How to ID Award-Deserving Storytelling?

Some of us might know why we think Black Swan or The Social Network is good story-telling. Often times we can feel it. But in Hollywood, story-tellers are busy looking at the architecture of the story. We’re analyzing the moving parts, using words like character arcs, climax, theme, and rising tension.

And knowing a little more about these terms and their causal relationship with each other, can not only help you decide what you think about the recent Award nominees, but you’ll sound pretty smart on the upcoming Award nights evaluating the array of candidates.

1) Theme

Wait, does every movie need a theme? Well, no, but every good movie should have something to say. Some point-of-view. And that’s the theme. The message. The moral. We’ve been graced before with poignant movies like The Godfather, where the theme is: Using power and might to protect a family only destroys the family. Even our pulpy flicks like Star Wars or Harry Potter thematically state how good can only triumph over evil with courage and teamwork. So when you think about a movie like Black Swan, True Grit, The Social Network, The King’s Speech, The Fighter, or 127 Hours, what are these movies saying? What's their message?

2) Climax

You know that big final moment at the end of the third act that brings all of the questions of the movie to a close. That's the climax and the way the character finally handles the story conflict dictates the theme. In the Godfather, Michael’s final choice to close the door on his wife shows how he has closed the door on his own family, killing the family man he once was, and becoming the Godfather. How do the choices that the protagonists face at the climax of the award pics affect their theme? What is Social Network saying when “Mark Zuckerberg” allows his best friend to be cut out of the company? What is Black Swan saying when Nina takes the stage for her final performance?

3) Character Arc

Not every movie has a character arc, Zack. Well, did you know that the lack of change is also an arc? Like when a character maintains his willpower in the face of adversity. He didn’t change, but he was tested, and he emerged without changing or caving. Or a character that reveals their true nature. That’s an arc too. A character arc is simply the relationship between who the protagonist is at the start of the movie and who they are at the end. And their final test that determines the nature of their arc: you guessed it, the climax! And the lesson they learn or that is demonstrated by their actions: right again, it’s the theme! How does Nina Sayers, Rooster Cogburn, Mark Zuckerberg, King George VI, Mickey and Dickie, or Aron Ralston change by the end of their stories? What does that say about the theme?

4) Rising Tension

What, that the movie gets more exciting as we get towards the end? Yes. But there is another side to this. A well-executed rising tension doesn’t just keep you wanting to know what will happen next. It presents you with two specific options. The good ending and the bad ending. And you suddenly find yourself hoping for the good ending and fearing for the bad one. And it’s that ping-pong game of expectations that causes you to wring your hands during a good movie. Ambiguity is not a movie’s friend, because it prevents the audience from imagining the horror of a bad conclusion and the joy of a good one. And guess what? This hope and fear directly ties in to the two possible ways a hero can handle the climax, which determines their arc and decides the theme. So connected! So what are our specific hopes and fears for the five previous mentioned award pic characters?

When you stop to think about how the craft of that story was put together, you might suddenly realize while you may love MOVIE A because of some specific element, MOVIE B is actually put together with a lot more finesse. You can certainly appreciate it. And again, you’ll sound great on Award’s nights.

I'll be evaluating these films more closely, but I'd love to know what you think about the Awards' candidates and which movies you think deserve notice and discussion. Leave me comments or write me an email.

Why the Social Network has no story, an unlikely hero, and will be a phenomenon!

It’s going to be a runaway success, a social phenomenon, a $100 million dollar box office hit and an Academy Award contender.

But the most surprising thing is: there is no story.

Let me start by saying this. I like it. I do.

It’s some of the best filmmaking we’ll see this year.

In a movie with just talking heads, screenwriter Aaron Sorkin proves he’s king of the spoken word and gives a seminar in crisp, smart dialogue, especially in the opening exchange between Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) and his girlfriend (Rooney Mara). Filmmaker David Fincher directs with hypnotic style and seething, stunning cinematography.

The cast delivers riveting performances, from newcomer Andrew Garfield’s sensitive portrayal of Facebook co-creator Eduardo Saverin, musician-turned-actor Justin Timberlake’s swarmy performance of Napster’s Sean Parker, and the surprising tour de force of Jesse Eisenberg’s Mark Zuckerberg. And with a mesmerizing musical score, this movie exudes the mood of cool.

Yet, I walked out of the theatre feeling unfulfilled.

And that’s because of the movie’s unlikely protagonist.

Here’s a hint. It’s not Mark Zuckerberg.

{SPOILER ALERT}

If you’ve seen the movie, let me ask you. Who are you rooting for?

Are you rooting for the Winklevoss twins to prove Zuckerberg stole their idea? Are you rooting for Eduardo to prove Zuckerberg stabbed him in the back? Or are you hoping Zuckerberg will show some form of redemption for his crimes as a dickhead, by either recovering the one friend he had or proving that at least it was all worth it?

Well, if you are, none of that really gets a resolution. We don't learn the truth. We don't learn outcome of these lawsuits. We don't learn the fate of Eduardo and Zuckerberg. At the conclusion of the movie, as we wait for answers, Zuckerberg's lawyer (Rashida Jones) tells him, during a deposition break, you’ll pay these guys off, buy their silence, and this will all be a speed bump on the road of your success. And that's all we get. Drama over.

It could have been a story about Zuckerberg’s emergence as a ruthless CEO, but he ends the movie the same asshole he was from the beginning. It could have been about his seduction into business, but his ideals never really change. It could have been a story about his desperate need for attention, but once he's made Facebook, we never see him seek attention.

Sure, he starts Facemash to take his mind off a girl and he ends his nightly deposition looking to friend request that same girl. So the theme could have been that the nerds of the world can’t get chicks, so they go form billion dollar companies. It could have been that, but it’s not.

Zuckerberg’s movie goal is to protect Facebook. Not for attention or connection. He does it because he must. He follows his omniscient view of the future, pushing Facebook on its natural, almost predetermined course towards greatdom. But Zuckerberg shows no empathy, makes no decisions on screen, faces no dilemmas or dramas. It’s not his movie.

So who are we rooting for?

You see, every movie needs a hero (or villain) to root for. And at the end, that hero has to either succeed or fail. There must be resolution. But we get no resolution from Zuckerberg, Eduardo, or even the Winklevoss twins! With no resolution, we have no story!

So how can this successful and entertaining movie have no story?

How can it have no protagonist?

Well, actually, it does have a protagonist.

The protagonist is Facebook.

Aaron Sorkin admits this was a story about two lawsuits. Rather than pick a singular direction, they decided to tell all three points of view. That’s because they didn’t care about these other characters, you know, Zuckerberg and Eduardo. They’re just supporting actors to the real lead of the movie.

So how does the movie succeeds despite a human hero?

Because you know what’s cool. Facebook is cool...

It's a story about the rise of Facebook. We want Zuckerberg to defend Facebook from challengers who would impose advertising on it too soon. We want Zuckerberg to overcome these lawsuits that threaten to derail the creative power behind Facebook. We want Facebook to reach two continents, 100 schools, and 1 million members. Not for Zuckerberg’s sake, but for Facebook’s sake. We want Facebook to overcome all obstacles. We're rooting for Facebook.

The movie is a trip back to college. A snapshot into the geeky world of website programming, with creators who lord their intelligence over others, who get groupies, who party on the way to billionaire status. Who wouldn't want to come along for that ride? We're connecting with Facebook.

In reality, we all want to see where Facebook is going. We all want to participate in the evolution of this connecting phenomenon. And the movie is just another way to participate. This is why it succeeds.

This is the absent-minded genius of the Social Network filmmakers. In foolishly failing to give Zuckerberg a resolution at the end, the movie becomes about Facebook.

It becomes about us. It feels like our story.