A film story is an argument that is expressed within its 2-hour time constraint. The stronger the argument, the more compelling the film becomes in changing culture. This power is seeded within a moral argument and is demonstrated by the main character, thereby impacting the audience’s perspective on the topic.

Understanding the morality at the root of the story helps the filmmaker develop three–dimensional characters, define core conflicts that drive the story, empower a unified theme, and assert a subtext that thrusts the audience to the filmmaker’s conclusion. These elements seed the audience’s decision to not only consider change, breaking up their ill-patterned behaviors, but also inspire the viewer to take action toward implementing their version of the main character’s solution in their own life.

But how does the filmmaker define his morality?

Morality is that set of behaviors that the average person would label good or bad. The good being socially acceptable or positive in nature, and the bad being harmful to a person or immoral. This definition causes filmmakers to pit a good person against a bad person throughout the story, allowing the exploration of both sides of a given argument. The filmmaker’s view on what is considered good and bad is endeared to the audience for consideration within their own life.

Obvious protagonistic battles against the antagonist might show up in the form of spy/crime stories like James Bond or Batman. Within these overt stories is a character who decides to be selfless on behalf of another, revealing the power of grace bestowed upon those in need. In subtle stories, a fine line might separate the good guy from the bad guy, especially if the good guy has to cross a moral line to do what is “good” for others.

An example of a subtle line between good and bad showed up in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. The story was about the fine line between blindly trusting the local police and holding them accountable for their biased treatment of others. Within the story the audience witnessed a demonstration on how those who suffered a crime should behave when treated poorly. It further explored how others should treat those who have been injured by anger, vengeance, and abuse.

The mixing of the various emotional responses to the moral dilemma gives plenty of fuel to the writer. By having a character facing each angle of the issue, the filmmaker is able to bring full consideration to bear for the audience’s enlightenment. The screenplay can also reveal how the good guy can all too easily cross the moral line in the name of seeking unfulfilled justice, making him just like the bad guy.

In Batman, the caped crusader breaks the law by becoming a vigilante in order to capture the infamous bad guy. In Back to the Future, Marty convinces his dad to punch Biff and right history. The Equalizer commits crimes to save others from injustice and death.

On the other side of the coin, especially in more subtle stories, the bad guy appears just like the hero with one slight difference—his morality. The Joker in The Dark Knight made it clear to Batman that they were cut from the same cloth, giving the filmmaker a range of emotional challenges to share how different moral and immoral choices might play out, revealing that self-sacrifice is the ultimate demonstration of love-based morals.

Subtle films can also reveal truth by choosing the opposite. When we watch immorality on screen appear to win, the moment typically illuminates the good that lost. We can look to religion for an example of immorality winning in the death of Jesus. His death gave all appearance that he lost, but his real goal was to die for the mistakes of others, covering our behavioral errors with his moral goodness.

Our movie theaters are loaded with sacrilegious humor these days, but most of it points clearly to the opposite being the right choice in life. When we laugh at the political incorrectness or immoral behaviors, it is due to our recognition of what we know to be right that causes the laughter. In other words, laughing at the immoral during the exploration of morals is a sign that we know what a moral life looks like, forcing us to consider if we need to tweak our own life to the good.

I’m amazed at how every true exploration of morals points the audience to what is right, regardless of their background or original beliefs. I’m convinced this is possible because the moral will always win over the immoral.

So, why is it that faith-based films avoid showing both sides of an argument that morality will win?

The answer is easier than you think. Faith-based films aren’t created to reveal truth through all sides of an argument, but are designed to avoid arguments and conflicts in order to demonstrate what utopia looks like through the eyes of the filmmaker. Unfortunately, I know few people who can relate to such unrealistic stories because their lives are far from ideal. This results in them avoiding that genre of film.

It’s a shame because filmmakers who have lived both immoral (before their spiritual awakening) and moral (after their awakening) lives would be able to better reveal the truth and consequences of all sides of an issue for our community at large. Every member of the audience would be able to watch the pros and cons demonstrated by characters and be able to make a wise decision concerning changes in their own life for the good.

I believe filmmakers do a disservice to the general public when they don’t show all sides of the good and bad within the form of a film’s argument. After all, morality wins over immorality whenever placed side-by-side for an equal comparison. Since morality always wins, you’d think filmmakers would embrace all controversial subjects knowing that the film would guide the audience to make healthy decisions for their future.

Let me summarize things in this way… Film story is an argument that directly impacts the viewer, but a movie made without anything argued ads nothing to our culture.

© 2018 by CJ Powers

Interviews and award shows reveal that actors must own their character to excel at their craft. Directors must do the same, but with multiple characters. The hard work for the actor and director starts with what I call the “Ownership Read” of the script. With each reading of a script, the actor and director look for certain elements to build an award winning performance.

I’ve shared in the past about the first read being a tool to determine the story’s strengths, the emotional pulse or rhythm of the story, and the effectiveness of the turning points—none of which can be determined during a subsequent reading. The educated, award winning actor reads and analyzes the script 5-8 times during the process of developing his or her character. The second reading is best done as the Ownership Read.

The Ownership Read requires the following seven steps to gather and mold the proper information about the character:

STEP 1: Read your character out loud without influence.

The actor’s ear is well trained through experience and workshops. By reading the script out loud, the actor can quickly ascertain the voice of the character. This process also allows the psyche to pick up on nuances that might otherwise be missed. It’s important that the reading is not done as a performance, but a straight reading to avoid adding undesirable characteristics or embellishments. This also allows the words that were carefully selected by the writer to inform the character’s development.

STEP 2: Skip reading the action lines.

The character is the only focus during this read through, so action lines are avoided. Some argue as to whether other characters should be read, but I hold to the idea that if it is necessary, which it shouldn’t be since the script was already read in full once before, the other characters can be read silently—and only when necessary for context.

STEP 3: Paraphrase the character’s profile.

By finding a friend or a partner to test the materials, the actor shares the character’s profile by saying, “This is a character who….” This is the first real step in the ownership process, as it gives the actor a clear understanding of what the outsider sees in the character. Some of the wording will sound strange to the actor because he or she is not the actual character. The amateur actor will immediately get an itch to suggest dialog changes because it doesn’t sound “realistic” or like them. But this read is to learn who the character is, not conform it to the actor’s personality.

STEP 4: Paraphrase the character’s profile in a personalized fashion.

This step is identical to the previous step except for one major change. The actor this time shares the character’s profile by saying, “I am a person who….” This approach automatically shifts the perspective and ownership to the actor as if he or she is the character. Suddenly the wording brings up defense and justification mechanisms—the real beat of the character’s lifeblood. This practice also shifts the passive view of the character into a proactive or driven view. This perview empowers the actor to conform his or her negatives into a presentable positive, regardless of what outsiders might actually think or see.

The process makes the antagonist more powerful and gives strength of character, regardless of good or bad, to supporting roles. The biggest difference from the previous step is the uncanny ability for the actor to gain empathy for the character—being able to play a flawed individual as if the flaw was an asset, generating three-dimensional character traits.

STEP 5: Build a backstory and hidden secrets based on what’s gleaned from the read.

The natural results of exploring the character through this process is a depth of knowledge and behaviors that are worthy of exploration. By considering how the person got to the place they’re in at the start of the story, the actor is able to build a backstory that gives credence to the scripted voice and behaviors.

This reflection, coupled with the new-found empathy, allows the actor to mold his or her instincts and responses according to the new character—making sense of the dialog not previously understood. The added bonus from the generous amount of material also gives the ability to plant a secret to keep throughout the shoot that brings more depth of character into the eyes of the actor during close ups.

STEP 6: Avoid the obvious, as nothing in a script is obvious.

Most amateurs take the script at face value and miss the subtext, underlying character elements, and hidden reveals. The actor must take note of anything that appears obvious and dig to find out what is really being said. By assuming nothing in the script is obvious, the actor is forced to conduct a deeper dive to find out why the character says what they say. The focus is on looking for hints of depth behind every statement. The actor can even ask and consider the question, “Does this line have more than one meaning?”

STEP 7: Commit to the character.

The number one reason a character fails is because the actor skips the due diligence to develop the role. The second reason comes into play when the actor doesn’t commit to the developed character. Locking in the character is mandatory. Should there be a script or action conflict found later, the actor can talk through the issue with the director—the best troubleshooter on set. Remember, the director knowns the character best, that is, next to the actor.

The greatest pitfall of a rookie actor is attempting to rewrite lines of dialog before understanding the character. Unfortunately for all involved, should one of these types of rewrites be accepted, the character is most likely going to shift from a three-dimensional to a two-dimensional character. The pro actor always dives deeper into the character to learn why he or she says the line to avoid flattening the richness of their uniqueness.

Actors that are unsure if their rewrite suggestions will help or destroy their character should trust the director (as long as he or she is a pro). No great director will ever choose to direct a script with poorly written characters. After all, they’re responsible for the overall story, and their credit will be on the film for a very long time.

Meaning built within the dialog can only be understood in the right context. In Step 3 the dialog might suggest to an outsider that the character is short, ill-tempered, and rude. But in Step 4 the same dialog packaged through empathy reveals that the character is actually tired, abused by the system, and protective of his or her heart. Therefore the actor should never suggest a rewrite until he or she has totally understood and owns the character.

Copyright © 2018 by CJ Powers