When a peaceful political activist meets a mysterious supporter, he resolves to violence to accomplish his goals.
Alan SmitheePenpusher
When a peaceful political activist meets a mysterious supporter, he resolves to violence to accomplish his goals.
Share
Alas,, the mysterious supporter is too mysterious –and vague– to make for? a credible inciting incident.? By credible, I mean? the meeting fails to provide a logical explanation, a clear cause and effect as to why a single encounter triggers the activist to do a complete about face, to jettison his non-violent methods, and suddenly resort to violence.
Also “accomplish his goals’ is vague and general.? There needs to be a clear statement of a specific objective goal.? What? exactly does the activist want to do, to accomplish?
And who opposes him?? What is the major source of conflict in the story?
Saosci:
Here’s my concern:
Drama works best when it takes the escalator, tension and conflict rising in sequence, one floor at a time.? The protagonist tries something; he’s blocked and defeated.? So he goes up one floor which entails more effort, risk — and creates more tension and conflict.? ?And gets in more trouble and blocked from his objective goal again.
?So up he goes to another floor… and then another… finally reaching the top floor — the maximum level of conflict and tension in the story in the 3rd Act, the climax where the dramatic conflict has to be resolved one way or another.
But your story seems to take the elevator, goes from the ground floor to the top floor in one beat!
What happened to the ballot box, the franchise option?? Like getting the mayor recalled. Or running against him?
And another thing:
An Inviolate Rule is implicit in your character’s political m.o. at the start of the story.? That rule is: use non-violent means to obtain political objectives.? It is not psychologically credible in reel life (or in real life) for a main character to toss overboard an Inviolate Rule in a single beat, because of a single provocation (say, at the end of Act 1).? In drama , a character will only abandon an Inviolate Rule after all other options have been exhausted, when there is no other choice left.
Further, since your character is opting out of his pacifist convictions in favor of violence, you need to bring the audience along, emotionally justify his abandoning his principles.? (And violating the principles of the audience, most of whom are not going to instantly, immediately subscribe to violence for any reason.)
And that takes time, like at least 60 minutes in a feature film.
Take the movie “The Candidate” (1972).? At the start of the movie, the Robert Redford character’s Inviolate Rule is that he won’t sell out his character and principles; he won’t? play the political game his consultant wants him to play to win the senatorial election.? But step by step, escalator by escalator, floor by floor, he’s arrives at the top floor in a dramatic dilemma where he finally breaks his Inviolate Rule.
What makes the film so compelling is not the act of breaking of his Inviolate Rule but the HOW, the process by which he makes little compromises that add up to a sell out of his principles, the corruption of his character.
fwiw
Good notes by DPG.
It seems as if the MC needs to be pushed into a corner so as to make him need to cross his ethical lines – make him an offer he can’t refuse…
Consider Kevin Costner’s character, Eliot Ness, from The Untouchables. His mentor tries to explain to him that he can’t think like a cop and abide by the rules if he wants to catch the bad guys. Eliot ignores this advice and sticks to his code anyway, which of course results in a miserable failure. Only after the bad guys threaten his family, and the mentor,?with his dying breath, repeats his advise – What are you willing to do? Eliot crosses the line he was so reluctant to before.
Point is, you need to build a case for the MC to change so drasticlly. This is your moral dilemma that causes a dramatic conflict within the character, it needs to be a big deal for the character not just an easy stepping stone along the way to achieving his goal.
“Point is, you need to build a case for the MC to change so drastically. This is your moral dilemma that causes a dramatic conflict within the character, it needs to be a big deal for the character not just an easy stepping stone along the way to achieving his goal.” Yes, this should occur over time.
“An Inviolate Rule is implicit in your character?s political m.o. at the start of the story.? That rule is: use non-violent means to obtain political objectives.” I agree, otherwise you have Black Panthers/BLM violent political atrocities that are orchestrated behind the scenes and usually based on emotional conclusions instead of logical ones.
The reverse is ironical. Kinda like an assassin/sniper having to resort to verbal judo to accomplish the task. He is out of his element and it makes for a great challenge. Audiences wants to see the action when “entering a movie”. I mean, in everyday life we use non-violent methods to achieve our goals. In the movies, we get to experience the violent version without the consequences of the actions. It’s way more satisfying that way.
You gonna wait almost 2 hrs for the sniper to shoot the antagonist only to have him talk his way out of the situation peacefully? No thanks.