The Inner Conflict

[Mr Godfree]

Now, I've seen quite a few movies and lately i've made it my number one priority to try and pull the internal conflict out because usually - its either not there or i'm not good at finding it.

I see very few movies where the protagonist has to overcome some emotional problem before he/she can solve the physical problem.

Matrix is a good, rock hard example of the inner conflict being solved before the outer conflict but what are some other ones?

What was Tom Hanks' inner conflict in Saving Private Ryan? I would guess it was that line where he says 'If saving Ryan means I get to see my wife...' but that was in the beginning of the second act and (correct me if i'm wrong) but I thought the protagonist was supposed to hold on to their inner conflict, trying to ignore it while dealing with the physical conflicts until (in the third act) he/she realizes they've been going about solving their problems the wrong way and must first deal with whats inside...

I guess what i'm hoping for is just some clarity on this under discussed topic and maybe a few examples of where its used well.

Regards.

[Dragonslayer02]

As Good As It Gets - He hates people and suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder. He must overcome his emotional problems in order to get the girl.

Contact - Jodi Foster's character is overcoming her father's death. She pulls away from people and into the world of science. She must trust others before they will allow her to represent mankind. She has a great discussion about her character on the DVD.

Hope Floats - Sandra's character has a problem with self-worth. In High School, she had too much. When her husband left her, she has too little. She must value herself before she can be a good mother.

Requiem For A Dream - Damn, there's so many emotional problems in this film. Most center on addiction. Each character is addicted for a different reason.

Check out the redemption thread. There's a lot of characters overcoming personal emotional problems there. Issues of self-worth, forgiveness, and others.

Those are a few.

DS2

[vindixion]

Saving Private Ryan.

The turning point for Hanks' character was when he tell everybody "I'm a teacher." right after his medic died. He could no longer justify sending young men out to die. He made a mistake by sending him up the middle. Up until that point he justified it by saying that one dies so ten can live. But the medic died for no reason. "How am i going to tell my wife about days like today?"

That was the big turning point for Hanks' character.

[BrendanPBrennan]

Why does the protagonist have to solve his inner conflict? I think it would be more entertaining and compelling if the conflict was never solved and he/she just continued running from it or making it worse...thoughts?

[sarumu1]

okay. brendan. if you want to spend your time watching someone else's narrative film or reading someone else's novel, then you better be introduced to characters who are about to experience the defining moments of their lives.

a character doesn't have to solve an emotional dilemma/inner conflict, but they at least have to undergo some sort of change... otherwise the story isn't worth our time. it would be really nice if they did solve their problems or came to some sort of realization why they can't be resolved.

and the conflict (both the emotional and the physical) <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START-->must<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--> be (re)solved. why? because then you don't have an act iii. there's no resolution. your character hasn't changed. the story's nothing but fluff with good production values (hopefully good production values). people are going to watch your flick, look at their watches as act ii drags out and be pissed off when the flick fades out.

[UserName]

The hero should have 2 goals:

- An original goal (e.g., find the treasure)
- A new goal (e.g., "get the girl") that arises at some point in the middle of your script

There will come a point in your script at which the Hero cannot pursue both goals. This results in 'inner conflict'.

The inner conflict must end, because you force your Hero to decide which goal to pursue. He must sacrifice one of his pursuits. Through this sacrifice, your audience sees how the Hero has changed (or, less often, not changed).

Later, though, you will have your Hero surprisingly achieve both goals -- that's the most emotionally satisfying resolution for audiences. I think.

- User

[BrendanPBrennan]

I apologize... I was under the assumption that we became writers to satisfy a compelling need to tell a story that means something to us. I guess at some point we realize that that isnt enough and then we start writing for other people and 'audiences.'

I guess you could say that is OUR inner conflict. But I dont think the Hero in our own personal screenplay ends up having a happy ending.

[UserName]

Ideally, the passion you feel for your story will be mirrored by some segment of the American movie-going public. Then you might be able to make a living with your writing without having to consider yourself a sell-out.

It's your choice though, no one's forcing you to write audience-pleasing stuff -- if you don't, there are plenty of others who are more than willing. Those are the ones who get paid.

[Dragonslayer02]

Sometimes there is no resolution of the main emotional goal. That can be a powerful statement. However, there should be some sort of resolution in the film, either through the supporting characters or a secondary goal. "Forrest Gump" is an example of this. Forrest doesn't change much during the film. He doesn't really have a "goal", but those around him change. It can also be like in "Blade". The main characters defeats all the bad vampires, but he didn't solve what he really wanted by becoming fully human. He had a physical resolution, but not an emotional one.

But Sarumu is right in that you have to have some sort of resolution in the film. Otherwise, please tell me why I'm paying $8 to seeing rambling.

[BrendanPBrennan]

What about resolution of the audience? Is that a concept? The audience finally finds out what the inner conflict is at the end of the film, but the character remains the same, only now you know what his deal is.

Iwould love not to see a happy ending. I think people would be better able to identify with someone who is really f-ucked up and stays that way.

Id pay $8 to go so some hopeless shmuck who I thought I was better than

[Dragonslayer02]

Yes, that is a resolution. However, that's usually shown through supporting characters.

Your helpless shmuck has the supporting characters saying what the audience is thinking. The supporting characters experience the resolution that the audience is experiencing.

But no, I wouldn't pay $8 just to see a helpless shmuck for an hour and a half if all you have is a helpless shmuck.

[BrendanPBrennan]

And oh yeah...Ive noticed something over the short time Ive been on this board and others. That entertainment industry I feel is the only one in which the goals of the participants are to "sell out." Besides of course prostitution.

Why are we all in such a sad state that we need to compromise ourselves like this?

"But Brendan, if you want to make money you have to cater to the audience." The only reason movies like Jurrasic Park III and...ahem...Pearl Harbor made money is because that is all audiences have available to them.

Its the tale wagging the dog in this instance. Why else do you feel there has been such a boom in small scale production companies and Digital Video? Because there is now an audience for good movies. Ones that never make it to the big screen because some half witted test audience in santa monica didnt think it had enough explosions.

And who is to blame for all of this? Yeah, the production companies. But its also 'us' that write this crap. We keep giving it to them cause they wave huge $ signs in front of us. Have we all really taken a look at some of these f-ucking log lines on here? They are sad at best. And most people dont even bother writing a script to go with the loglines. They just make up this bullsh-it, expect to sell it for a half a mil and have some other sell out jackass to write it for them.

Its enough to make me want to scratch my eyes out.

Well, its the profession I chose, so I must go with the flows (maybe I should have been a poet!)

Peace in the Middle...

East that is.

B

[blameLew]

Hi Bren

This is a very interesting conversation. But for me, movies are about the exception, not the rule. People don't go to the movies to see every day life, nor do they go to see losers who can not and will not change. Unless ...

Characters must have obstactles and to overcome those obstacles, they must see a new way to an old problem. When a character decides to go for the gold and not the girl ... the question becomes how did he get to the point to choose either. Maybe he chooses the gold because he sees love fades. Maybe he chooses the girl because he discovers money can't buy happiness. Now you can always have a lovable loser ... but even in such cases, the lovable loser must do things to change, even if he doesn't realize it.

For me, I write characters based on real life ... but sometimes, I give characters knowledge that the real life person the character is based on would not have. A lot of times, people know what to do to be better people or to achieve their goals, but they lack courage.

Characters in movies, at least the main characters, must act against the odds. One more thing. As a screenwriter, we must be sneaky. Take the movie Pleasantville ... the screenwriter of that movie was poking full at Bush/Regan family values and harkening back to the day of the 60's revolution and 70's free love. And the brilliance of the movie is that he used family values as a means to bring about the revolution.

There is a saying ... in order to get someone to jump rope with you, you might have to play catch with them. In other words, you have to think about the audience, but you must discover ways to make the stories you want to tell entertaining. So you and the audience wins. Win-win. Look at all the examples given about character change ... all of the characters learn to jump rope in order for them to get others to play ball ... hence acheiving their goal.

Think of jumping rope as the inner conflict and playing catch as the outer one.

[sesinkl]

Brendan

I have to agree with you. Hollywood writes to the lowest common denominator. I took my kids to see Tomb Raider and laughed myself silly at some of the stupid dialogue. And I came away with a headache because it was too loud and choppy. To me it was everything that is bad about H/W. Poor story, endless special effects, unbelievably awful dialogue, seen-before concept with a different hook, all dished up in a nice little package. A meal of candyfluff. Inconsequential. Insubstantial. Instantly forgettable.

And I agree with you. It is all we ever get to eat. We can't choose the menu. I look forward to taking my kids to Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings. Stories that think outside the square, stories that originated outside Hollywood.

It appears Hollywood is afraid of producing movies that make an audience think. Just look back at some of the nominations for Best Film that have been non-Hollywood. Think The Piano, English Patient, My Left Foot, In the Name of the Father. Steven Speilberg seems to be one of the few in the biz who has the money, clout and integrity to produce movies he truly believes in, sneaked in between the high-concept commercial ones to keep the investors quiet.

Hollywood aims its market at the 16-25 age group, and this is the group that identifies with the sick aspect of life: murders, explosions, car chases, drug abuse, gratuitous sex, etc; shocks/thrills to stimulate palettes jaded by years of banal TV, and unable to feel anymore. Just look at some of the loglines posted here. Boring, seen-before loglines about drug gangs, drug addicts, murderers, thieves, gangsters etc. There are so many stories out there, but most of the screenwriters seem to regurgitate stuff about their smalltime lives. Just look at the Recent Done Deals in H/W to see how jaded everything has become. Someone was writing about India in a thread a while back. Great. Take it out of America - stimulate. Don't just rehash and add a new hook.

The baby boomers and over 40s is a huge segment of the population that is seemingly not considered. This group would love to go to the movies, but are wary of what they'll see. Titanic did so well at the box office because older people went in droves to see it. An assured old-fashioned story that wouldn't shock but would entertain, scare deliciously and make you care for the characters. I remember my Gran went to see The Sound of Music 20 times. You may laugh, but she was not unusual. In box office terms that is huge. My parents loved the movies but don't go anymore because of sex, bad language and violence. As my mother said life is sad enough without going to the movies and immersing yourself in it. She's right. How many movies have a story that truly entertains, or inspires, or says something profound about life and how *you* could live it? If it is well written it will be commercially viable too. Hollywood is stuck in a mind set of its own making, self-fulfilling its own commercial prophecies, believing its own propaganda.

[blameLew]

the reality is, like or not, Titantic and other box office successes do well, because of the 15-26 crowd. those are the one who go to the movies two and three times. Not the crowd in their 40's.

But it's the teenagers and young adults who have more time to see movies over and over again. So in a way, we are forced, (not a bad thing), to keep them in mind when writing stories.

Look at the top ten movies of the past week. Planet of the Apes did 80 mil this weekend ... 15-26 year olds went more than once ... And AI by Speilberg is considered a flop because it couldn't bring in the young crowd.


But here's another thing to keep in mind ... when we write stories - we do NOT need to compete with Planets of the Ape and Tomb Raiders. That's not the market we're trying to appeal to on a whole.

There is a market for all of us. But the market share for the youth can not be denied and Hollywood will continue to churn out those movies ... because they will continue to do well.

[blameLew]

PS: 15 years olds don't want to think ... they want to have a good time. They go to school to think ... not to the movies for that. So although Tomb Raider is fluff to you, it is a feast for the youth of today just like Planet of the Apes.

[Mr Godfree]

Nicely put. As an 18 year old I agree. (for the most part anyway)

I enjoy most fluff movies as long as they make an attempt at hiding themselves. I dont need explosions nudity or violence to entertain me (though they all do) just a good story with real emotions and people. I think theres other, more pertanent things to worry about than you hypothetical target audience.

[sesinkl]

blameLew

You miss my point. I think the older crowd would go to the movies more if they felt there was something there for them. Movies that are written for the 16-25 crowd draw the 16-25 crowd. Its a Catch 22 situation. What interests that crowd will not interest (generally) the older crowd. Titanic blew the competition out of the water because its appeal went across the board, not just the 16-25 crowd. There was something there for everyone. Older people could relate to Kate Winslet's character because they saw her life as a cycle, a true character arc; whilst younger people were entertained by the disaster sequences.

"But it's the teenagers and young adults who have more time to see movies over and over again. So in a way, we are forced, (not a bad thing), to keep them in mind when writing stories."

Sorry don't agree. Young adults are also studying, taking finals etc. Yes they have time, but the over 50s/retirees have far more leisure time, and if the industry ignores them they are missing a large segment of the market. An old lady going to the movies with her friends 20 times to see one movie is something we should not ignore. The challenge is I believe to write screenplays that appeal across the whole spectrum of people. The more we pander to one age group, the more we have to pander.

[BrendanPBrennan]

NOW it all makes sense to me...Ive been going about this all wrong. WHAT AN IDIOT!!! I could have been a millionaire by now if only I had opened my eyes a little earlier. Here is the logline that Im going to IMC and Dreamworks with tomorrow for my 'big meeting'.


There is this 15 to 25 year old kid sitting in a space ship. And he isnt thinking about anything at all. Then all of a sudden a 15 to 25 year old girl comes in. She gets naked, and then she explodes all over the place. Then, the kid finds some money and stuff. And the stuff is really cool. And then he buys himself the biggest coolest thing youve ever seen. Not your normal thing, but a very special thing with lots of lights and explosions. And this thing has huge ****. And then the kid has sex with the thing and then kills it. Then he smokes lots of pot and doesnt think much about it.


I think Ive got a keeper there? what do you think? Any thoughts on how to query this?

[sesinkl]

Many a true word....

[UserName]

BPB and Ses, if you guys are so upset with the current crop of films, why don't you start up your own studio together?

With your understanding of the movie market, you'll have no problem creating a film of true artistic achievement that doesn't lose money. It'll be easy.

[Mr Godfree]

Other than the length of that logline I think you have a winner there. Better write it quick before someone else on this board does.

[EJS1]

I would go see it but it's a little too cerebral for me.

[fwuffykosak]

Get Tom Green attached. He needs to stretch himself as a performer.

[Glyphic]

I thought writing for oneself is called a "Diary."

Outside those covers, I'm sure a writer can either simply write something and hope it reaches some audience, or write something targeted for a specific audience.

If we're not in the mood to denigrate or blame some segment of the population we feel apart from or superior to, we could hopefully do either with skill, integrity, and even artistry.

Isn't the question, really, how well it's done?

[Killiam Tierney]

RESOLUTION ?‚ HAPPY ENDINGS!

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> BrendanPBrennan
Re: Inner conflict

I apologize... I was under the assumption that we became writers to satisfy a compelling need to tell a story that means something to us. I guess at some point we realize that that isnt enough and then we start writing for other people and 'audiences.'

I guess you could say that is OUR inner conflict. But I dont think the Hero in our own personal screenplay ends up having a happy ending. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

I do! "I" have a Happy Ending because I take myself out of 'my personal screenplay!' I think you misunderstand the compelling need and who its for: The compelling need is for your characters, not for you! If you don't get rid of yourself - respectfully - I don't think you'll get to a story - because you don't 'care' for your characters. It's 'their' story, not yours; so keep out of their way!

Story IS resolution; or else, it is not a film. Resolution (as in: An American Film Resolution) does not imply, require or demand a Happy Ending!

Resolution requires that the audience goes home with an <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START-->understanding<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--> of the 'fate' of the central character, and for the other characters who dropped through the funnel of the story at the conclusion of the film.

This doesn't imply that the audience <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START-->likes<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--> the resolution! Just that it makes sense for your characters and in 'their' story.

<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START-->Resolution is the fate of the circumstances, not an ending.<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END-->

<!--EZCODE CENTER START--> In essence, your choice of opting out of the marketplace which demands resolution, revives DaDa Theater where there never was any resolution, profits or success! And, very little audience.<!--EZCODE CENTER END-->

In recent times - recent to me, anyway! - the following films did not have happy endings, several didn't answer anything for anyone, except the reality of the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> impossibility<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> that a happy ending could never exist! And, that <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START-->impossibility<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--> was the resolution - like it or lump it!

Successful Unhappy Endings: Brian's Song; Dying Young; Beaches; Schindler's List, Silence of the Lambs, Chinatown; Sixth Sense . . . .and the most dramatic unhappy ending of all time: Franco Zifferelli's 1968 ROMEO AND JULIET.

CHINATOWN! - Nobody can possibly think that there was a happy ending or even a 'good' resolution <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START-->possible<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--> in Chinatown. The stark reality was that <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> power<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> would never yield to simple justice, for the sake of justice. There is no possible happy ending to a story where a wealthy, powerful predator who begats his own granddaughter and intends to seduce her before she reaches menses - - - Where is the possibility of a happy ending for those victims? It doesn't exist! So, the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> powerful<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> just continue on in their world, unreachable except through assassination and that is the unhappy resolution that the audience goes home with. As in: ''Well, what did anyone really expect? Power wins, doesn't it? Didn't it? Won't it again?'' (Like Marlon Brando in THE FORMULA with George C. Scott?)

THE SIXTH SENSE: No happy ending despite the hug between mother and her little eight year old son who sees dead people who don't know that they are dead - yet. Resolution? Many! Malcom, the murdered psychologist, finally finds out he is dead and Ann (Malcom's widow) and he say goodbye; the mother finds out from her son that ''her mother'' did attend a long-ago dance recital and does move things about in her house today - - - But central character, eight year old Cole, the telepathic-mystical-insecure-frightened child who possesses Sixth Sense talents which make him a freak is still in the same morass at FADE OUT: !

But resolution? You bet. At least Cole's most loving mother better understands her son and he was able to <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START-->announce<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--> that he can now <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> communicate<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.

Resolutions abound but no happy ending is in sight!

(Was SIXTH SENSE perfect? Not hardly. There are some very noticeable errors in the script - so what! Geeze! It ain't rocket science, it's a film! I was consumed by eight year old Cole Sear's story! - And then some! Did I cry for him? Damned straight I did; for his mother, too!)

C'mon, Brendon! Isn't it for APPLAUSE! Isn't that why we love to see our <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> children<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> - our characters and their stories - appear on the silver-screen??? Don't you want your <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> children<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to be loved? To be remembered? I do! That's why I write: It's my legacy to my real children. I want to hear applause for my characters and for <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> their<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> stories.

(They deserve it - I'm just their scribe!)

One quick word for the <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START-->investors<!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--> whom - it appears - that you somehow detest.

Your films will ride on the backs of the investor's concerns about R-O-I - return on investment. We won't ever get to see "Your" script unless there is a banker somewhere between us!

Regards,

Killiam Tierney
killiam@earthlink.net

[fwuffykosak]

I utterly agree with Killiam. Purely on the basis of him having such a wonderfully gaelic name. :)