Indicted, tried, and convicted: Violence in Western culture as crucified in Natural Born Killers through its public execution. Take “execution,” two ways, as NBK kills violence by carrying it to an extreme. Amend “violence IN Western culture,” to read, “violence AS Western culture.” The message of Natural Born Killers is not that violence is engendered by the system or even that violence is inherent in the system, but that violence IS the system. In such a society where violence is the stock and trade, natural born killers rise to the top. In fact, they are destined to rule as royalty, natural born.

The message of NBK is clear. So clear that we focus our attention upon it, just as we watch a magician’s right hand while his left is palming the ball. Virtually all the media talk in articles and reviews has been riveted to the issue of violence. Meanwhile, Oliver Stone is performing his magic behind the smoke and mirrors. His intent? To make us more sensitized to the violence in our everyday lives so that we might question its validity. His method? A brilliant form of propaganda. And that is the focus of this article: how he did it and how you can too.

Unless you walked out of the show when it first began because it antagonized certain sensibilities regarding carnage and mayhem, you were first appalled by the graphic nature of the crimes and then intrigued with the black comedy that sets it in a completely different context. You might sit there, wondering, “I think this is deplorable. I should just stop watching.” Then, scene after scene, Stone twists it all around into a cosmic joke and you find yourself amazed that you are laughing. “I should stop watching, but I’ve never seen anything from this point of view before.”

By the time the story is halfway through, you have almost forgotten to look at the violence per se and have become much more interested in looking for the humor. If that is where the story left us, we would merely have been desensitized to even higher levels of violence than we are already. Our tolerance levels would have increased to some degree. There is no good or bad in a system that is inherently evil. From inside the system there is no way to evaluate intrinsics. That is why midway through the film we are presented an alternative paradigm in the form of Red Cloud, the Native American. Just as we are becoming settled into accepting the violence as a necessary component of the humor, Red Cloud illustrates a larger context in which another culture exists that is not made of violence. Suddenly, we can see good and evil. Suddenly, we have stepped out of Western culture to see it for what it is, objectively rather than subjectively.

Now we are assaulted full tilt with the media connection through shots of sheepish audiences in front of the television sets vicariously drinking up the blood of their own kind drawn by broadcast wolves. Again, smoke and mirrors that make us question our own role in sitting in the theater watching NBK. Still, the only characters who are worthy of succeeding are Micky and Mallory. Everyone else is tainted with some degree of restraint. Everyone else is less than pure. In the pecking order that is the Western culture, only the natural born killers have a right to sit at the top of the food chain: cannibalistic christs at the head of the smorgasbord table, “Drink, this is your blood… Eat, this is your body.”

Unlike the first half of the story in which we find ourselves placated into accepting the violence, now we find ourselves ever more sensitized to it with every horrendous event. Instead of finding the humor and forgetting the means, we take note of our desire to root for the root of all evil and rebel against the seeds we find within us.

By the end of the story, we cannot help but be disturbed that we wanted the wantonly vicious to succeed. And that is where the propaganda takes hold. Because Stone has been so successful in sucking us in to the Super Bowl of violence, then turned the tables and made us question the rules of his game, we become so focused on the film itself that we are not aware how many times we are helpless but to think of it while watching Saturday morning cartoons with our kids. Every time a news program airs, we note the gleam in the eyes of the anchor reporting atrocities in a foreign land. We see these things and think of NBK, drawing comparisons. But the propaganda is not that we consciously ponder this connection with the overt message of the film, but that we take time to think about it at all. We are focusing on the actual connection, unaware that Stone’s amazingly powerful propaganda statement has changed us in a way that prevents us from simply not seeing the violence at all.

The two concepts are closely allied: consciously considering the violence in the media versus not even thinking to consider it. The first is our focus. The second is what makes us focus.

If Oliver Stone had merely intended to create an homage to ultra-violence he would have never brought in Red Cloud. Yet, as the film stands, it clearly snookers us into being deprogrammed from our stupor and sensitized to violence we had become accustomed to and would otherwise unconsciously ignore.

How did he do that? How can we use the same techniques to further our own pet cause as writers? To understand we must examine both the structure and dynamics of Natural Born Killers and how they were transmitted to the audience through storytelling techniques.

Structurally, NBK describes three Western worlds, populated by four principal characters. The “real” world is home to Wayne Gale, the TV “journalist.” All of his scenes are presented in the most realistic film making techniques. Unusual editing keeps his scenes consistent with the flavor of the film as a whole, but they are external manipulations of his reality, not presented as part of its makeup. Wayne Gale starts out fully in the “real” world and gradually evolves into the world of the natural born killers, becoming a killer himself, though not natural born. This is indicated as the scenes in which he participates become more and more internally bizarre, not only in action but in lighting, camera angles, film stock and eventually special effects as his face distorts like Micky’s. So Wayne has made the transition from the structured world to the dynamic.

In contrast, Scagnetti, the police detective, has always had a foot in each world. He has straddled the line all of his life. Like a half breed, he is not quite natural born, but still not domesticated enough to be unaffected by the smell of blood. His world is presented as a half and half mix of structural reality and dynamic transformation. Before he ever meets up with Micky and Mallory, he kills a young woman for the thrill. But that is where he proves himself not to be natural born. Those who are the Western Royalty get no thrill from killing: its just what they do. As Red Cloud put it, “Stupid lady, you knew I was a snake!”

The filmic storytelling of Scagnetti’s scenes reflect the dichotomy of his nature. Although his world is never as distorted as Micky and Mallory’s, it is never quite as real as Gale’s either. As an example, when Scagnetti investigates the murder scene where Mallory has killed the gas station attendant, the blood pooled behind the boy’s head is initially blue. Moments later, seen again the blood is red. This same juxtaposition of imagery is evident as Scagnetti examines the smudges on the shiny hood of the sports car where Mallory seduced the boy. He sees the reality of the evidence just as his associates do, but he also actually sees Mallory, reflected in the metal as if she were still there, reenacting the crime.

The third world belongs to both Micky and Mallory. They share the magic, but from two different approaches. Micky is a do-er, physically making over his world to his liking. In contrast, Mallory is a be-er: she effects change by altering her perception. When we flashback to experience the moment when Micky and Mallory met, we see Mallory’s family through her perceptions of them. There is no reality at all in her imagery. Although thrown into a bizarre, sitcom context, the vicious, lechery of her father and the distracted helplessness of her mother are still clearly delineated. We see nothing of her family in anything but her abstract remodeling. Her world is wholly non-real.

Micky has something to learn from Mallory: how to adjust his perceptions to change the nature of personal reality. Mallory has something to learn from Micky: how to alter her environment rather than just reconfigure it. Because of their different approaches, each sees only part of the picture, even while they are born to the magic. Together, however, they are unstoppable, as they control the entire violent world. This is brought home by their success in evading capture until they are separated at the drug store. Alone, they are vulnerable. When they are once again reunited in prison, their ultimate triumph is unavoidable, as long as they remain joined.

This arrangement serves to make the one faulty line of dialog between them stand out like a sore thumb. In their first meeting scene, Micky asks Mallory, “Do you always dress like that or did you do it for me?” She replies, “How could I do it for you if I didn’t know you were coming?” This would lead us to believe that somehow Micky has brought the magic to her and that she did not possess it before. But the manner in which she distorted her family clearly indicates the opposite. To be more true to the scenario of her own magic, her reply might better have been, “How much meat do you have in that bag?,” by which she doesn’t even acknowledge the question, thereby sidestepping the whole issue.

In the end, both Gale’s and Scagnetti’s worlds are tested against Micky and Mallory’s and found to be wanting. Gale is impure. Although he has become a killer, he is not natural born. Therefore, Gale might be at the top of the food chain except in the presence of the True Royalty of Western Civilization. Micky is the inquisitor who finds Gale lacking.

In parallel is the earlier scene in which Scagnetti visits Mallory in her cell. This is the only false moment in the thematic flow of the message. Scagnetti has verbalized his pride at having actually killed someone. Through Mallory, he seeks purification so that he can divest himself of the reality ties that bind, and transform himself completely into a genetic predator. As Earth Mother of this cold natural order, Mallory has it within her power to grant this supplicant his request. She can take him into her womb and give him rebirth as a truly natural born killer. Unfortunately, the rebirthing concept got lost in the sexual dynamics. Rather than making it apparent that Mallory understood her power and chose to withhold it, the idea got lost in parody of adolescent date rape. In this way, the scene lost much of its mystical power and Mallory lost much of her mythic aura.

These three worlds, inhabited by the four principal characters define the perspectives of the story. From a Dramatica perspective, Micky is the Main Character (Physics Class) or first person singular perspective, I. We experience the story primarily through him, which is a standard approach to exploring that view. Similarly, Gale is the Obstacle Character (Psychology Class), identified as the second person singular perspective, YOU. He is always talking about Micky, talking TO Micky, saying “you this” and “you that.” Micky responds in the interview scene saying to Gale, “you this” and “you that.” Comparatives often occur between the Main and Obstacle characters and NBK is no exception. Micky tells Gale, “We’re really just doing the same thing, we’re really alike, you and I.” Gale angrily retorts that they are quite different. However, through the unfolding of events the point is made that not only were these two characters alike in attitude, Gale eventually proves they are alike in deed as well. Gale changes, actually transforms, and Micky remains steadfast, accepting no substitutes, killing Gale as a pretender to the throne.

In unusual storytelling, the remaining two Dramatica Domains are personified, rather than played out. Scagnetti is the Subjective story incarnate (Mind Class), trapped between Gale’s structure and Micky’s dynamics. The Subjective Story can be seen in terms of the first person plural perspective, WE. Scagnetti is the battleground upon which the battle between the two worlds is waged. Even his book, entitled “Scagnetti on Scagnetti,” further reveals the dichotomy in Scagnetti’s nature. Mallory, on the other hand, is the Objective story (Universe Class) identified as the third person perspective, SHE (or THEY). She represents the actual reality of the story, the true magic that has no base in physicality per se, but the point of view from which all valid meaning is derived.

Consistent with the characterization of storylines is the use of on screen dynamics in the symbology of the film. Normally, storytelling is accomplished by having the audience look at the dramatic potentials of a story and then figure out the dynamics that drive them by watching the potential rearrange and reorder themselves, indicating the forces that have moved them. In the end, enough movements have been documented, scene by scene to draw conclusions as to the dynamic environment that holds the message of the story.

In NBK, however, even the dynamics are portrayed right up front for all to see. Changes in film stock, which have no valid internal story impact still serve to connect otherwise disassociated pieces of the drama. Another approach creates comparisons between items of similar or dissimilar shape or color to draw connections. A notable use of this technique is in the opening diner scene in which a cut between the green of Micky’s Key lime pie is matched to the green of the jukebox near which Mallory is dancing. Similar colors, similar outlooks, green and green, she is as he is, etc. Third is the use of special effects, such as the face distortion that draws connections at yet another level. And finally, is the editorial technique itself, such as repeating action or editing between two incompatible renderings of a single event.

The last is the most objective approach, imposing its impact from outside the story. The special effects like distortion are the Main Character equivalent, as they are only seen by the audience experientially from the most personal of views. The Subjective perspective is carried through the comparisons of color or shape, and the Obstacle view is presented through the changes in film stock and style, which reflect our perceptions back to us in warped mockery: alternative truths. All of the hidden dynamics are made visible, putting the whole film on trial because there is nowhere left for the audience to hide themselves within the story. The context expands to the real world and we are presented with a fun house mirror, leaving us to ask ourselves, “Is it warped, or are we?”

And that is the nature of the propaganda techniques in this story. First it suckers you in. Then, midway, it throws it all into a different context forcing us to reevaluate ourselves. Finally, it leaves us so focused on the violence that we observed, and confused by our reaction to it that we have effectively become deprogrammed and re-sensitized to violence without ever being aware that we had changed.

Many of us may be resistant to the idea that we can be changed by a work in ways of which we are not aware. But this article itself has been modeled after the structural dynamics of Natural Born Killers. It begins with a discussion of violence of the piece, and suckers you into looking at the mechanisms of the story. Then it turns the tables midway and diverts the issue to describing how propaganda works, forcing us to focus on that methodology. If it were to end as the film did, it would have concluded with the paragraph above, and everyone who read this article would be unaware they had been changed. How changed? Well, the issue of the morality of using propaganda techniques was never brought up. It was left out intentionally. So if we had not drawn attention to the structure of our own propaganda, that missing aspect would naturally be filled in by the mind of each reader whenever they noticed propaganda in the future. It is an essential question to be answered: is this kind of manipulation moral, even if it is for a good cause?

By bringing this all out in the open, it diffuses the power of our propaganda statement. It takes the force of it from the subconscious and elevates it to conscious consideration where it can easily be disposed of by our readers. We really did not want to impact anyone in a propagandistic manner. Our intent is only to objectively describe some of the techniques by which it can and has been employed, then subjectively illustrate its power by using those very same techniques. As a result, you all now possess some tools, which if used will make both you and your indicted subject Guilty as Charged.

Jack of all trades, master of none. Sometimes a story just tries to do too much. Often when creating a work, an author will be inspired by a bit of action, a particular character or an interesting theme. Unfortunately, these may not all belong in the same story. A good solution is to choose which of these opposing creative directions one wishes to follow and put the others in cold storage for later. Another approach is to fully develop each of the incompatible concepts as a separate story within the work so that each is internally complete and externally consistent with the others. A regrettable approach is to try and make one story out of the beginnings of several. Rather than having each inspired concept add to the overall impact of the work, they detract from the gestalt, appearing not as creative assets but True Liabilities.

In the attempt to meld too many incompatible creative inspirations into a single story, True Lies ends up fragmented, schizophrenic, and unfocused. Worst of all, because each piece had such potential to develop into a complete story of its own, seeing them incomplete and stunted leaves the audience unfulfilled and frustrated. If we can identify the fragments and conjecture as to how they might have been developed independently, we can apply these techniques in making our own works more consistent.

True Lies embodies three potentially unconnected stories about three characters; Harry, an undercover spy; Helen, his unsuspecting wife; and Dana, their neglected daughter. Story number one involves Harry, who suspects his wife of having an affair and seeks to discover if she still loves him. After eavesdropping on her conversation, Harry is shaken and tells his partner, Gil of his suspicions.

HARRY

Helen…Helen…is… having an affair.

GIL

Hey, Harry. Listen, Helen still loves you, you know. She just wants to bang this guy for a while. It’s nothing serious…you’ll get used to it.

Story number two is about a housewife who discovers that her husband has been lying to her for seventeen years, loses her trust in him, and must decide if she will trust him again. Harry and Helen are kidnapped by the terrorists and Harry is forced to tell the truth about his secret life, and face the consequences with Helen.

HARRY

What can I say? I am a spy.

HELEN

You bastard! Lying, son of a bitch!

HARRY

Sorry, honey…

HELEN

Oh, don’t you call me honey! You don’t ever get to call me honey, again. You understand me? You pig!!

Story number three is about a man who doesn’t pay enough attention to his daughter, so she comes to believe that she is unimportant to him and the man must try to prove to his daughter that he truly cares. Returning from a mission, Harry is insensitive to the fact that he should have bought something to bring home to his daughter. Luckily, his partner Gil remembered and saves the day.

GIL

I’ve got a…souvenir Swiss Snowy Village.

HARRY

What’s that for?

GIL

For Dana, stupe! You know, bring your kid home a gift. You know…the dad thing.

HARRY

Right, got it…nice touch.

Notice that the first and third stories focus on the man as the main character, while in story number two the main character is the wife. This is the first problem created by the multiple stories in True Lies: there is no consistent main character, yet the filmmakers forced it to have one. In other words, the story dealing with the wife’s lost trust in her husband should have been told from her perspective to be consistent with the dramatic potentials of that story. However, the filmmakers chose to tell the story from her husband’s point of view and thereby placed the audience in the uncomfortable position of wanting to see the story from her side, yet forced to look at her (themselves) from the outside. This pulls the audience right out of the passionate argument and robs that story of its heart.

It is this misplaced perspective that makes Harry seem to be a voyeur in the stripping scene and steals the meaning of their time together on the island, right up to his final rescue of her from the runaway limo on the bridge. In spite of this weakness in perspective, there must be some consistency that strings the three stories together or the film would not have worked at all. This consistency is the Objective Story. Every story has an Objective (or plot-oriented) side and a Subjective (or character-oriented) side. The three stories mentioned above are all Subjective in nature. The consistency in True lies is the Objective story about the terrorist threat, which spans all three. So, even though the entire middle of the film is told through the wrong character’s eyes, the Objective story of terrorism strings them all together. How could this disjointed subjective side of True Lies have been fixed? There are two easy options: turn two of the partially developed subjective stories into subplots of the primary subjective story or lose the two least powerful stories altogether. Let’s explore each option.

Losing two of the stories is certainly the easiest (though it may not be acceptable to filmmakers who insist on incorporating every good idea they have, whether it belongs in a film or not). If we take a look at where each of the three stories begins and where each segues into the next, we can perform a hypothetical amputation and see if the patient is healthier for it.

The opening teaser is just that: a teaser. All of Harry’s shenanigans boil down to backstory exposition that he is a successful, dashing spy. Other than that, there is not a single bit of information that isn’t brought out later, including the relationships among the members of Harry’s team. It is important to recognize the difference between a dramatic storyform and dramatic storytelling. The chase scene at the end of the teaser is exciting and well-told, but it doesn’t add to our understanding of the characters or their personal problems, and also offers precious little to our knowledge of the terrorist plot.

Liability #1

After the teaser, Harry goes home to his family and a “normal” life. Here we get our first glimpse of the beginning of the third story about the neglected daughter, Dana. But this story is so thin as to be almost not there. Dana dumps her father’s proxy gift in the wastebasket and takes some cash from his partner’s jacket. Aside from stirring a cake, she is barely involved in the movie until the Harrier sequence. Her story concludes with a visually stunning Harrier rescue, yet how can we care about her when we hardly know her? Still, at least the point is made that Harry doesn’t know his daughter any better than we do.

GIL

You know, it’s not just because you’re a bad parent, I mean, kids, today, are ten years ahead of where we were at the same age. Hey, you think she’s still a virgin?

HARRY

Don’t be ridiculous, she’s only… What is she now?

GIL

She’s 14 Harry!

HARRY

She’s only 14 years old.

Harry’s partner, Gill, seems to know much much more about Harry’s daughter. We see no more than a superficial exploration of the relationship between Harry and Dana. The daughter as an essential character to the story’s solution or resolution seems quite invalid. We could easily dispose of her, and never miss her. Since we are first talking about cutting out two of the stories and later exploring ways to integrate them, let’s just have the happy couple be childless and lop off the harrier sequence at the end.

What?!? Lose all that wonderful Harrier CGI?!? Yep. Car crashes and high-tech planes are a dime a dozen as action fodder. If you don’t care about the people involved, you might as well go to the demolition derby. But how would we eliminate the villain if not by Harrier? How about by helicopter? Instead of landing for the Big Nuke, Harry could have just stayed on the copter, caught up to the villain and blown him out of the sky. THEN he lands and kisses his wife while the bomb goes off in the background.

Of course, rescuing the daughter was supposed to resolve her belief that her father didn’t care about her. But did it really do that? The only clue we have is that just before Harry and Helen (his wife) are called out on assignment from their dinner table, Dana is sitting there all clean cut. Somehow shifting from grunge to debutante “one year later” is to serve as author’s proof that she now understands that her father cares for her.

But what about Harry and the Harrier as he calls up to his daughter, “Trust me.”? What about it? The issue was never whether Dana trusted him. That was Helen’s issue. Dana just didn’t think he cared. We don’t get that from his showing up in a plane like Captain America and telling her to trust him. Presumably, the shock of seeing your computer salesman dad in a Harrier might just overshadow that event as single-handedly proving that he cares. So, we lose Dana’s story and along with it, unfortunately, some exceptional CGI.

Liability #2

Now we have the “man who thinks his wife is cheating” story to dispose of. This story is developed better than the daughter’s. Here, at least, we have some real emotion. Harry loves Helen, but does Helen still love Harry? From the look of things, no. He eavesdrops on a single conversation she has on the phone and is immediately convinced she is having an affair.

SIMON

Helen, it’s Simon. Is it safe to talk?

HELEN

Yes.

SIMON

Listen, I can’t talk long…Can you meet me for lunch tomorrow? I must to see you.

HELEN

I suppose so. Where?

SIMON

Same place. 1:00 o’clock. I have to go now. See you tomorrow. Remember, I need you.

Well, the overtones there were rather good, so we buy his conviction. He investigates, puts her in situations that force her to lie, and ultimately frightens and browbeats her in a high-tech sweat session. This story starts VERY well . . . and it develops well . . . and then it doesn’t end when it should. In the interrogation scene, Harry comes to realize Helen is telling the truth about not having or even intending to have an affair. He almost becomes a human character when he starts to feel saddened and guilty for his lack of trust in her when he has been lying to her all these years. Helen admits that she has been tempted toward the excitement of the moment, but never to have an affair.

HELEN

I needed to feel alive. I just wanted to do something outrageous, and it felt really good to be needed, and to be trusted, and to be special. It’s just that there is so much I wanted to do with this life, and it’s like I haven’t done any of it, and the sand’s running out of the sand glass, and I just wanted to be able to look back and say:

“See, I did that. I was reckless and wild and I fucking did it.” Quite frankly, I don’t give a shit if you understand that or not!

She beats on the window and Harry is shamed. Still he puts the question to her:

HARRY

Do you love your husband?

HELEN

Yes, I love him. I’ve always loved him, and I will always love him.

That’s when he should have come out of the control room, embraced her and begged her forgiveness. She is angry, she is hurt, but he is genuinely repentive. Does she love him even after this or has he lost her forever with his lack of trust? Dissolve to “one year later” at the party scene and we see the two of them tangoing together. She has forgiven him, he has learned his lesson, and she gets her excitement. Happy ending, the party bookends the story.

In True Lies the story doesn’t end there. Harry doesn’t reveal himself. Rather than asking her forgiveness for all he has already done to her, he inflicts further emotional stress by making Helen believe her family is in danger.

HARRY
(to Gil)

She wants a little adventure, so I’m going to give her one.

(to Helen)

I’m offering you a choice. If you work for us, we will drop the charges and you can go back to your normal life, if not, you will go to federal prison, and your husband and daughter will be left waiting and alone. Your life will be destroyed.

*****

More lies. Nothing learned. Then, he manipulates her, and humiliates her while he watches like a lecher. Not an admirable character. Oh, sure, she beats him on the head before she knows who he is. Wouldn’t it have been better under the circumstances if she beat the tar out of him after she recognized him? But all this is swept under the carpet by the Objective story when the terrorists kidnap them both from the room. That’s no way to resolve a Subjective problem!
Which brings up the question of where that particular problem DOES resolve. In fact, it never does. There is never a scene in which Helen forgives Harry or in which he asks forgiveness. They just sort of come out of it like two people who have been married a long time, have a spat, and it just blows over. But you sure don’t find romance in a party scene stemming from a relationship like that! We needed to see this one resolve. Since we didn’t and since the Objective story wanted to focus more on the terrorists, let’s axe this story as well.

What does that leave us with? An opening scene in which a spy does spy things. Harry comes home to his “normal” family who don’t know. He is “marked” by the villain. Terrorists break into his house, take him and his wife hostage. Helen is shocked to find that Harry has been lying to her and doesn’t want anything to do with him. She won’t trust anything he says. On the island, he is given truth serum. She learns that he really does love her. When it wears off, he starts grandstanding to win her back. He tells a few white lies to make himself look better in her eyes and gets caught in the fibs. Now she REALLY doesn’t trust him. She won’t believe anything he says, which puts a big crimp in his ability to get them safely off the island and stop the terrorists.
Helen ends up in the runaway limo on the bridge. Harry catches up by helicopter. He yells to her that the bridge is out, but she can’t see it behind the fire and believes he is still grandstanding to win her back. No matter what he says, she doesn’t believe him and time is running out. Finally, Harry tells her that if he is lying now, then she must believe he never loved her. She makes a leap of faith, hoping that his love is enough to make him truthful. In fact, it is a literal leap of faith, as she takes his grip just in time to be pulled from the limo before in crashes off the collapsed bridge. Author’s proof, she made the right choice. They land, they kiss, (bomb goes off), the end, no party scene.

But we cut out so much! True, but the film would have felt so much better! Still, its a shame to lose so many good storytelling concepts. If we could find a way to complete each story internally and then bring them all together in a single film, we might be able to have our cake and eat it too. How might we complete, then combine them to cater to their strengths and compensate for their weaknesses?

Turning Liabilities into Assets

Let’s open with the party scene. Just for kicks, lets see something at the party or the computer room that hints at the nuclear connection. Harry goes home to his “normal” family life. We learn that his daughter believes he doesn’t care “because you’re never there.” Dana has to say this at least once. We need a scene with her, not just a moment when she gets the gift. She goes off with the boyfriend and Harry sees and HEARS her with the hidden camera as her boyfriend tells her, “You sure your dad won’t mind you going?” Dana replies, “He doesn’t care about anything I do. Sometimes I feel like I don’t even have a dad.” Well, maybe the dialog is clunky, but you get the idea: we set it up that Harry is never there for her when she needs him.

Now, the “affair” proceeds as it was filmed. But when we come to the interrogation scene, Jamie makes more of a point about how her life is so boring. (We could foreshadow and support this in the office scene earlier when she got the call from the used car salesman). Harry breaks down, feeling shamed. His buddy tells him to go in and ask her forgiveness. He says he can’t because she’ll never trust him again. He believes he’ll lose her. Harry still can’t tell the truth. Instead, he decides to lie even more in an attempt to win her back.

GIL

What are you doing Harry??

HARRY

Just giving her a little assignment.

GIL

You got to be shittin’ me!?!

Harry decides to set it all up, trying to give her what she fantasizes about and winning her back in the process. (Sure, its self-serving to the male audience, but that’s the intended audience, after all.) But when Helen goes up to the room, humiliates herself and finds out it is Harry, she lambastes him with the phone. Before the issue between them can be resolved, the terrorists show up and take them away.

Harry and Helen end up on the island as described above where she is sure he loves her but still he lies to win her back. Her lack of trust hinders his ability to get them safely off the island. Helen ends up in the limo, makes the leap of faith (after all, for the intended audience the woman has to be the one to change), they land, kiss, nuclear bomb, and then they get the word that Dana has been taken.

We cut to the terrorists holding Dana. We need the villain to tell her she is bait to lure her father. She tells him that her dad won’t come: he doesn’t care about her at all. Again, she HAS to say this at least once. NOW, we have all the elements in place for her to be surprised not only by her daddy in a Harrier, but that it is HER DADDY. Harry’s line is not “trust me”, but “I love you.” And that is when Dana jumps because she knows her daddy will catch her.

One year later, the happy family, the phone call, the party bookend, and just before the tango, Harry picks up something for his daughter as a souvenir. He says, “This is for Dana, she loves unicorns,” letting us know that he has come to care enough about his daughter to know her special likes. Then the tango, roll credits, happy ending.

The interesting thing about this minor rewrite is that it would have added nothing to the budget. All that was required was a minute or two of new film in existing locations with existing cast and a few additional lines of dialog. Yet, with that little effort, rather than being true liabilities, the “three unsuccessful stories” could have gotten this film’s storyforming assets in gear. And that’s no lie.

Jurassic Park is wonderfully entertaining. The concepts are intriguing, the visuals stunning. Everything it does, it does well. Unfortunately, it doesn’t do enough. There are parts missing, little bits of story DNA that are needed to complete the chain. To be fair, these problems largely result from the mostly faithful adherence to the dramatic structure and dynamics of the book upon which the movie is based.

Storyform, the structure and dynamics of a story, is not medium dependent. What works in one medium will work in all others. Storytelling, however, must vary significantly to take advantage of the strengths and avoid the weaknesses inherent in any format. Jurassic Park makes this storytelling translation very well, but the flawed dramatics were nearly lifted intact, shackling the movie just like the book with a Pterodactyl hanging `round its neck.

Yet criticisms are a dime a dozen. Suggestions for improvement are much more rare. Fortunately that is the strong suit of the Dramatica theory. Here is one plan for building a better dinosaur.

Dramatica Background

As a starting point, Dramatica denotes a difference between a Tale and a Story. A Tale describes a series of events that lead to success or failure. It carries the message that a particular way of going about solving the problem is or is not a good one. But a Story is an argument that there is only one right way to solve a problem. It is a much more potent form that seeks to have the audience accept the author’s conclusions.

To gain an audience’s acceptance, an argument (Story) must appeal to both logic and feeling. To make the logical part of this argument, all the inappropriate ways a problem might be approached need to be addressed and shown to fail. Each one must be given its due and shown not to work except the one touted by the author. This is accomplished by looking at the characters and the plot objectively, much like a general on a hill watching a battle down below. The big picture is very clear and the scope and ramifications of the individual soldiers can be seen in relationship to the entire field.

However, to make the emotional part of the argument, the audience must become involved in the story at a personal level. To this end, they are afforded a Subjective view of the story through the eyes of the Main Character. Here they get to participate in the battle as if they were actually one of the soldiers in the trenches. It is the differential between the Subjective view of the Main Character and the Objective view of the whole battle that generates dramatic tension from which the message of the story is created.

By comparing the two views, the argument is made to the audience that the Main Character must change to accommodate the big picture, or that the Main Character is on the right track and must hold on to their resolve if they hope to succeed. Of course, the Main Character cannot see the big picture, so they must make a leap of faith near the end of the story, deciding if they want to stick it out or change.

Now this relationship between the Main Character and the Objective story makes them a very special character. In fact, they hold the key to the whole battle. They are the crucial element in the dramatic web who (through action or inaction) can wrap the whole thing up or cause it to fall apart. As a result, the personal problems they face reflect the nature of the Objective problem of the story at large.

To the audience there are two problems in a story. One is the Objective problem that everyone is concerned with; the other is the Subjective problem that the Main Character is personally concerned with. Although the problems may be greatly different in the way they are manifest, they both hinge on the crucial element in the Main Character as their common root. So, to be a complete argument a story must explore an Objective AND a Subjective problem, and show how they are both related to the same source.

Jurassic Park Analysis:

Jurassic Park attempts to be a story (not a tale) but does not make it because its exploration of the Subjective problem is lacking.

The Objective problem is clearly shown to be caused by the relationship of Order to Chaos. The message of the logical side of the argument is that the more you try to control something, the more you actually open yourself up to the effects of chaos. As Princess Leia put it to the Gran Mof Tarkin in Star Wars, “The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”

Since Order is actually the problem, the Chaos must be the solution. This is vaguely alluded to in Jurassic Park when the Tyrannosaurus wipes out the Raptors, unknowingly saving the humans. Although the point is not strongly stated, it is sort of there. We will come back to this point later to show how it should have been a much more dramatically integral event than it was. The important concept at the moment is that as far as it goes, the Objective Storyline is fairly close to what it should be, which is true of most action-oriented stories.

It is the Subjective Storyline that fails to fulfill its dramatic mandate in Jurassic Park. To see how we must go back to the very beginning of the film, to our Main Character, Dr. Alan Grant. Since Dr. Grant contains the crucial element, we would expect him to intersect the Objective Story’s problem by representing Order or Chaos. Clearly the author intended him to represent Order. This means that he contains the Problem element (the inappropriate attitude or approach that is the underlying source of the Story’s troubles), rather than the Solution Element, and as such must Change in order to succeed.

The entire first scene with Grant at the dig should have illustrated his love of Order. All the elements were there: a disruptive boy, a randomly sensitive computer, a helicopter that comes out of nowhere and ruins the dig. All of these things could have illustrated Grant’s hatred of Chaos and his quest for Order. Using the same events and incidents the point might have been made in any number of ways, the easiest being a simple comment by Dr. Grant himself.

Unfortunately without any direct allusion to Order being his primary concern, Dr. Grant comes off simply as finding disruptions inconvenient, faulty equipment annoying, and kids as both.

Why is it so important to set up the nature of the problem so early? Well, one of the major problems with the Jurassic Park storyform is that we really don’t know what the problem is until near the end of the first act. Certainly almost every movie goer must have been aware that this was a picture about an island where they cloned dinosaurs back to life, and they run amok wreaking havoc – that’s all storytelling. But that doesn’t say why. The “Why” is the storyform: the excuse, if you will, for having a story to tell. If the point of contention had been established up front, the whole thrust of the picture would have been given direction from scene one.

Just stating that Dr. Grant shares the problem with the story is obviously not enough. The relationship between his view of the problem and the Objective view of the problem is what explores the concept, makes the argument, and allows the Main Character to grow. Ultimately, it is the differential between the two that brings a Changing (versus Steadfast) Main Character to suspect the error of their ways and make a positive leap of faith. They see the problem outside themselves, then find it inside themselves. They change the inside, and the outside follows suit.

What does this mean for Jurassic Park? As it is, Doctor Grant’s attitude toward John Hammond’s ability to control the dinosaurs is one of skepticism, but not because of Order, because of Chaos. Grant simply agrees with Ian Malcolm, the mathematician. This makes the same point from two directions. But Grant’s function is not to tout Chaos, but to favor Order. Only this point of view would be consistent with his feelings toward the children.

As illustrated in the table scene with Hammond, Ian, and Elissa, Grant jumps from representing his original approach to representing the opposite, neutralizing his effectiveness as owner of the crucial element and taking the wind out of the dramatic sails.

This problem could have been easily avoided and strong drama created by having Dr. Grant continue to believe that the park is unsafe, but for different reasons.

(Note: The following proposed scene is designed to illustrate how Grant’s and Ian’s positions on what is needed for the park to be safe is different. The storytelling is minimal so as not to distract from the storyforming argument.)

GRANT

How can you be sure your creations won’t escape?

HAMMOND

Each compound is completely encircled with electric fences.

GRANT

How many fences?

HAMMOND

Just one, but it is 10,000 volts.

GRANT

That’s not enough….

HAMMOND

I assure you, even a T-Rex respects 10,000 volts!

GRANT

No, I mean not enough fences. It’s been my experience that Dr. Malcom is right. You can’t count on things going the way you expect them. You need back-ups to your back-ups. Leave a soft spot and Chaos will find it. Put three fences around each compound, each with a separate power source and then you can bring people in here.

MALCOLM

That’s not the point at all! Chaos will happen no matter how much you prepare. In fact, the more you try to control a situation, the greater the potential that chaos will bring the whole thing down.

******

In the above scene, Grant stresses the need for even MORE control than Hammond used. This clearly establishes his aversion to giving in to chaos. But Ian illustrates the difference in their points of view by stating that the greater the control you exercise, the more you tighten the spring of chaos.

What would this mean for the middle of the story? Plenty. Once Grant and the children are lost in the open with the thunder lizards, he might learn gradually that one must allow Chaos to reach an equilibrium with Order. Several close encounters with the dinos might result in minor successes and failures determined by applying Order or allowing Chaos.

As it stands, Dr. Grant simply learns to care about the children. But what has really changed in him? What did he learn? Would it not have been more dramatically pleasing to have the children teach him how chaos is not just a disruptive element, but sometimes an essential component of life? And would it not make sense for someone who has spent his whole life imagining the way dinosaurs lived to be surprised by the truth when he sees them in person? What a wonderful opportunity to show how the Orderly interactions he had imagined for his beloved beasts are anything but orderly in the real world. So many opportunities to teach him the value of Chaos, yet all we get is “They DO travel in herds… I was right!” Well, that line is a nice place to start, especially if you spend the rest of the story showing how wrong he was about everything else. Truly a good place to start growing from.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the Subjective Storyline is the manner in which they escape in the end. Grant and the kids are sealed in the control room, but the Raptors are right outside. The girl struggles to get the computer up so they can get the door locked. This of course, merely delays the Raptors until the helpless humans can escape into another Raptor attack. Then out of nowhere, T-Rex conveniently barges in, kills the Raptors and allows the humans to escape? Why? Why then? Was T-Rex just waiting in the wings for his cue?

Let’s describe one possible ending that would’ve tied in Chaos, Dr. Grant’s personal problem of order in the Subjective storyline, his growth as a character and eventual change, AND have all this force a successful outcome to the Objective storyline.

Imagine that earlier in the story, when the power went down it only affected some of the compounds, not all. So only some of the areas were open to the roving dinos. Rather than having Elissa get the power back on for the fences, she merely powers up the computer system, but then no one can boot it up.

Dr. Grant and the kids make it back to the control room, barely escaping the T-Rex who is trapped by one of the functional electric fences. They climb over the fence on a tree knocked down by the Tyrannosaurus. The Raptors are at the door of the control room, the girl goes to the computer to lock the door. She locks it, then tells Grant she can bring up the rest of the fences. There might be some kind of visual reminder in the room (such as a dino picture) that Grant (and the audience) associate with his major learning experience with the kids about needing to accept Chaos. Grant almost allows her to bring up the power, then yells for her to stop. He tells her not to bring it up, but to actually cut the power on all of the fences.

Just as before, the Raptors break in, the humans escape onto the dino skeletons. NOW, when T-Rex comes in to save the day, it is solely because of Dr. Grant’s decision to cut the power to the fence that was holding him in. Having learned his lesson about the benefits of Chaos and the folly of Order, he is a changed man. The author’s proof of this correct decision is their salvation courtesy of T-Rex.

Equilibrium is established on the island, Grant suddenly loves kids, he gets the girl, they escape with their lives, and all because the crucial element of Order connected both the Objective and Subjective storylines.

Certainly, Dramatica has many more suggestions for Building a Better Dinosaur, but, leapin’ lizards, don’t you think this is enough for one Constructive Criticism?

Learn more about Dramatica HERE

From Dramatica Unplugged

GOAL:

The Story Goal in Hamlet is Memory: Everyone wants to be comfortable with the memory of King Hamlet. Most wish to accomplish this by erasing the memory entirely, but Hamlet wants to keep it alive and painful.

The Story Goal in The Godfather is Obtaining: The Objective Story goal of the Godfather is for the Corleone family to reclaim their place of power and find a new “Godfather” to maintain this status.

REQUIREMENTS:

The Story Requirements in Hamlet are The Subconscious: Hamlet must get Claudius to expose his true nature, his lust for power and Gertrude, before anyone will believe Hamlet’s accusations.

The Story Requirements in The Godfather are Doing: In order for a new Don Corleone to regain his family’s former stature and power, he must do things which demonstrate his superiority in the rivalry among the New York families. This is accomplished with the hits on Barzini, Tessio, and Moe Green on the day Michael “settles all family business.”

CONSEQUENCES:

The Story Consequences in Hamlet are The Past: If the memory of King Hamlet is not allowed to rest, a repetition of the past murder will (and does) occur. King Claudius kills Hamlet to maintain his position as king.

The Story Consequences in The Godfather are Becoming: If the Corleone family fails to reclaim their power then they will be forced to become one of the secondary families in the New York crime scene, a fate which hasn’t been theirs for a very long time.

FOREWARNINGS:

The Story Forewarnings in Hamlet are Becoming: Hamlet starts becoming the crazy person he is pretending to be. This alerts everyone, including King Claudius who plots against Hamlet, that Hamlet will not let the memory of his father die peacefully.

The Story Forewarnings in The Godfather are Progress: When Don Corleone realizes that it was the Barzini family who had been orchestrating his downfall all along, the Barzini’s have already made quite a lot of progress towards becoming the new top family in New York. The progress of the loyalty of other families falling in line with Barzini threatens to cut off Michael’s chance to re-establish his family’s stature.

DIVIDENDS:

The Story Dividends in Hamlet are Conceptualizing: There is a general sense of creative freedom among the members of King Claudius’ court exemplified by Polonius’ advice to Laertes on how to take advantage of his trip abroad. Hamlet finds that suddenly many ordinary things can be used to help in his objective of manipulating the truth out of King Claudius, and he takes pleasure in them. The play becomes a trap, every discussion becomes an opportunity to investigate people’s true opinions. These are all dividends of the efforts made in this story.

The Story Dividends in The Godfather are The Future: The struggle in the world of organized crime over how drugs will be distributed is costly, but it lays the ground work for what will one day be their biggest money making industry. Michael’s choice of assassinations that make him New York’s new “Godfather” also ensures his family a safe move to Las Vegas in the future.

COSTS:

The Story Costs in Hamlet are Understanding: In Hamlet, understanding is seen as a high price to pay — sometimes too high. King Claudius comes to the understanding that Hamlet is on to him and won’t stop pushing until his father’s death is avenged; Ophelia comes to the understanding that Hamlet does not love her and is also responsible for her father’s death, so she loses her mind; Queen Gertrude comes to the understanding that her son is probably insane and her new husband is a murderer; etc.

The Story Costs in The Godfather are The Subconscious: As the struggle for power in New York’s underground continues, all of the people involved suffer emotional damage which hits them in their subconscious. For example, Tom’s pain over the fact that he is not really the Don’s son is exacerbated by the death of Sonny; Don Corleone suffers for the future of his family as his sons are killed or forced to become criminals like himself; Sonny is forced to suffer the insult of living with a brother-in-law who beats Sonny’s sister; the “Turk” is forced into a traumatic position when the Don is only wounded during a murder attempt; Kaye is forced to bury her suspicions that her husband is involved in organized crime.

PREREQUISITES:

The Prerequisites in Hamlet are The Future: Before Hamlet can begin the work of exposing Claudius, he must know when the appropriate people will be around so he can put his plans (such as the play) into place.

The Prerequisites in The Godfather are Being: Because Michael, the new candidate for the title of Don Corleone, had intended to avoid being in his family’s business, others are forced to temporarily fill in the vacancy left by his wounded father. Michael himself believes he is temporarily becoming involved with the Mafia up until the point when he has truly become the new “Godfather.”

PRECONDITIONS:

Preconditions in Hamlet are Obtaining: Hamlet needs hard evidence of his uncle’s murderous actions — his own preconditions are that he cannot allow himself to go on the word of the Ghost alone.

Preconditions in The Godfather are The Preconscious: In order for someone to be a good Don, they have to have the correct kinds of immediate responses. Sonny was “not a good Don,” because he was too hot-headed. A precondition, which Michael fulfills, is that he have the instincts to guide the family well. He demonstrates these when he has no frightened responses while protecting his father at the hospital and when he immediately insists on killing the “Turk” himself; once again when he accepts the news of Tessio’s betrayal without blinking an eye or betraying himself at any point through Preconscious reactions; etc. When Sonny’s hot-headed attempts to muscle the Corleone’s back to the top failed, it became apparent that there are preconditions set as to who could be the next “Godfather.” Only someone with a steel control over his Preconscious responses could be cool enough to successfully lead the Corleone family back to prominence.

From the Dramatica Theory Book

STORIES that have Approach of Be-er:

A Doll’s House: As a child in her father’s home, and as a wife in her husband’s home, Nora does everything in her power to adapt herself to her environment-even to the detriment of her self-esteem and peace of mind:

“It’s perfectly true, Torvald. When I was at home with Papa he told me his opinion about everything, and so I had the same opinions; and if I differed from him I concealed the fact, because he would not have liked it. He called me his doll child, and he played with me just as I used to play with my dolls. And when I came to live with you…I was simply transferred from Papa’s hands to yours. You arranged everything according to your taste, and so I got the same tastes as you-or else I pretended to.” (Ibsen, 1879, p. 195)

The Age of Innocence: Newland prefers to internalize his problems instead of resolving them externally. Rather than act to change May into a more enlightened wife, Newland internally acknowledges that she’ll never be an intellectual partner, and resigns himself to living within a boring marriage.

NARRATOR: Archer had gradually reverted to his old inherited ideas about marriage. It was less trouble to conform with tradition. There was no use trying to emancipate a wife who hadn’t the dimmest notion that she was not free.

Amadeus: Salieri prefers to deal with his world indirectly, internally. He manipulates his world. He waits years to get the job of First Kappelmeister. He is willing to flatter; to be self-deprecating. Even with Mozart, in his war with God, he prefers to manipulate those around him rather than challenge Mozart directly. When he has the opportunity to sleep with Constanze, he refuses, preferring to adapt to his new sense of his world. This harkens back to his statements that he always wanted to sleep with his pretty students, but because of his bargain with God, he had to be chaste.

Barefoot in the Park: Paul prefers to adapt himself to his environment:

Mother: I worry about you two. You’re so impulsive. You jump into life. Paul is like me. He looks first.

Corie scathingly remarks to Paul:

Corie: Do you know what you are? You’re a watcher. There are Watchers in this world and there are Do-ers. And the Watchers sit around watching the Do-ers do. Well, tonight you watched and I did.

Being There: Chance accepts any situation he finds himself in; he adapts himself to the environment:

“Chance did what he was told” (Kosinski, 1970, p. 7).

Blade Runner: When Deckard’s picked up by Gaff, he goes along rather than fight; Recruited by Bryant to blade run again, he adapts to the system that walks all over “little people”; When questioning Salome, he pretends to be a petty bureaucrat, fighting and killing her only as a last resort.

Bringing Up Baby: In the opening shot, David is sitting on a scaffold, in perfect imitation of Rodan’s famous “Thinker” sculpture. Although he does quite a bit of protesting, David rarely takes direct action to get what he wants. He quietly accepts Alice’s proclamation that they will have no children. He grudgingly goes along with Susan’s story that his name is David Bone and that he recently suffered a nervous breakdown. When Alice leaves, calling him a butterfly, he simply mutters to himself and lets her go.

Candida: As an example of James Morell’s approach as a be-er, when Eugene Marchbanks announces Candida is better off with himself rather than the clergyman, Morell accepts him as a threat instead of dismissing the poet’s youthful foolishness. He then puts the burden of settling the crisis upon Candida, avoiding handling the matter himself.

Casablanca: Rick allows his club to be an open house for a wide variety of patrons, from refugees to Nazis to Vichy French. Whichever way the political wind blows, Rick will bend with it.

The Client: When there are problems, Reggie prefers to internalize them over trying to resolve them externally. When her husband left, taking the kids, she became an alcoholic; to gain Marcus’ trust, she becomes motherly; when she is verbally attacked and accused of being an alcoholic, she swallows her hurt and doesn’t offer an explanation; when Marcus tries to hitchhike from her house, she waits for him inside; etc.

The Crucible: John would prefer to wait out a problem–hoping it will resolve itself–rather than to take immediate action. An example of this is when he first hears of the young girls in town making accusations of witchcraft:

Proctor: Oh, it is a black mischief.

Elizabeth: I think you must go to Salem, John. I think so. You must tell them it is a fraud.

Proctor: Aye, it is, surely.

Elizabeth: Let you go to Ezekiel Cheever–he knows you well. And tell him what she [Abigail] said to you last week in her uncle’s house. She said it had naught to do with witchcraft, did she not?

Proctor: (in thought) Aye she did, she did.

Elizabeth: God forbid you keep that from the court, John. I think they must be told.

Proctor: (quietly, struggling with his thought) Aye, they must, they must. . . .

Elizabeth: I would go to Salem now, John–let you go tonight.

Proctor: I’ll think on it.

Elizabeth: You cannot keep it, John.

Proctor: I know I cannot keep it. I say I will think on it! (Miller 53)

Four Weddings And A Funeral: Charles prefers to solve problems by changing his mind or adapting to a given situation rather than doing something about it. For example, Charles makes no move to change tables at Lydia and John’s wedding, even after seeing that he will be sitting at a table filled with “Ghosts of girlfriends past;Ó When he is stuck in the closet of Lydia and Bernard’s honeymoon suite, he chooses to quietly adapt to the situation and wait it out, rather than disturb the newlyweds; finally, he almost convinces himself to marry someone he doesn’t love because it is easier for him to pretend it is OK than to tell everybody that the wedding is called off.

The Glass Menagerie: Laura approaches problems by internalizing them. This often paralyzes her–keeping her from being able to do ANYTHING.

The Graduate: Ben is most definitely a ponderer. From the first frame of the film, his preference is clearly to think out situations before taking action.

The Great Gatsby: Nick Carraway deals with personal issues internally — he prefers to adapt himself to his environment:

“I am slow-thinking and full of interior rules that act as brakes on my desires…”

Hamlet: Hamlet is a gifted thinker that is incapable of positive action–“the native hue of resolution/Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought” (3.1.92-93).

Harold and Maude: Harold reacts to his mother’s domineering ways by pretending to be dead, instead of fighting her or leaving home; when Maude steals his hearse, he passively lets her drive him home; he modifies his new sports car into a hearse like his old one; etc.

Heavenly Creatures: Reluctant to be in the school photo, Pauline adapts to the situation by hanging her head down rather than running away; Pauline responds to Juliet’s tuberculosis by wishing illness on herself and refusing to eat; when her mother threatens to not let her see Juliet again, Pauline’s initial response is to wish herself dead; she responds to threatening authority figures internally by having them killed by Diello in the 4th World of Borovnia.

Lolita: Humbert prefers to approach his problem internally and adapt himself to his environment (like a chameleon). “Years of secret suffering have taught me superhuman self control” (Nabokov 28). He puts up a romantic front for Charlotte: “Bland American Charlotte frightened me . . . I dared not do anything to spoil the image of me she had set up to adore” (Nabokov 78), and he internalizes and compartmentalizes his lust for Lolita by keeping a detailed diary.

Romeo and Juliet: Romeo’s first preference in approaching a conflict is to adapt himself to the environment, for example, he lacks interest in the (contentious) ” . . . activities of his gang of friends, whom he accompanies only reluctantly to the Capulet feast: ‘I’ll be a candle holder and look on'” (1.4.38) (Paster 258); After making Juliet his wife, he tries to placate Tybalt rather than fight him; and so forth.

Rosemary’s Baby: Rosemary tries to accommodate everyone before herself. She agrees to the dinner invitation with the Castevets, even though she doesn’t want to go. Then she feels obligated, but tells Guy that it’s all right if he doesn’t want to attend. When Rosemary learns she is pregnant, she lets the Castevets push her into giving up a doctor she likes for one they recommend. Even though she is in great pain, she finds a way to adapt to it rather than confront her doctor:

Tiger: You’ve been in pain since November and he (Dr. Sapirstein) isn’t doing anything for you?

Rosemary: He says it’ll stop.

Joan: Why don’t you see another doctor?

Rosemary shakes her head.

Rosemary: He’s very good. He was on “Open End.”

Sula: From childhood, Nel copes with problems internally:

“…the girl became obedient and polite. Any enthusiasms that little Nel showed were calmed by the mother until she drove her daughter’s imagination underground” (Morrison, 1973, p. 18).

When Nel finds Jude and Sula naked in her bedroom, she thinks:

They are not doing that. I am just standing here seeing it, but they are not really doing it…I just stood there seeing it and smiling, because maybe there was some explanation, something important that would make it all right. (Morrison, 1973, p. 105)

After Jude leaves Nel, she winds up her anger into an imaginary gray ball so that she may function.

Unforgiven: Munny has lost the hair-trigger response of his youth, preferring to work problems through peaceably: though taunted by Kid Schofield over his reputation, he lets it slide and tries again to solve the hog problem; provoked by Little Bill in the bar, Munny bides his time:

LITTLE BILL: Well, Mister Hendershot, if I was to call you a no good sonofabitch an’ a liar, an’ if I was to say you shit in your pants on account of a cowardly soul… well, I guess then, you would show me your pistol right quick an’ shoot me dead, ain’t that so?

MUNNY: I guess I might… but like I said, I ain’t armed.

(Peoples, p. 76)

After a kicking by Little Bill, Munny doesn’t even seek revenge; this doesn’t happen until Ned is killed.

Washington Square: When faced with a problem, Catherine’s preference is to solve it internally, as illustrated in a conversation between her father and Aunt Almond:

“‘And, meanwhile, how is Catherine taking it?’ ‘As she takes everything–as a matter of course.’ ‘Doesn’t she make a noise? Hasn’t she made a scene?’ ‘She is not scenic.'” (James 69)

Once her father refuses her lovers’ suit, Catherine contemplates:

The idea of a struggle with her father, of setting up her will against his own, was heavy on her soul, and it kept her quiet, as a great physical weight keeps us motionless. It never entered into her mind to throw her lover off; but from the first she tried to assure herself that there would be a peaceful way out of their difficulty. The assurance was vague, for it contained no element of positive conviction that her father would change his mind. She only had the idea that if she should be very good, the situation would in some mysterious manner improve. To be good she must be patient, outwardly submissive, abstain from judging her father too harshly, and from committing any act of open defiance. (James 81)

Witness: Rachel adapts to the situations she finds herself in: she accepts being detained by Book and taken to his sister’s house:

SAMUEL: But do we have to stay here?

RACHEL: No, we do not. Just for the night.

Rachel accommodates Book’s presence on the farm; she remains in the Amish community, even though she has doubts about her faith; etc.

In some stories, the main character holds out against all attempts to change his attitude or behavior, remaining steadfast in his nature.

Here are examples of stories that illustrate this concept of the Steadfast Main Character:

A Clockwork Orange: Alex never willingly changes his roguish anti-social behavior, and when forced to do so, he prefers to die rather than give up that part of himself. Alex tries to hold out against the challenges to his self-authority: when his droogs begin to rebel, he teaches them a lesson; he skips school despite Mr. Deltoid’s efforts; he fights against the authorities during his interrogation; he tries to commit suicide rather than be forced to hate his individualism (represented by Beethoven’s 9th Symphony).

All That Jazz: In the opening scene, Joe asserts “To be on the wire is life: the rest is waiting” (Aurthur and Fosse 1). This statement sums up Joe’s credo, and because of it he remains steadfast in living the high life, despite the fact that it is literally killing him.

Amadeus: Once he declares his war, his intent to destroy Mozart, he remains steadfast to the end. He had offered to trade a recommendation to the Emperor on Mozart’s behalf if Constanze will have sex with him. After he declares his war, he isn’t interested. He tells us, “I wanted nothing petty…..My quarrel wasn’t with Mozart. It was through him! Through him to God, who loved him so.” As Salieri listens to the “Magic Flute,” he finds that a bit of pity might be entering his heart, but he resolves, “Never!” In the end, Salieri even attempts to take his own life to spite God’s punishment- that is, Salieri’s lack of recognition.

Being There: Chance remains steadfast in his desire to live in a home where he can work in a garden and watch television.

Braveheart: William steadfastly fights the English in spite of the odds. He neither yields to the persuasion of Robert the Bruce nor does he give in to Longshanks’ attempt to buy him off. And although eventually he has to change his attitude towards the Scottish nobles, his determination to get Scotland free of England remains as solid as a rock.

Candida: True to the Christian principles he preaches, Morell employs the virtue of patience and prepares for self sacrifice as he awaits the fate of his marriage.

Chinatown: Never one to leave things open-ended, Jake pursues the ‘answer’ to his questions relentlessly. Even after Evelyn is killed and Noah takes his granddaughter away, Jake’s inclination is to keep on going.

The Fugitive: Dr. Kimble maintains he is innocent, and does everything he can to prove it including consistently putting his life in jeopardy.

The Glass Menagerie: Laura exists in a fantasy world where her very own “gentleman caller” awaits her. Even after Jim informs her of his impending marriage and permanent departure, Laura maintains her fantasy more securely than before.

Klute: Klute’s not convinced that Tom’s disappearance is what it looks like to everyone else:

KLUTE: I don’t see it. Tom Grunemann. I’ve known him all my life. He wouldn’t just, you know, go.

AGENT: But he’s gone.

(Lewis & Lewis, p. 6)

Klute sticks with his belief in Tom, and sees “the girl” as the clue to solving the puzzle. He stays close to her, getting to know her more intimately–ultimately using her as bait to trap Tom’s suspected killer, Cable.

Rebel Without a Cause: Jim is steadfast in his desire to be part of a functional family.

Reservoir Dogs: Mr. White refuses to believe that Mr. Orange is the “rat,” even when all evidence points to him. When Mr. Orange confesses to him, he is anguished over the betrayal but remains true to his criminal nature and shoots him, at the cost of his own life.

Revenge of the Nerds: Lewis sticks to his original path of actively pursuing a great time in college. He faces the idea that he is a nerd, but he doesn’t let it dissuade him from any goals he has set for himself. Lewis emerges from the story with the same motivations with which he entered.

Romeo and Juliet: Romeo remains steadfast in his love for Juliet and desire to remain at her side–to the point of following his wife in death.

Searching for Bobby Fischer: Josh sticks to his own way of playing in tournaments. Although Bruce tries to convince Josh to adopt his personal views on winning (and whether or not he should play at all), ultimately Josh resolves his problems by own means, choosing at the end to offer his opponent a way out, before finally winning the game.

The Silence of the Lambs: Even after Lecter has killed more people in his escape from custody, Clarice still believes she was on the right track in getting his help. She heeds his advice and finds a vital clue in the case file, as Lecter suggested.

The Sun Also Rises: Jake remains steadfast in his desire for Brett.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?: Rather than stopping the “game” by exposing the lie about their “son,” George continues to play within the rules and “kills” their son–GEORGE: “I have the right, Martha. We never spoke of it; that’s all. I could kill him any time I wanted to.”

The Wild Bunch: A person’s character is best defined by their deeds, not their words. Though Pike discusses changing his lawless, gunfighting ways, it’s the only lifestyle he knows and he hangs onto it, a dinosaur in changing times. He stands by his code of loyalty:

PIKE: We started together — we’ll end it together.

(Green and Peckinpah, p. 33)

–and finally refuses to leave Angel to die alone in Mapache’s hands, leading the Bunch in their final shootout.

X-Files: Beyond the Sea: In spite of Scully’s momentary belief in Boggs’ psychic abilities, she returns to her skeptical nature.

MULDER: Scully. . . after all you’ve told me. After all the evidence. . .

SCULLY: Because I’m afraid. . . I’m afraid to believe.

MULDER: You couldn’t face that fear? Even if it meant never knowing what your father was trying to tell you?

SCULLY: But I do know.

MULDER: How?

SCULLY: He was my father.

From Dramatica Pro Software

Some stories  that have a Main Character who Changes his or her attitude or nature by the end of the story:

A Doll’s House: Once it is clear that Torvald puts himself and his reputation before his wife, Nora realizes she is no longer in love with him, gives her wedding ring back, and prepares to leave him.

The Age of Innocence: Newland is a man who considers himself intellectually above his peers, a person open to new possibilities.

NARRATOR: On the whole Archer was amused by the smooth hypocrisy of his peers […] Archer enjoyed such challenges to convention. He questioned conformity in private, but in public he upheld family and tradition.

Slowly Newland becomes more dissatisfied with the narrow-minded pursuits of his world. Then Ellen comes along, a kindred spirit, who speaks her mind. She becomes a beacon of enlightenment and change. Newland follows her light and moves toward changing the way he acts, not just the way he thinks. Finally, when he realizes he’s about to lose Ellen for good, he tries to speak out, ready to give up everything he has represented in society to follow her to Europe.

All About Eve: Margo changes from a jealous, age-obsessed actress to a woman who has accepted herself at age forty, and is getting married to the younger man she’s refused until now. She wanted to play a woman of twenty in Lloyd’s new play, but changes her mind:

MARGO: But not for me any more — not a four-square, upright, downright, forthright married lady. . . It means I’ve finally got a life to live! I don’t have to play parts I’m too old for — Just because I’ve got nothing to do with my nights!

Apt Pupil: Todd has changed from hiding his true nature as a killer, behind his mask of a golden child, when he embarks on a shooting spree above the freeway.

Barefoot in the Park: When faced with the prospect of divorce, Paul loses control by becoming intoxicated. As an illustration of his resolve to change, he acts on Corie’s whimsy–regardless of its foolishness.

Blade Runner: When Deckard is told a replicant is bad and to retire it, that’s just what he does, no questions asked. But when he’s told to retire Rachael, his love for her overcomes his duty and he escapes with her.

Body Heat: Throughout the story, Ned pursues Mattie and her interests regardless of the danger or costs. At the end, however, he approaches the boat house and, sensing a booby trap, changes his mind and asks her to go into the boat house. This risks the very thing (Mattie) that he has so single-mindedly been pursuing.

Boyz N The Hood: It is in Tre’s nature to look for the easy way out; his decision not to seek revenge against the gang members that wasted Ricky is indicative of his resolve to change.

Bringing Up Baby: The change David ultimately makes doesn’t happen in a leap of faith, but gradually, over the course of the entire film. In the opening shot of the film, David is sitting in his “Thinker” pose, with his attention entirely on his work. At the end, after Alice has left and Susan shows up at the museum, David doesn’t seem to care that she has found the bone and is giving him the million dollars inherited from Aunt Elizabeth. In fact he says that he’s been giving it a lot of thought and the day he spent with her was the best day he’d ever had in his whole life. (nb: in a scene that was ultimately left on the cutting room floor, Alice tells David “…since your experience with that girl you’ve been a changed person. And I don’t appreciate the change.”) A more subtle, visual clue is that in the beginning, David is always wearing glasses (despite the fact that Susan tells him he’s so good looking without them), and at the end he is working on his dinosaur without glasses.

Bull Durham: When Crash makes Annie aware that she has been focusing more on her own needs than on Nuke’s pitching (as she claims), she breaks her hard-and-fast rule of “one player per season,” and admits that she wants Crash. At the very end of the film, Crash tells her that he doesn’t want to think about baseball or quantum physics or anything. “I just want to be,” he says. And Annie, who has been the consummate Do-er throughout the film, says, “I can do that too.”

Casablanca: Rick changes from self-centered and controlling to emotionally confident and selfless. Early on, he repeatedly emphasizes that:

RICK: I stick my neck out for nobody.

But at the moment of truth he risks everything to help Laszlo escape with Ilsa, and takes up his personal fight for what’s right.

Charlotte’s Web: Instead of acting frenzied (as usual) when faced with a crisis, as Charlotte’s health declines, Wilbur takes charge and carries out her last wishes:

Wilbur was in a panic. He raced round and round the pen. Suddenly he had an idea-he thought of the egg sac and the five hundred and fourteen little spiders that would hatch in the spring. If Charlotte herself was unable to go home to the barn, at least he must take her children along. (White, 1952, p. 166)

The Client: Reggie starts out as unable to let things go even after they have been taken away from her (e.g. her children). By the end of the story, Reggie is instrumental in enrolling Marcus and his family into the Witness Protection Program (which means she expects never to see him again).

The Crucible: He progresses . . . from shame to renewed assurance. For a time his humility as an adulterer disposes him to accept the greater humiliation of confessing to witchcraft; since he has already blackened his “good name” by succumbing to and then publicly admitting lechery, he is tempted to save at least his life. Indignation, however, compels him to salvage self-respect. “How may I live without my name?” . . . (Moss 42)

El Mariachi: El Mariachi changes from a soft-spoken musician in search of love and luck, to a cold blooded killer, gunning down Moco for revenge.

Four Weddings And A Funeral: Charles changes from disbelieving he will ever be able to make a lifelong commitment with anyone, to finally stepping out on faith and asking Carrie to spend the rest of her life with him.

The Godfather: Michael changes from believing what his family does is wrong to believing that his family’s crimes are a necessary evil. He begins by insisting that his family’s crimes belong to his family, not to him. In the end, he is organizing the execution of these crimes as the family’s new Don, having reasoned they are necessary.

The Graduate: Everyone thinks that Ben is absolutely on the right track and if he continues as such, he’ll be assured success. But Ben changes. His change is not a leap of faith, but one that is gradual and inexorable–resulting in him getting the girl, but also disappointing everyone he knows.

The Great Gatsby: Nick Carraway was raised to be tolerant of other’s moral shortcomings. The events that occurred in the summer of ’22, however, gave him an aversion to the ways of the corrupt and dissolute, and his essential nature changed:

“In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in mind ever since. ‘Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,’ he told me, ‘just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.’ In consequence, I’m inclined to reserve all judgmentsÉ Reserving judgments is a matter of infinite hope. I am still a little afraid of missing something if I forget that, as my father snobbishly suggested, and I snobbishly repeat, a sense of the fundamental decencies is parceled out unequally at birth. And, after boasting this way of my tolerance, I come to the admission that it has a limit. Conduct may be founded on the hard rock or the wet marshes, but after a certain point I don’t care what it’s founded on.”

Hamlet: Hamlet stops contemplating Claudius’ lies and treacheries and accepts the knowledge that Claudius is responsible for his father and mother’s (and his own) deaths.

Harold and Maude: Through Maude’s influence, Harold loses his obsession with death and destruction and embraces life–driving his hearse (without him inside of it) over a cliff.

Heavenly Creatures: Experiencing adolescence and the possibility of other worlds shown to her by Juliet, Pauline changes from a dull, obedient daughter with straight-A grades to an imaginative person with a purpose:

PAULINE (Diary V.O.): Anger against Mother boiled up inside me as it is she who is one of the main obstacles in my path. Suddenly a means of ridding myself of this occurred to me. If she were to die…

(Walsh & Jackson, p. 208)

I Love Lucy: Lucy changes from attempting to tell Ricky the news about the baby in a private moment, to allowing him to find out during his nightclub act.

Lawrence of Arabia: An expert on the region, Lawrence volunteers to be sent to Arabia, a country he comes to love even more as he adopts its customs and dress. But after experiencing the desert’s brutality firsthand, and realizing the futility of trying to change the Arabs’ squabbling nature, he abandons it:

LAWRENCE: I pray I may never see the desert again. Hear me God.

(Bolt and Wilson, p. II-112)

Lolita: In recounting his relations with Lolita, Humbert gradually moves from feeling only blind lust for the twelve-year-old “nymphet” girl, to genuine and everlasting love for a worn-out, old-before-her-time adult woman. During the two years they live together, “The sensualist in me (a great and insane monster . . .”) (Nabokov 115), and (my) “monstrous appetite” puts in motion the “the writhing of desire again” (Nabokov 129). ” . . . Ready to repent, all at once, ironically, horribly, lust would swell again” (Nabokov 260). In the ensuing three years that Lolita is missing, Humbert comes to see that although his “accursed nature could not change” (Nabokov 234), his love for her did. Although Humbert’s physiological lust for young preadolescent girls remains with him, when he finally meets Lolita again, he sees her “ruined looks and her adult, roped-veined narrow hands . . . unkempt armpits . . . hopelessly worn out at seventeen . . . [I] knew . . . that I loved her more than anything I had ever seen or imagined on earth, or hoped for anywhere else” (Nabokov 253). Earlier in the book, Humbert had had nothing but contempt and revulsion for the older high school and college girls as well as adult women. Now, he states: “She (Lolita) was only the faint violet whiff and dead leaf echo of the nymphet . . . but thank God it was not that echo alone that I worshipped” (Nabokov 253). Although Humbert has no remorse for killing Quilty, neither does the reader. The reader abhors Humbert’s lust, and using of Lolita, but can empathize with his constant guilt over his physiological addiction. In the end, the reader can feel comfortable with the idea of an emotionally changed Humbert, and believes him when he says that in spite of her ruined looks he loves her still. “I loved my Lolita this Lolita, pale and polluted, and big with another’s child . . . ” (Nabokov 253).

Othello: Othello changes from a noble and just groom who declares, “But that I love the gentle Desdemona,” (I,ii,27) to a foul-minded, irrational husband who vows, “I’ll tear her to pieces.” (III,iii,483) He changes from treating her gently to striking her in public, calling her a whore, and murdering her in an unfounded jealous rage.

The Philadelphia Story: Tracy is accused throughout the story (by Dexter, Seth, and George) of being “a goddess.” By the end of the story she has stepped off of her pedestal and has become more forgiving of human frailties.

The Piano Lesson: Berniece refuses to play the piano because she’s afraid to wake the spirits of her ancestors. However, when Boy Willie is attacked by Sutter’s evil ghost, she uses the piano to release those spirits to save her brother.

Platoon: When Chris Taylor first arrives in Vietnam, he is basically a naive, idealistic, young man who has dropped out of college to enlist in the military–he’s signed up for infantry and combat. He’s done so with the hope of finding himself and what he’s really about, and to discover something he can be proud of:

CHRIS (V.0.): …Course Mom and Dad didn’t want me to come, they wanted me to be just like them–respectable, hard-working, making $200 a week, a little house, a family. They drove me crazy with their goddamn world, Grandma, you know Mom, I don’t want to be a white boy on Wall Street, I don’t want my whole life to be predetermined by them.

…I guess having always been sheltered and special, I just want to be anonymous. Like everybody else. Do my share for my country. Live up to what Grandpa did in the First War and Dad the Second.

…Maybe I’ve finally found it, way down here in the mud. Maybe from down here I can start up again,… be something I can be proud of and not have to fake it–be a fake human being. Maybe I can see something I don’t yet see, or learn something I don’t yet know… (Stone, p.14)

However, by the end of the film, we sense that Chris doesn’t still hold to the same basic ideals as when he first arrived in Vietnam.

The war forced Chris to experience and do things that he’s not proud of at all, like his platoon’s involvement in the My-Lai-esque pillage and destruction of a Vietnamese village, and the climatic murder of Sgt. Barnes. Chris thought the war would mold him into the type of man he would be proud of, instead it has dehumanized him to the point where he is willing and able to commit the murder of his commanding officer in an act of revenge. He is no longer a naive, idealistic, young boy who was looking for a great adventure to make him a man, he has come to realize, and take part of, the atrocities and numbing reality of the Vietnam War.

Pride and Prejudice: Elizabeth firmly believes Mr. Darcy is the last man in the world she would ever marry. Her change of heart is illustrated when he proposes for the second time:

“If your feelings are still what they were last April, tell me so at once. My affections and wishes are unchanged, but one word from you will silence me on this subject forever.” Elizabeth . . . gave him to understand that her sentiments had undergone so material a change, since the period to which he alluded, as to make her receive with gratitude and pleasure his present assurances. (Austen 305)

Quills: Abbe de Coulmier changes from an administrator in the asylum to an inmate:

Dr. Royer-Collard: Circumstances have turned you surly. Interred too long with the beast, you’ve now become one. (Wright 75)

Rain Man: Charlie is most concerned with making fast money and guarding his emotions. He works hard to close the car deal and make a profit with just “a few phone calls.” He argues with Susanna when she wants him to share his thoughts, however, because he does change he is able to reconcile with her. After the road trip with Raymond, Charlie turns down Dr. Bruner’s offer of $250,000 to release his brother:

CHARLIE: It’s funny, I just realized I’m not pissed off any more that my father cut me out of his will. […] It’s not about the money anymore. […] Why didn’t anyone ever tell me I had a brother. Because it would have been nice to know him for more than just the past six days.

Later, at the hearing with the doctors, Charlie says he connected with Raymond during the trip and values him as family:

CHARLIE: I had a father I hardly knew. A mother I didn’t know at all. I found out a few days ago that I have a brother and I want to be with him.

Rear Window: We first see Jeff’s fiancŽe, Lisa, in a negative light, literally, as a negative image on a slide viewer. This symbolizes the negative feelings Jeff has about the state of matrimony. But as he watches the marriage and courtship rituals of his neighbors, and those who suffer the perils of loneliness, Jeff’s distaste for married life dissipates and he grows more amenable toward the issue of marriage.

Rosemary’s Baby: Rosemary changes in her feelings toward Guy (evidenced by spitting on him), and in her refusal to accept that anything is wrong with her child. Her ambivalent feelings about Catholicism are resolved as well. At the climax of the story, Rosemary overcomes her revulsion to the baby and chooses to be a mother to him, despite the fact that Satan is the father.

The Simpsons Christmas Special: Homer believes the only way to make his family happy on Christmas is to provide packages under the tree. When he brings home “Santa’s Little Helper,” he discovers it’s the love his family shares that is important.

All Good Things (Star Trek: The Next Generation): Picard is thrown willy-nilly through time, trying to understand why. At first he is at the whim of the time-shifting. He then realizes that he can use the time-shifting to his advantage in solving the problem of the paradox. He is therefore able to turn the chaos into order.

Star Wars: After years of following other people’s advice, Luke finally decides to ignore his superior’s commands to use the targeting computer and does it the way he (and Obi Wan) thinks is best.

Sula: Nel lets go of her hatred for Sula; the oppression she has allowed herself to live with is lifted.

Sunset Boulevard: Joe wants to be a Hollywood screenwriter, so he accepts the expensive gifts and lavish lifestyle Norma offers him, hoping to continue his “career.” Later, through Betty’s influence, he quits stringing Norma along and living high on her money. He decides to give up his bid for Hollywood success. Acting upon the little decency he has left, he packs only his old belongings, and takes off the gold watch Norma’s given him:

GILLIS: The rest of the jewelry is in the top drawer.

NORMA: It’s yours, Joe. I gave it to you.

GILLIS: And I’d take it in a second, Norma–only it’s a little too dressy for sitting behind the copy desk in Dayton, Ohio.

Taxi Driver: Travis achieves some catharsis through the purging of criminals’ blood in the climactic slaughter scene. Though he remains a loner with psychopathic tendencies, he’s no longer obsessed with the details of the immoral activities on the street, and he’s able to interact with Betsy without stalking her. Whereas earlier he complains:

TRAVIS V.O.: Twelve hours of work and I still cannot sleep.

At story’s end, he tells Betsy:

TRAVIS: I just sleep more, that’s all.

His infamy has changed him from a misfit into a media darling and hero.

To Kill a Mockingbird: Scout changes when she realizes Boo Radley has saved Jem’s and her life, and he is a man who is a friend, not a man to fear.

Tootsie: At first Michael is an uncooperative, opinionated, self-involved actor who has alienated producers on both coasts. Through his experiences as Dorothy Michaels, he changes into an understanding person who can see the “other side” of issues.

Toy Story: Woody’s resolve to maintain his status as “Andy’s Favorite Toy” is unraveled throughout the course of the story, until by the end he concedes that status to Buzz. At the moment of greatest crisis (right before the rocket explodes), Woody lets someone else be in charge for once, allowing himself to be literally taken under Buzz’s wings. From the experience of his separation from Andy, Woody comes to believe his own words, “It doesn’t matter how much we’re played with–what matters is that we’re here for Andy when he needs us.” In the final scene we see Woody loosened up and dancing, satisfied to be part of the group rather than its leader; he’s more comfortable with himself, more chummy to Buzz, and more accessible to Bo Peep’s advances.

A NOTE ABOUT OBSTACLE CHARACTER: Even though Buzz Lightyear appears to make a change (when he comes to see himself as Andy’s Toy rather than a Space Ranger), in terms of his IMPACT upon Woody and the others, he is a Steadfast Obstacle Character. His presence forces Woody to confront his personal issues, and that impact remains constant until Woody’s own “change” resolves the inequity between them. [Please see the “Story Comments” field for more info.]

Unforgiven: For eleven years William Munny has been a family man, relinquishing his hard-drinking, man-killing ways. Financially desperate, he’s drawn back to killing for money and when his partner Ned’s killed, he hits the trigger and the bottle again.

The Verdict: In the courtroom, after all his evidence has been disallowed, Frank reaches deep into himself and banishes his Disbelief. He musters a new Faith in the judicial system as a whole, telling the jury that THEY are the law, and no matter what forces work against the truth, he has faith they will do the right thing.

Washington Square: Catherine begins as the victim of what is almost a system of inverted family relations . . . and not until Townsend crudely deserts her, and the egoism of her father and aunt is inescapable, does she exhibit any signs of independence, and even then it is partly the independence of a person intent on simple survival. Catherine is far from the transfigured victims, the Strethers and Milly Theales, in the later [James’] novels. Yet she has something in common with them. She is not, at the end, merely an old maid enveloped in the pathos of her unhappy memories. A small but real triumph has been hers: she has survived and become a person without recourse to the selfishness of her tormentors. Between victim and victimizer there is a human middle ground which Catherine makes her own. (Dupee 65)

When Harry Met Sally: Harry changes his outlook on men and women’s relationships when he realizes people of the opposite sex can be friends as well as lovers.

Witness: Rachel is curious about life outside of her Amish world, and is determined to explore it with the possibility of starting a new life among the English. She is attracted to John Book, but comes to realize the violent and volatile world he inhabits is not one to make a life for her son and for herself. Rachel eventually reconciles to the Amish ways, and stays to settle down with Daniel.

 From Dramatica Pro Software