Back to the Future- Complete story weave part1

I'd now like to show you several analyses of movies to show how the dragon theory applies. From there, we can see how there are interesting structural variations to fit different types of movies. And it also gives us a new taxonomy of movies in addition to genres. A taxonomy is a type of science concerned with classification. This was an unexpected insight after looking at many films through the dragon lens.

Today we're going to start with, one of my favorite films, Back to the Future. I already analyzed this film, in terms of how it was edited, for my book, Directing the Story. Here I want to attempt a full analysis of the story weave of the the film's dragon. This is the first time I've tried analyzing a complete story-weave. Previously, I've only looked at the broad strokes of films, for example the School of Rock example.

Back to the Future

Why do a complete story weave? I hope to show that by analyzing the complete story-weave it will reveal how the film is literally woven together. In this way, you can, by virtue of the visual dragon structure see how all the pieces literally fit together to make a tapestry. If this works the implications are very powerful as an analysis tool to help you make sure you film is completely woven together in a way that can satisfy your audience.

But first a digression. All story theory's are by nature an abstraction of the essence of a story. I believe that the trick is to find the right degree of abstraction that fulfills two criteria. First, it must be abstract enough to allow for it to encompass many types of films. In other words, there must be some degree of open ended-ness. Secondly, it must be specific enough to guide you through the maze of screenwriting or novel writing. In my experience most film theories err on the side of being too abstract. In other words, they leave me lost in the maze. It is my hope that the dragon approach will allow you to follow the path of the dragon through the maze without being lost. When you see the tapestry, it's like a revelation.

Now many writers have written stories that fit the dragon gestalt without knowing anything about the dragon. They've used their own methods or compilations of other theories. However, I think that any theory that says it fits "every story ever told", as does the hero's journey, must by nature be too abstract to be useful or just not true. As Kurt Vonnegut showed in his mapping the ups and downs of the character's fortune. Kafka's story the Metamorphosis does not follow the hero's journey. However, Kafka shows a way to map it, nonetheless. So, according to Vonnegut, it appears Campbell was wrong.

What I propose with the dragon approach is that the dragon is an emergent shape that emerged when I analyzed movies based upon mapping the audience's hopes and fears in a way that provides an emotionally satisfying experience and a learning experience. This just also happens to be the shape of many successful stories and movies. I don't care if it fits "every story ever told". Those aren't stories I wish to tell. I believe and hope to show that the dragon gestalt has just the right degree of abstraction to be useful as a guide, and yet still opened ended enough to allow for a wide range of stories to be told that all feel unique.

So let's go back to the future. What do I mean by story-weave? I literally mean how the story is woven together. We're going to track the theme and sub-themes, actions, discoveries, setups, payoffs, conflicts, dramatic ironies, expectancies, twists, surprises, hierarchy of narrative questions, lessons, problems, wrong solutions, consequences, right solutions, choices, plans, ticking clocks (Yes, multiple clocks), symbolic deaths, rebirths and opposites traveled to reach new worlds never imagined. And we're going to do it visually.

We'll start with the basic four components.
1. Introduce a world of problems.
2. Attempt wrong solutions.
3. Suffer the consequences.
4. Do the right thing.

Here is the 4 part chart again for reference. (CLICK TO ENLARGE)

One reviewer of Iggy's Incredibly Easy Way to Write a Story described this very eloquently in his review.

"Glebas' method reminds me of a fine gesture drawing. Like a gesture it articulates the feeling, structure and story of the pose in a quick, clear way without the artifice of a bunch of extra squiggly lines. In fact, the "Visual" portion of the book that depicts the structure is conveyed literally like a gesture drawing."

I wish to express my appreciation for everyone who has written reviews of my books. Thank you.

WARNING SPOILER ALERT! IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN BACK TO THE FUTURE, STOP READING AND GO WATCH IT NOW! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. 

Back to the Future

1. The problem is introduced in the opening Rube Goldberg-type montage opening of the film. A TV radio announcer reports news of the theft of Plutonium. We meet Marty, Doc's friend. We also learn that Doc has created a time machine.

2. Already actions have consequences, Doc's theft of Plutonium in exchange for giving a bomb to terrorists has backfired when they realize he gave them a fake bomb. This triggers the story into motion. During the demonstration of the time machine, Delorean car, the terrorists return attempting to kill Doc. Doc is shot and Marty escapes in the Delorean and into the past! He "crosses the threshold" to the past. (Who was guarding the threshold?)

Marty now does things the wrong way. He immediately gets involved with his future mother and in-laws potentially changing the course of history.

3. Marty must now suffer the consequences. He's already facing symbolic death as his siblings start disappearing from existence. This is signified in a beautifully visual way by them literally dissolving out of the photo of Marty and his siblings. He's next if he doesn't make things right.

4. Marty must now make everything right. He has to get his future father on track with his future mother so they'll kiss and history will be righted, and he must face further obstacles to warn Doc and return to the future.

Back to the Future fits the dragon shape. But it's interesting, first, because the problem of the story is also because of a character taking a wrong path. The Doc steals Plutonium. This has dangerous consequences. It also sets the story in motion once all the introductions are made. Secondly, Marty's taking the wrong path seems to happen accidentally. He just happens to be there with the Doc when the terrorists come. He just happens to try to escape by driving away in a Delorean, which also happens to be a time machine. He just happens to time travel to 1955. It's not until Marty follows his future father, George, and tries to save his life does he do the wrong thing and change the fabric of time. It is now Marty rather than George who gets hit by the father of  Marty's future mother, Lorraine. She now falls for him instead of George. But we all know what Freud say about accidents.

Another thing I don't care for in certain film theories is when they say something must happen on page x. Once again, if the theory is abstract enough, then yes, something exciting can happen on page x. Once these four parts are mapped unto the dragon we can see that the dragon guide has some flexibility in it's elastic use of time. When I demonstrate the dragon for 127 hours you'll see something very interesting about the elasticity of time. Here is the chart again showing the elasticity of time and the parts.

P.S. While researching the map, I came across some interesting charts mapping the time jumping from Back to the Futures 1, 2, and 3.

To see original page: Back to the Future charts.

Next time we'll start weaving. Till then, tell each other good stories...

Kurt Vonnegut pointed the way, Storyteller's log

So Kurt Vonnegut pointed out a new way to explore stories. I just didn't know about it. If I did, would I have continued? Or given up? I think I would have continued because although he pointed the way he still didn't yield the information I wanted.

Going back to what I want in a story theory. I thought about how his mapping compared to mine. His Cinderella story shape is very similar. I can tell you I was relived when I saw that there were differences. And I still have my secret surprise.

Kurt called the vertical axis G-I for good fortune and ill fortune and the horizontal axis B-E for beginning and ending.

We both suggested to map the characters ups and downs. What I realized is that since the audience identifies with the character, they go up and down too!

However, good fortune and ill fortune are not emotions. If the character wins the lottery or turns into a cockroach, the audience doesn't get those things. That's part of the safety of listening to and watching stories. What the audience does get is emotions. So I decided it was better to label the vertical axis  HOPE and FEAR, because this is our goal- make the audience feel.

It is your goal, to make the audience feel- RIGHT????

The other difference between our map axes is that I start time before the beginning. This is the backstory and it is significant for the character's psychology of why they choose the wrong path. This can be mapped too, so you can understand your character better.

What I learned from Kurt Vonnegut...

Kurt had many shapes whereas I've been focusing on just one and trying to explore it and it's variations (which I haven't shared yet, we need to get to the examples first).  I realized that he was right, there are many shapes for stories. But many of them are not emotionally satisfying for an audience. No major studio would  invest millions to make a story with the Kafka shape. Hollywood doesn't care about art. Let me rephrase that, art comes second. It's the entertainment BUSINESS. We make the audience have an emotionally satisfying experience and they buy tickets, allowing us to make more movies to let them have an emotionally satisfying experience so they...

Notice, I did not say make the audience feel "good". I don't know how to do that.  They might have just failed a test. I can't make them feel good. I do know how to shape an experience for them that will provide an emotional roller coaster ending in closure that will feel emotionally satisfying.

The insight, that it's more important to map HOPE and FEAR, led me to solve a problem I was having with the path of the lesson. When I start to share film examples, I'll show you how that works. But mapping HOPE and FEAR clearly guides our story weaving process to affect an audience more so than good fortune and ill fortune.

The classic definition of story shows this. The King died. Then the Queen died. These are two ill fortunes. But if the King died, and write it so we hope for the Queen but fear she may die of grief, thats a more powerful way to affect an audience.

What's lacking in Kurt's mapping is why the map takes the shape that it does. He's mapped stories after the fact. What is the character doing to cause them to go up and down. He doesn't tell us. Let's look at Cinderella as an example.

Cinderella doesn't do anything. She just suffers. She enjoys going to the ball. She stays too late and races home. Then she's happy ever after because she has the right shoe size? Say what?

Kristen Stewart would have made a great Cinderella. (I'm actually a fan. She was awesome in Speak.)

How could Disney have made such a great film with the Cinderella story? In a word- Mice. The mice and their stuggles to help Cinderella against the stepsisters and Lucifer, the cat, are what make the film work. They're what drive the audience up and down towards hope and fear.

copyright Walt Disney Studios

Kurt gives us a wonderful view of the continents, but doesn't really tell us much about them.

I plan on giving you a tour of the major cities and an easy way to remember them in order. If he were still alive, I think I would have surprised him. It think I have discovered something very original after all. You can judge for yourselves.

Next time get ready for school...

(P.S. If this material is helping you write or if you have questions about it, feel free to comment. Or if Lucifer's animated GIF annoys you let me know too.)

Kurt Vonnegut's story map, Storyteller's log 2-15-2013

Yes, Kurt Vonnegut did the same thing that I'm doing- mapping the ups and downs of the character.

In this post, we'll look at what he came up with.

The horizontal axis he calls the B-E axis for beginning and end, in other words, time. The vertical axis he calls the G-I axis for good fortune and ill fortune.

His first mapping looks like a flared U shape. But it's actually a more of a sine wave. He describes it as a character gets them self into trouble- the bottom of the U. And then they get them self out of trouble. The audience is happy.

His next map continues with the sine wave but offsets and adds a piece at the beginning. This is the classic boy meets girl story. Boy meets girl- good fortune. Boy loses girl- ill fortune. Boy gets girl back- good, even better, fortune. The audience is happy.

The next map starts looking similar to my shape. Kurt is very funny when he talks about this shape because he doesn't tell you the name of the story. But you know the events so well- you laugh. 

This girl starts out really low. Her fairy godmother shows up and starts giving her stuff necessary to go to the palace ball. She has a great time- good fortune. At midnight everything comes crashing down- ill fortune. She had love and lost it. Is it truly better to have loved and lost or never have loved at all? In the end she has great fortune because she has the right shoe size.

I don't know if Kurt liked Kafka. Kafka's character starts with ill fortune. Then he turns into a cockroach and goes even lower. I know I didn't like this story. I read it way before I could appreciate literature. Maybe it even discouraged me from reading further. Did I not like the story or the structure? Interesting question.

As a side note, my first and second grade teachers were named Mrs. Kafka and Sister Quentin- an existential author and the name of a prison.

The last map of his that I'm familiar with is Hamlet. Hamlet seems to have ill fortune and doesn't change. Kurt suggests not even drawing a line for his story because we ultimately don't know if it was good or ill fortune. He does like Shakespeare's Hamlet because he says he tells the truth. 

I learned a lot of this information from Lapham's Quarterly. Here's the link:

Kurt Vonnegut at the blackboard

Kurt gives a chalk talk lecture about his approach on you tube. He's actually very funny too. You can watch it here:

Kurt Vonnegut on the Shape of Stories

Next up we'll see how his approach and mine compare...

An unexpected surprise from Kurt Vonnegut, storyteller's log

Right when I was writing my blog post about step 7 the symbolic death, I experienced a shock. Following a string of links on the internet  I came across a major surprise from Kurt Vonnegut. This was a major story twist.

It turns out that he, Kurt Vonnegut, also suggested mapping the ups and downs of the character! Here I thought I had discovered something totally original. Talk about ironic timing! I'm writing about the symbolic death and discover my theory was already discovered. Ahhhhh! The pain, the agony!

I had never read Vonnegut's work. Reading was always difficult for me until I started reading for information.

I think I went though the 5 stages of grief. The five stages of grief are actually really good to know as a storyteller, because many times your characters will go through these stages of grief and loss. It helps make your writing more emotionally authentic.

Here's a brief description of the stages:

1. Shock and denial. We don't want to have to deal with the loss. It's not supposed to happen.
2. Anger. We have energy unleashed that we don't know what to do with. Something was taken from us and we want justice. We may seek others to blame.
3. Bargaining. What if I did this or had done that? This is about trying to be in control again. We might even try to bargain with our creator.
4. Depression. There is real sadness about the loss that we experience, but there can also be depression which is where retreat from the world.
5. Acceptance. We may never fill the emptiness created by loss, but eventually we learn to live our lives again. Hopefully, we do this with a new sense of gratitude about life.


Here's how I handled it...

 First, is shock and denial. My first thought was Nooooo! How could someone else have come up with the same idea? Well, there is a reason why he was able to discover it. He studied chemistry and anthropology and compared stories from primitive peoples. Both chemistry and anthropology are about structures. He didn't drive the Aristotle highway, he took a different path. He had a different perspective just like I did that allowed us to see differently.

Stage 2 is anger. How could he discover "my" theory? And why didn't I know about it? Who does he think he is? Oh, right, he's Kurt Vonnegut.

Stage 3 is bargaining. I'll be coming back to this one. I realized that there were significant differences between his approach and mine, and some surprises I haven't told you about, yet. I'll top him.

Stage 4 is depression. Well this lasted a day or so. I have a theory to develop. And I have deadlines at work. Maybe that's just me compensating. However, I presented my material today to a large group and it really helps people gain insight into the story writing process. I love seeing the light bulbs go on when people see it for the first time.

Stage 5 is acceptance. How else can I look at this? This was an interesting question. How could someone else come up with the same idea? Then I realized that I came up with the same approach as Kurt Vonnegut! Then it went to my head. "Great minds think alike." It was like validation that I was really onto something. And I learned somethings about my theory from his approach that I might not have otherwise.

Maybe there's something to the idea of a blessings in disguise. Maybe they're opportunities to grow.

How does this ft into my story? Death, reorganization. new obstacle, handle it at new level.

Next time we'll look at Kurt Vonnegut's mapping the ups and downs of the character...