Change Your Image
StoryCharts
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Godfather (1972)
Family above all other values
The Godfather is about the idea of family above all other values. It goes about letting us experience this idea with three plots. The main plot is the external plot to Save the Corleone family. Supporting plots include the external plot of Michael becoming an insider of the family and an internal plot of Michael's morality.
Michael starts out an idealistic young man who looks down on the dirty deeds of the family business. In the end, Michael save the Corleone family. But in order to do so, he has become the ultimate insider (the Don) and loses the values he had held so dear at the beginning.
It's a classic story that can be argued to humanize a criminal family by making us a member of it through Michael's transformation. The stakes are laid out such that we have to believe the ends justify the means. This idea, to protect the family at any cost, is taken to its logical extreme in the sequel, The Godfather: Part II and then the pied piper comes calling for payback in the finale The Godfather: Part III. But Part I is what stands apart from its distinctive internal arc of Michael. In the other two movies, Michael's determination and moral center never wavers, we just see the external world's consequences of his moral choices.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca.
Schindler's List (1993)
Absolute good triumphs over absolute evil
Schindler's List is about the idea that good triumphs over evil. Small gestures of kindness can overcome the inconvenient irks of everyday life, but absolute good must rise to the occasion to meet absolute evil, no matter the cost. In this story, there is no question about the absolute evil: the innocent victims of the Holocaust (the appeasement of which implicates us all, see The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich). In the backdrop of this absolute evil, our hero is not without guilt. He is a Nazi party member, an unabashed adulterer and war profiteer. But when history gives him the chance, he chooses to pursue an absolute good, the saving of a thousand innocent Jews from certain death. And this absolute good, pursued to the cost of his entire fortune, redeems him of all the other ills he had accumulated over his life.
To give this idea life, the story's main plot is that of Schindler saving the Jews. To show the cost of this success, another plot tracks his fortune which is given up to save the Jews. Two other internal plots depict the morality of Schindler and Goeth. To make us experience the idea, absolute evil is given a face, a personality and a humane charm. The choices Goeth and Schindler make highlight the inner battles that must be won to strive for the absolute good.
This story is so powerful, it's meaning so relevant, that its experience is almost beyond words. This is why movies should be made. Its special resonance comes from the fact that given the ideas of such absolutes, the hero and villain are not depicted as black and white. The same story could easily have veered to a didactic history lesson, instead it is a shared experience that makes the world a better place by reminding us of what the human species is capable of doing to itself.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Determination leads to triumph over evil
The Dark Knight Rises is the final part of Chris Nolan's Batman Trilogy. It is also certainly the worst of the three, behind the average Batman Begins and the fantastic The Dark Knight.
The Dark Knight Rises is about the idea that determination leads to triumph over evil. It tries to demonstrate this idea with the main external plot of Save Gotham. This plot is supported by two others. The first is Batman's redemption and Reputation and the second is Catwoman's internal moral compass.
The problem for me was that I can find no more than one significant turning point on each of these three plots. On the main plot. Bane goes from triumph to triumph as he enslaves Gotham with no disruption until the end. Similarly, on the Batman Reputation front, it is in the trash until he saves the city at the end. Finally, Catwoman is morally corrupt and betrays Batman ... until the end when she and the whole story turns around on one blazing action packed sequence. Somehow these few dramatic bits are supposed to fill a 2+ hour story. They don't. And the pictorial depiction of Bane's triumph is boring, boring, and boring. For solace, I guess we could always rewatch The Dark Knight.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Justice is an ideal that must be protected at all costs
The Dark Knight is the crown jewel of Chris Nolan's Batman trilogy. It is a story that is leaps and bounds ahead of average Batman Begins and not even from the planet as the garbage The Dark Knight Rises.
The Dark Knight is about the same idea as Batman Begins. The idea that justice trumps vengeance. The Dark Knight takes this idea to extremes to suggest that justice is an ideal that must be protected at all costs. It demonstrates this idea with the main plot of Save Gotham's Soul. This is supported by an internal plot that takes place within Harvey Dent, his seeking of revenge or justice, which is irreversibly broken when the Joker kills his girlfriend Rachel. Joker's actions ruins Harvey and Rachel's chance at love and sets Dent on the path to destruction. Finally, Batman is not only the main driver of fights to save Gotham, he also sacrifices his reputation to Save Gotham's Soul. Thus, the idea that justice is an ideal that must be protected at all costs is demonstrated. Justice as an ideal must be protected even with Rachel's death, with Dent's false hero status, and with Batman giving up his reputation.
It's a great story and a triumph of movie making in the age of fluff and crap. Too bad the final part of the trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises turns out to be as empty as this one is full.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca.
Batman Begins (2005)
Justice triumphs over vengeance
Batman Begins is about the idea that justice triumphs over vengeance. It is the second best of Chris Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy (behind The Dark Knight and ahead of The Dark Knight Rises). And you can see why with the story chart.
Batman Begins goes about demonstrating the idea that justice triumphs over vengeance with three plots. The main external plot is of course, Save Gotham. This is augmented with a love story between Bruce and Rachel and an internal struggle of Bruce to seek revenge or justice.
The problem is the internal plot ends in the first act. He chooses justice when he leaves the League of Shadows and his internal compass never again wavers. The love plot ends ambiguously at the end, even though he has chosen the path of the straight and narrow and defeated the revenge-seeking League of Shadows. So for the majority of the movie all we get to watch is Batman saving Gotham, and that can get boring pretty quickly. For a more interesting take on this idea, you will have to see the next in the trilogy, the epic Dark Knight.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca.
American History X (1998)
Prejudice and bigotry will kill our children
American History X is about the idea that prejudice and bigotry will kill our children. The idea is that prejudice is a slippery slope. A father's offhanded racist remark over the dinner can lead to unintended consequences. The result, in the world of this movie, is children killing each other. The movie makes a pretty convincing argument that the consequences in our world would be just as dire, that there is no room for even a little bit of bigotry in our society if we are to survive without killing each other.
American History X goes about proving this idea with two main plots: the internal plot of Derek's redemption from being a skinhead Nazi to a tolerant individual actively helping the good cause and the external plot of Derek's attempt to save his younger brother Danny from the brainwashing that ruined him. Derek is successful in redeeming himself, but his attempt to save Danny fails when Danny is shot and killed. This suggests that even if we live with hate in a momentary weakness, that hate will have consequences far beyond the moment. The movie suggests that with hate, there is no such thing as true redemption. Therefore, we are all well-advised to avoid even a little bit of it.
The movie makes the idea fully believable because of the depths of hate and true redemption Derek goes through. He seemed to have finally won the battle to save both his family's soul when his past all of a sudden catches up to him and kills Danny. This twist at the end makes it impossible to finish the movie feeling good about ourselves that the hero has won his redemption through his trials by fire. It makes it impossible not to think and feel and believe that hate will eventually catch up to all of us if we let it in for even a little bit. Great idea and a great movie.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca.
Titanic (1997)
Love conquers death
Titanic is about the idea that love conquers death. It demonstrates this idea with a love story between Jack and Rose that has its ups and downs but is sealed with Rose's decision to stay on the sinking ship and risk death rather than escape the Titanic alone. Jack returns her love in kind by saving her from freezing but dying in the process. Rose remembers her love for almost 80 years and returns to the spot Titanic sank to throw a priceless diamond into the ocean in memory of Jack. The main plots of their love and Jack's doomed escape from Titanic are supported by additional plots of Hockley's escape from the ship and the treasure hunters search for the diamond.
The story's focus stays true to the main love and escape plots that constitute the idea that love conquers death (love endures despite and because of Jack's death). The side plots provide fuel for the main turning points and add the final clincher of Rose remembering her love for decades by throwing away the diamond in memory of Jack. James Cameron really knew what he was doing with the story and it shows in the Story Chart.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca.
Cidade de Deus (2002)
Crime doesn't pay for anyone
City of God is a movie about the idea that crime doesn't pay for anyone. It goes about demonstrating this idea by showing a succession of people trying to take over the ghetto with violence. Some of the candidates are kind-hearted Robin Hoods (Tender Trio), some are accidental gangsters (Knockout Ted), some are simply evil (Lil'Z) and some are a bunch of prepubescent kids (Runts). They all use violence to pursue crime. They all fail. Even as the Runts seem to rule the day at the end, having killed Lil'Z, you know things can change tomorrow (they're like, 10 years old). These four external plots are joined by an internal plot of our protagonist, Rocket, successfully avoiding a life of crime by luck and some fortitude.
The movie seems to want to be more than an episodic chorus of violence. It strains to show that the ghetto and a broken system makes crime and criminality inevitable. It shows this mainly through the reluctant criminal of Knockout Ted who is basically forced to become a gangster after trying to live virtuously. But this idea is relegated to secondary importance for me: much of the violence is glorified, and our hero does escape a life of crime (even though he is no where near as virtuous as Ted was), providing contrary evidence to the idea that crime is inevitable.
A change of protagonist from Rocket into Knockout Ted might have gotten this movie onto this bigger idea.
That's not to say the movie doesn't have some pretty memorable scenes, locations and the fact that it's a Brazilian production based on true characters is pretty awesome. I just think it could have mixed its potent ingredients together towards a bigger idea.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca.
Double Indemnity (1944)
Loss of morality destroys everything
Double Indemnity is about the idea that the loss of morality destroys everything. It demonstrates this idea by a man who gets on the slippery slope of adultery that ends with a double murder. In the process, he loses his career, friend, a woman who really loved him and ultimately his life.
The main plot of the story is the external one: to get away with the perfect murder in order to be with the woman he loves. This plot ends in failure. Suspicion ruins his love and he commits another murder to hide the first. His suspicion is proved to be misplaced as his lover refuses to kill him before he kills her. In the end, he is caught, confesses and dies from his wounds.
But we already knew that he doesn't get away since the movie starts with his confession and the whole thing takes place in a flashback that catches up to the present.
If the movie ended where it began, it would have been a simple morality play about how the slippery slope of the loss of morality (that started with some innocent flirting) can quickly spiral out of control and take everything with it. But our hero chooses to redeem himself at the end. He realizes he has lost everything and chooses to confess. He also choose to put two young lovers who have broken up because of mutual distrust back on track to be reunited. This minor plot line of Lola and her boyfriend's love is crucial to the hero's redemption.
Double Indemnity is a very tight story. Each character plays roles on multiple plot lines and each scene provides turning points of expanding stakes and meaning. It absolutely proves the idea that even a small loss of morality will lead to the ultimate destruction.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca.
V for Vendetta (2005)
Bravery will bring down a dictatorship
V for Vendetta is about the idea that bravery will bring down a dictatorship. It tries to demonstrate this with four plots. The main plot is about the revolution to overthrow the fascist government, which succeeds. This plot succeeds because of V's bravery in the face of oppression, and is supported by society's refusal to take it anymore. Society's rise to arms is demonstrated by two internal plots: that of Evey's growing bravery to the point of being willing to die to protect her freedom and that of the inspector general refusing to carry out orders for an oppressive government. Evey's arc is also accompanied by her growing love for V.
The story ends with society taking up V's call to arms and marching on parliament to overthrow the government.
The movie has numerous references to Nazi Germany and tries to make a point that revenge for its own sake is not the end goal, rather, overcoming fear to stand up for what's right is paramount. This is highlighted by the ending whereby V does not blow up the parliament on his own but leaves it to the people.
It's a great idea.
But the movie didn't work for me. Mostly because the beginning raised the stakes so much that the turning points leading to the end felt inconsequential or unbelievable. We go from the first 10 minutes where:
Evey goes on a date past curfew, whereby she is: Harassed by the police with threat of rape, whereby: V saves her by beating the police up, V goes onto blow up the courts From there, the movie gets to work to lay out each of the plots. The problem for me is the first 10 minutes setup a world where hyperbole rules. This fantastical setup presents an extreme world that makes the rest of the movie's twists and turns hard to believe since the beginning setup two omniscient parties: the government and V.
Great idea, just didn't work for me.
My Story Chart for the movie is at storycharts.ca.
Metropolis (1927)
Love will save us from tearing each other apart
Metropolis is about the idea that love will save us from tearing each other apart. Though this idea is well hidden among many things: class warfare symbolism, biblical references, human cloning and an ensemble of recurring, meaningful characters each with their own arcs and surprises. All this taking place on silent film made almost 100 years ago.
The main plot is Freder's pursuit to win the love of Maria. The film opens with Freder falling in love on first sight and ends with Freder saving Maria and winning her love. In between is a demonstration that this love is the only thing that saves Metropolis from destruction.
Freder happens to be the son of the master of Metropolis and Maria a prophet of the worker class. In his pursuit of Maria's love, Freder sympathizes with the workers' plight. His growing sympathy, trust and love for the workers stands in sharp contrast with the cold political calculus his father employs against them. His father's mad scientist, seeking revenge for losing the love of his life, manipulates the mistrust between the classes to incite a revolution to destroy Metropolis. He does this by cloning Maria with a robot which begins to incite chaos. The workers destroy the machines that run the city and seem to have killed their own children in their blind rage. Freder and Maria save the children. In the end, Freder helps the workers reconcile with his father who has had the cold heartlessness shaken out of him.
This does not even mention the ensemble cast of characters who add dimension and meaning to the story. Nor does this give due note to the above mentioned symbolism and the psychedelic effect of sped-up film and thousands of human bodies marching in rhythm. Suffice it to say the story makes a poetic case for the idea that love will save us from tearing each other part.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca.
To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
To grow up is to overcome prejudice
To Kill a Mockingbird is a story about the idea that to grow up is to overcome prejudice. It tries to prove this idea with three plots, one of each type:
An external plot seeking justice for a wrongly convicted Tom Robinson A relationship plot between the children and Boo Radley An internal development plot of the children's maturation The external plot is the main driver of the story: a black man has been falsely accused of rape by a white woman. Worse, he is wrongly convicted by a jury of white men after having the audacity to declare that he was helping the woman out of pity. This plot results in a failure as Tom is convicted and killed while trying to escape. The plot has a reversal at the end in which the true criminal (and perpetrator of prejudice) is himself killed and his killing is accepted by the law as eye-for-an-eye for Tom.
The external plot unfolds in the formative years of the children and has a distinct impact on their relationship with an ostracized neighbor. They begin by fearing, judging and harassing Boo Radley, only to find that Boo has been helping them from the shadows. The plot ends when the children welcome Boo as a friend.
The internal plot of the maturation of the children makes steady progress. They demonstrate an innate acceptance of others (in sharp contrast with the societal mores) and end up overcoming their own fear of Boo by accepting him as a friend (when even society has not accepted him).
To Kill a Mockingbird is a wonderful story with a great idea: that growing up means overcoming prejudice. It seems to suggest that children have innate goodness and acceptance but can be molded by grownups and society to become blinded or become mature members of society. This contrasts with the idea that prejudice in any shape or form is childish and dangerous trait in adults and society as a whole. The story makes this point by tying together the three plots at the end: Boo kills the man who embodied prejudice to bring late justice for Tom Robinson, Boo does this to save the children, and the children accept him as a friend even though society still shuns him.
It's a great movie.
My only beef is the children's internal arc does not have many negative turning points. Their fighting (seemingly negative) is based on justifiable defending of their father's reputation, their jeering at Boo seems playful and child-like rather than childish and their talking Mr Cunningham out of the lynch mob and taking Boo's hand at the end feels a little caricatured and cringe-inducing. Maybe that's just my own feeling. Overall the point of the story is well taken and appreciated.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca.
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
War is not worth wasting our youth
Full Metal Jacket is about the idea that war is not worth wasting our youth. It tries to prove this with two stories: the first is the marines training for deployment, the second is the marines in action in Vietnam.
The first story, the marines training for deployment, is told with two external plots: that of the not so bright marine Pyle trying to finish boot camp and the second is the entire class of marines trying to graduate. The class of marines succeed in graduating, but Pyle does not. He goes crazy after the harsh treatment meant to harden him to become a killer and commits suicide. So this story gets to the point that preparing for war is inhumane and not worth wasting our youth.
The second story is about the marines fighting to win the war in Vietnam. This is told with two plots: that of winning the war and the second of the declining morality of the marines. The war is not won, it ends ambiguously as the marines win a small insignificant battle and return to camp while the morality of the marines shows a constant decline and ends with our hero committing murder.
The movie is a great testament to the anti-war movement and a visual essay on the meaninglessness of war. But it is not a very engaging story. The first half of the movie makes a tight dramatic point that training marines to be killer has some inhumane consequences and proves it with Pyle's suicide. But the second half doesn't have an overall story arc to hang its hat on. The status of the main external plot of winning the war is left ambiguous. So the moral decline of our hero who has to commit murder at the end doesn't create as much meaning since the murder doesn't get us any further in winning the war.
One can argue that that's the point of the movie, is that these atrocities are senseless and meaningless. And that is true. But in terms of a dramatic story, the meaning of the action is lost because the filmmakers abhorred making winning the war into any resemblance of a real plot.
In the first half of the movie, Pyle's suicide is juxtaposed with the success of class of marines all graduating. Thus it makes the point that his suicide is not worth it for us to successfully train marines. But in the second half of the movie, Joker commits murder but this action is not juxtaposed with progression of any other plot. So the action loses the chance to create meaning through a consequence for his actions. It feels like the movie was cut off without any real resolution, like another 15 minutes were missing.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca
12 Angry Men (1957)
Everyone giving an honest effort to civic duty is a matter of life or death
12 Angry Men is about the idea that everyone giving an honest effort to civic duty is a matter of life or death. It sets out to prove this idea with two external plots: one plot chronicles the journey of finding reasonable doubt for a Not Guilty verdict, the other chronicles the jury gradually giving an honest effort to the deliberation process. The result of these two plots, both of which end in success, gives rise to the idea that without everyone giving an honest effort, the democratic process would be broken.
The movie is a short, confined story tightly told. It is an important story since the idea at the heart of democracy is a delicate one: that all members of society are innocent until proved guilty and that they each have the right to be judged by their peers. That 12 random people from all walks of life are the ultimate arbiters of what are life and death judgement is scary and liberating at the same time. It's scary in that each of us is a bundle of individual prejudices and hardened views that can sway our judgement. It's liberating in that these 12 random people need to unanimously decide on a single judgement despite their inherent differences.
The movie highlights the democratic process by showing 12 specific individuals who are too busy and prejudiced from the get go to give the judging process an honest go. When only one juror stands between a death verdict and a long uncomfortable debate, the democratic process is on the verge of breaking down. By the individual standing up against his peers to insist on an honest discussion, he starts the process towards due diligence and evidence review that ultimately results in an unanimous Not Guilty judgement.
The idea that it only takes one individual out of twelve to have the resolve for giving an honest effort to civic duty is a powerful one. It is the idea that the foundation of democratic society can rest on a single individual taking their responsibilities seriously. In fact it is the only foundation democracy can rest on.
So the movie is about an important idea.
But the drama of the story gets slightly repetitive in the second half, as juror after juror deals with their own prejudice. The story tries to give each juror a backstory that reinforces their preconceived notions and views, but having to do this for 12 people dilutes their power and makes most of them seem stereotyped and caricatured.
But thankfully the filmmakers keep the story moving in a tight 90 minutes and don't ruin a good thing.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
Determination solves a crime
The Maltese Falcon is about a detective who solves the crime of his partner's murder by dogged determination.
The main plot is the solving of the crime (which ends in success), with a minor love interest subplot that ends in failure (the detective gives up the love interest after discovering she committed the murder).
As a story The Maltese Falcon largely flatlines.
The main plot moves from discovery to discovery but the turning points feel arbitrary and not meaningful. As the story unfolds, the detective unravels the back story of what the treasure is and how it got here. But the back story's revelation doesn't create much meaning for us or the protagonist as it mainly involves the secondary characters while our main character remains immovable and static. The main character untangles the sordid histories of these secondary characters to solve the crime, but we are left with a feeling of so what? In the end we get two somewhat moral triumphs: one, the detective solves the crime of his partner's murder despite the police messing up their investigation. But this moral victory feels empty since he and his dead partner's wife are lovers, which throws him off the moral high horse. The second is that he gives up his feelings for O'Shaughnessy and sends her to prison because he finds out she turns out to be the murderer. This moral dilemma also feels empty because: A) so he cheated on his dead partner's wife who was his lover to be with this new lover and then gives her up, how is that a moral victory? and B) The two of them only have 2 or 3 turning points to develop their relationship and their love doesn't have much to stand on.
So the story is reduced to rely almost exclusively on a classic who dunnit throughline with some great actors who are unfortunately trying to breath life into empty cardboard box of characters. In other words, a big waste of time.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca
Amadeus (1984)
Jealousy can destroy a career, but not divine talent
Amadeus tries to demonstrate the idea that you can destroy a man's career, but you can't stop his divine talent from being unleashed onto the world.
The movie tries to show this with three external plots: the plot to destroy Mozart's career by Salieri, the plot of Mozart's fame and the plot of Salieri's fame (where fame roughly represents their musical reputation). Salieri succeeds in destroying Mozart's career by killing him. Mozart's fame endures as his divine creations are valued by posterity. Salieri's fame on the other hand, fades as his musical works are largely forgotten.
The movie starts out with Salieri as an old man recollecting about his triumph over Mozart. By this point, the world has forgotten him and only remember's Mozart's music. From there on, the movie goes on to show us Salieri destroying Mozart's career.
The movie was a waste of time because from the first scene on, we are told what will happen: that Salieri's jealousy destroys Mozart's career but not his everlasting fame. Then the movie goes on to show us just that, with no surprises of any kind. The portrayal of the main plot of Salieri destroying Mozart is thus predictably episodic. And with no meaningful internal or relationship turning points to keep us interested, the movie plods forward trying to make us pity poor Mozart. The movie limps to its inevitable conclusion and drags us through a 3 hour picture show with no drama. Even the subplots of Mozart's fame (which endures) and Salieri's fame (which dies) are not punctuated with highs at the end. All we are left with is a 3 hour sap story and way too many scenes of random operas. If we wanted to appreciate Mozart's talent, time is better spent just listening to his music or watching an opera instead of sitting through this picture slideshow.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca
Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)
Civil liberties must be defended at all cost
Good Night and Good Luck uses two plots to try to prove the idea that civil liberties must be defended at all cost. One plot is a reporter's external quest to defeat Mccarthyism: the violation of civil liberties in the name of national security. This plot succeeds: Mccarthyism is defeated. The second plot is the external quest representing the reporter's career and well being. This plot ends in a failure. So the movie tries to demonstrate the idea that civil liberties must be defended at all cost by showing that the successful defense of civil liberties cost our heroes their jobs, careers, and even their lives.
This idea is a timely one for us: today the world is captivated by the tales of Edward Snowden: an ex-CIA worker who has given up his career and possibly his life to reveal massive violations of the civil liberties of all Americans by their government. As of now, we don't know how this story ends. We don't know if the cost of his sacrifice was enough to earn a "success" of protecting our civil liberties. What we do know is that the US government, and much of the public, believe that it is necessary to give up certain civil liberties in the name of national security. What this movie tries to demonstrate is that the US Constitution is built upon the idea that basic freedoms cannot be compromised at all, and that they must be defended to the death. As our hero says:
"We can deny our heritage and our history but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. We proclaim ourselves as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom wherever it continues to exist in the world. But we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the Junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his, he didn't create this situation of fear, he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right, the fault dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Good night, and good luck."
So the movie picked a very important idea to prove. Unfortunately, it doesn't do a very good job of proving it.
The plot depicting the cost of our heroes is bland. There are no uplifting turning points on this plot. The heroes lose money, security, their jobs, the lives and their careers in a steady drumbeat of bad news. Because there are no twists and turns along the ride of this plot, the costs seem episodic and didactic. This makes the heroes seem flat and unreasonably "good" as they continue their march against the villains irregardless of casualties and consequence. Basically there aren't enough twists here to keep the story interesting. None of the heroes undergo internal arcs (they are all conscientious from start to end) and none of them undergo relationship arcs (they are all in it together from beginning to end, even a married couple who were forced to split up).
This make the film seem didactic: it is a series of self righteous speeches by our heroes against the villains and we are asked to watch the movie with the hindsight of history to see their actions in the proper moral light.
Ironically, the Snowden story playing out today has more interesting twists and drama than Good Night and Good Luck:
- we don't yet know if Snowden will be successful in convincing the American people to defend their own freedoms. - Snowden has obviously acknowledged and accepted the costs to his career and possibly his life. - Snowden's internal ideals are tested enormously now: he has ironically sought political asylum from countries that have horrendous human rights track records as compared to the USA. This has already compromised his public reputation and may affect the outcome of his external quest as he could become an international political pawn.
President Obama has even acknowledged in a condescending manner that the Snowden story might make a "TV movie" someday as he tries to convince the American people that civil liberties must be "balanced" with national security. Depending on how Snowden's internal struggles and his external quest turn out, his story just might prove the idea that civil liberties cannot be compromised at all and must be defended to the death.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca
Elizabeth (1998)
Monarchy requires total devotion
The plots were picked well to illustrate the Controlling Idea, that Monarchy requires total devotion, such that Queen Elizabeth would give up marriage and love to be devoted to England and be known by history as the Virgin Queen. But, the plots don't really grind against each other, the turning points are not natural progressions of each other and the story limps along without being driven by Elizabeth. For example, most of the Monarchy plot turning points are not effected by Elizabeth herself, instead they are by luck (Queen Mary dies, she is declared queen) and by others (Walsingham captures the priest and all the traitors). The Controlling Idea does not feel proved, it does not feel that she HAD to become the Virgin Queen to save her Monarchy and England. The sequel is much tighter in driving home its idea. Given this story, I'm surprised a sequel was given a chance to see the light of day.
The Godfather Part III (1990)
Crime will never let you escape
The Godfather: Part III continues the theme of Family from the first two movies. In The Godfather, Michael had undergone an internal arc to go from outsider to Don of the family, dropping most of his morals along the way in order to protect the family. In The Godfather: Part II, this idea of the ends justify the means is taken to its logical extreme as Michael tears the family apart in order to protect it.
In Part III, Michael tries to make the family legitimate in order to redeem himself. Unlike the first movie, where Michael's internal change happens on screen, and unlike the second movie, where Michael's does not change at all, this movie has Michael shifting gears to try to pay for his past sins. But this change does not take place on screen. Michael starts the movie regretting his distance from his children and spends the whole movie trying to make up, his internal compass does not change through the movie.
So all we are left are two external plot lines: Michael's efforts to legitimize being constantly thwarted and his failure to protect his family because of his past sins keep catching up to him.
The movie seems to be about something like "Crime will never let you escape". But the movie doesn't really prove this because so much of what Michael is paying for is offscreen and in the past two movies. The whole movie just feels like a confession for past sins and the filmmakers showing us that bad deeds will always catch up to us. The idea is not proved by action and choice of the characters on screen. This movie is a necessary but not a worthy tribute to the first two films, it probably shouldn't have been made at all.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca.
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997)
Prejudice and wrongful acquittal implicates the community
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil is about a small town trial about a murder that pits hard evidence against the prejudice of a community. In the end, the jury acquits the accused, but the accused also reveals that he had actually lied about the murder.
I have a hard time figuring out the point (and genre) of the story. All along, we are pulled along to root for a court room drama that seems on path to being about overcoming small town prejudice to free an innocent man. But then at the end the man's innocence is put in question. So the resolution feels weird. The town is also weird (which seems to be a part of the story). The community is a closeted bunch of fruitcakes ruled by gossip and prejudice. The movie paints a vivid picture of the community's weirdness, but how does that serve the point of the story?
I don't get it.
And the genre is a little weird. If its a courtroom drama, then hard evidence should rule the day. If it's about the ambiguous nature of good and evil and the hidden powers of fate and voodoo on our lives, then fate and consequence should rule the day. I don't think you can mix them. The court room drama and hard evidence is what takes up screen time and pulls our attention forward, but then the climax switches the focus to the good/evil ambiguity and the sense that you get what you deserve by divine retribution. So we go along for one ride (Courtroom Drama) and finish on a different ride at the end (Good/Evil Contemplation/Fate). Makes me feel weird about the ticket I purchased at the beginning.
A specific example is: the photographer took pictures of the crime scene and handed it to our protagonist. In a Courtroom Drama these types of actions should have consequences later (maybe he develops the film to find a clue). But it didn't happen. So the Genre is busted. We devoted a good portion of attention in the first half of the movie being sensitive to these clues in the story, but there is no payoff. So in the end we feel we have been duped and wrongly invested. One star for wasting my time.
I think the Genre ambiguity might arise from the fact that this is a book adaptation. In the book medium, we can get inside the heads of the characters and try to make moral sense of the external actions. But it might not have translated so well in a movie.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Love as Fate and Willing Acceptance
ETERNAL SUNSHINE's narrative is essentially a love story told backwards. It deals with the traditional problem of reverse narrative in a new way. The traditional problem is that if the audience already knows the ending (bitter breakup), then telling the story in reverse asks the audience the question of "is it worth it?" as we watch the story back to the beginning (falling in love). This intellectualizes the experience rather than giving us dramatic action. ETERNAL SUNSHINE deals with this problem of intellectualization by giving the protagonist an active role in the reverse narrative. Joel is able to interact with his old memories to try to stop the process of erasing; this attempt to escape is the major sub- plot of the film. The catharsis of the audience comes with his rediscovery of his love for Clementine as they try to escape together. They fail to escape at the climax of this sub-plot and his memory is erased. But the lovers meet again by fate and once again fall in love. This fake climax of the main love-story plot is placed at the beginning of the film and again at the end of the film – the audience realizes the despite losing all their memory, the lovers meet and fall in love again. If the film ended there, it would have been a good film, and the central idea would have been "Love happens because of fate". But the problem would have been that Joel went through this huge journey of discovery and change but that all seems to go to waste if fate was just going to put them together again – he needs to be the one making an active choice that demonstrates his internal change at climax. The real climax of ETERNAL SUNSHINE comes out of the reversal at the end, in which the Joel and Clementine discover their bitter past and must choose whether or not to commit despite their past. This resurfaces Joel's inner journey. He and she choose to commit, completing Joel's journey of internal change with an external action. The central idea now becomes "Love happens because of fate but it will only result in a happy relationship with open acceptance of each other and the painful compromises that come with love". This real climax fueled by true character change, dilemma and choice is what makes the film great. The climax completes the audience catharsis experienced through Joel's rediscovery of love; as a result he wins the girl and we are touched by a great story.
My Story Chart of this movie is at storycharts.ca
Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)
Inner strength is needed to defend one's country
This movie has pretty much the same Controlling Idea as the previous Elizabeth movie: that devotion and inner strength is required to protect one's country. But this movie does a way better job of proving the idea. Even though as queen, Elizabeth is far removed from the physical battle and spy vs spy action, her actions (and inactions) drive every turning point forward. When she wavers, England suffers, when she is strong, England triumphs. This makes for a very satisfying ending where she rallies her troops to defeat the Spanish armada in one of England's greatest naval victories in history. Great movie.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Brotherhood is worth dying for
Saving Private Ryan is about a band of brothers who give up their own lives to save the life of a single soldier in the chaos of war. The Controlling Idea, that brotherhood is worth dying for, is well told and thematically supported. The contradictory notion of risking the lives of many to save the few resonates well with the idea of war in general: that the values of freedom, family and human rights are ideals worth dying for: even if these values are preserved only for a few survivors. The hope is the survivors (and the viewers) can go on to live a good life and treasure their freedoms that others died to protect. The question is that in a democracy where human rights and freedoms are valued, why would anyone in their right mind choose to sacrifice their life and limb? The answer: these soldiers choose to do it to protect a brother, and these armies choose to do it to protect the basic human rights of the citizens of fellow nations. This seems to suggest that the very fabric of democratic society rests on the fundamental respect for each other and the rights of others and that these rights and freedoms are ideals that much be protected to the death.
Great film told with what I count to be three major external plots: to save Ryan, to win the war and to save the lives of the men. The lives of the men are lost to achieve the first two. Thus proving the Controlling Idea that brotherhood is worth dying for.
My major complaint is the film is too long. Three hours is a long time and the episodes of peace are not so interesting since not much relationship or personal development takes place. The brothers are "good" from beginning to end and their relationships are "good" from beginning to end. Of course there are minor plot lines like Opum's compassion for POWs and Reiben's questioning of Miller's judgement. But they don't create serious turning points in an otherwise external-action focused story. I think the story would look substantially the same if you cut out the middle: the Carparso dying to save a French child, the radar assault that loses Wade and the church resting.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1968)
An amazing true story well told
"Tried before an international tribunal at Nuremberg, twenty-one Nazi leaders are indicted for Crimes Against Humanity. To a man they plead Not Guilty. If they are Not Guilty, who is? And if they are, who is Not? The German people who gave the Nazis power? The civilized world which permitted that monstrous regime to grow unchallenged? Hitler's Reich reaffirms that in every man still exists the evils with which he can destroy himself."
This definitive account of Hitler's rise and fall is not just an account of the facts of history. It tells a story with a powerful Controlling Idea: that appeasement of evil implicates us all. This story goes on to prove this idea through the consequences of Hitler's unimaginable actions and the world's perplexing inaction.
This is a story well told. Unfortunately it also happens to be a true story.
Let's see how long the world remembers...
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca
Kurono toriga (1995)
Best video game ever created
Chrono Trigger is the best video game ever created. In 1995, confined by a 16-bit video game system with only 128KB of RAM (the Super Nintendo), the game brought an amazing time-travelling story to life that somehow was enhanced by the limitations of the pixel graphics that allowed our imagination to fill in the full picture of the story.
Chrono Trigger deals with the inherent difficulty of making the trade- off between game-play and story. Basically, that open-world exploration of game play can sap the momentum of the main thrust of the story:
Chrono Trigger deals with this by having a pretty linear storyline for the first two acts. The key turning points of the story in these two acts are directly entwined with the game-play. And what an amazing two acts: the heroes travel back and forward in time as the true enemy is gradually revealed. The second act ends with the world being destroyed and the hero dead.
The open-world nature of the game only opens up at that point, where free form explorations fill in back stories and complete the key love and redemption subplots: the hero is brought back to life and frog finds redemption. Then the party powers up through these side quests before the final confrontation.
The story is tight, the 16-bit graphics allow our imagination to fill in where the 16-bit graphics can only provide outlines of the crazy epochs we visit (including an amazing world in the sky in 12,000 B.C.), and the musical score is absolutely out of this world (Frog's redemption theme is especially moving). Throw in a few flash forwards and crazy dream sequences that tug at the themes of the story and you have a truly unique cathartic experience.
My Story Chart of Chrono Trigger is at storycharts.ca