Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

gm

In fiction, the point of view from how we see the story can often color how we perceive the ethics of characters. And of course, that lesson can apply in real life as well.

If you ask most people if Neo and Trinity in the Matrix are heroes or anti-heroes, for example, they’ll probably say heroes. There is nothing particularly dark or edgy about them other than kind of a general “cool” factor. They’re pretty chill and well-meaning people in their downtime, we care about their relationship, they help their friends, they have rather pure motivations, etc.

But in the Matrix, agents can teleport themselves into any unplugged person. Which means that when Neo or Trinity attack a place, they pretty much have to slaughter everyone. Leaving survivors means that agents can teleport in. Innocent guards and stuff just get wiped out by the dozens. The stakes of humanity being enslaved by the machines are so high, that the characters don’t even really debate the ethics of this; they just accept it.

Like literally the opening scene is Trinity killing police, and the audience is like “wow cool” instead of “so, is that the antagonist?” The famous lobby scene consists of Neo and Trinity wiping out tons of guards that are just doing their job of guarding a skyscraper. In the sequel, Trinity sends a motorcycle bomb into a power station, and then murders the remaining guards as they attack her. We all basically like Trinity, and yet there are platoons of widows and orphans out there from all the guards she killed. There aren’t really even any scenes of her reflecting on that, like finding it emotionally difficult in any way to do those things or feeling in any way haunted by it.

If the Matrix story was shown from like, a detective’s point of view, these characters are terrorists and would either seem like outright villains (if you don’t know their motivation) or anti-heroes if you do (ends justify the means; mass-murder is okay and not even worth feeling bad about if it saves billions).

So, how the movie *frames* things for us makes a big difference. We closely follow Neo and Trinity so much that we’re like, “of course they’re the heroes”. The same thing happens in real life with political commentators and things like that; a cultural narrative can frame something as wholly good or wholly bad when often it’s actually kind of complex.

Therefore, it’s a useful practice whether in analyzing fiction or real life, to always ask how you could invert the framing for something.

I haven’t seen Sicario, but I would suggest that the common thread needs to be the character motivation, or the motivation of both needs to be established early unless the entire intent is to shock and punish the audience’s idea of a “happy ending” in war (or whatever the theme is). And importantly I think you have to warn your audience toward the beginning that this world

Includes the horror of unexpected and disappointing truths. If we don’t frame the theme or world with that, it can be jarring in a way that’s not enjoyable, but simply angering.

It’s a fine line to walk to buck norms and not jar the audience out of the story. I’m super eager to read what you’ve got though. Boldness very often leads to encoring stuff regardless.

I’ll give one example though of normative trends that were changed that I think was underappreciated. And that’s World War Z.

It appears on the surface like a regular “end of the world” type movie, but the escalation when you really look at it is reversed.

Usually a big budget disaster movie starts with 1 bad guy, then they fight a dozen bad guys that are more powerful and have their first “limited encounter” with the big dog, and then it ends with the “beam of light into the sky billions of random bad guys and the hugest mega boss man” fight.

WWZ actually reversed this:

• Act 1 has the literal “global zombie hordes” and huge scale attack.

• Act 2 brings it a little more local and it’s about a single city and then a single base and operation.

• Act 3 is in a building with just a few dozen zombies with a potential resolution in the middle of them.

• Then the climax is literally the main character and a single zombie.

But at each point the stakes are raised for the survival of mankind. And the final, single zombie is the ultimate test to the theory the protagonist develops during his investigation.

As someone who loves film/story and have considered myself a filmmaker, I had a particular appreciation for that movie for how they raised the stakes and intensity specifically by scaling DOWN the fight, but changing what each conflict meant. I think it was all the more powerful because of it.

The constant need for big budget films and most fantasy-adventure narratives to scale up every battle, I think is a crutch that actually weakens its effect more often than not.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.