character driven eyes -- fine I can do that.  If they think tricky plots and twists and turns are were the screenwriter should be focused and let the director and actors hash out where their artistic vision thinks the story should be.  Fine, I focus on that. 

Whatever theories you cling to you have to be open to other people's world-view and adapt.  I don't remember where it, by somewhere along my journey I remember hearing that Michael Douglas wanted to know where the character's redemption was?  It was like how he analyzed character arc.   Now, I would question the man's logic, as I do not believe you can simplify all characters under that framework.  BUT if I was working with Michael Douglas, and he brought it up, sure I'd role with his vibe; I could cook up some tie to redemption.  When it comes to evaluating character, I prefer the overall character arc: how the character changes from the beginning of the movie to what state he or she is in at the end of the movie.   A lot of terms writer's volley about are related and stuff like redemption and character arc aren't too far apart. 

Regardless.  When discussing plot vs. character, three act structure vs. four, can we all remain civil.  Disagreements amongst opinionated creatives are bound to errupt, but we never want them to disintegrate into something resembling this:

Calvin and Hobbs.  Gotta love 'em.  Was my dad's favorite cartoon series.  Hard to argue with that.  HUGE fan of "Calvin and Hobbs."

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

P.S. The progress on the new script is going well.  Not as fast as I'd like it to be, but it's rich; lots of balls in the air -- and I like that in a first draft.  In my humble opinion first drafts should ALWAYS be long.  You want material.  THEN you pare back the stuff that doesn't work...

P.S.S. Will try to post again sometime around mid-week.  Probably a short follow-up to my "Gateways to the Demonic: Heavy Metal Music and Its Influence" post.