Writers and Archetypes
and the Financial Risks Involved
In the daily operation of our business, we get input from screenwriters that address questions about which combinations of cinematic archetypes are best for writers to include, or to highlight, in their stories.
This all depends on what the buyer
quantifies or qualifies as 'best'.
As in all things, there are two opposite possibilities of what's best. They are the two opposites of ‘space and time’. Space and time opposites construct all possibilities. There are four basic combinations of space and time possibilities that create what is best in the cinema.
A Great SPACE in the space allotted
1. the Best theatrical potential in a storyline, = MARKETABILITY
A Great SPACE in the time allotted
2. the Best audience response potential for repeat ticket sales in a storyline, = PLAYABILITY
Vs.
A Great TIME in the time allotted
3. the Best Academy Award potential in a storyline, = MARKETABILITY or
A Great TIME in the space allotted
4. the Best audience response potential to a storyline for 'word-of-mouth' advertising = PLAYABILITY.
These four quadrants can be related to cinematic archetypes as follows;
There are 4 basic options concerning the "Best" hero-type equations in cinema.
1. the Best potential storyline archetype for the
storyline,
or
2. the Best audience response storyline or cinematic archetype potential for repeat
ticket sales,
Vs.
3. the Best Academy Award storyline archetype potential,
or
4. the Best audience response to an actor's archetype for potential 'word-of-mouth'
publicity.
What we have discovered during more than 25 years of research is that ANY combination of the hero-types CAN be best and fulfill any of the four items above … depending on the storyline.
But, what we also found is that not just any combination of the hero-types can be the most, as compared to others. It all depends on the storyline and it's conflicts. So, from any writer's point of view, trying to pick the absolute best 'hero equation' to build a story around is determined completely by the plot.
The best thing a writer can do is to be clear on the 'audience expected behaviorism' of every character's archetype, and to be sure not to dilute or pollute it with any other type of behavior.
To be clear in its character's 'hero-ism' is the best a writer can produce. And since ALL writers (hyper-consciously, consciously, unconsciously, or subconsciously) write their stories with characters idealized on the actors they've seen or on other living beings, the most important thing a writer can understand are the archetypical attributes of the players he has in mind for the characters -- and how they relate to the storyline.
By the way, everyone has their favorite archetype (which coincidentally matches their own cinematic archetype), and this provides them with an archetype of themselves to relate to in the action on the screen. Relating to the player is very important. Favorite players will have the same cinematic archetype as the viewer.
No specific cinematic archetype is more popular than any another. We've surveyed that question to death and the answer is always the same. One woman's treasure is the other man's trash (and vice-versa and verse-vica).
Conflict creates interest.
So the underlying theme of any good story always includes conflict between the TRUE hero and the ANTI hero. (This paradigm originated in the continuous conflict between space and time in the universe. Sometimes true-heroes are the Time and anti-heroes are the Space -- or vice-versa. Sometimes 'the heroes' are the time and the circumstance is the Space -- and again, vice-versa. But regardless of which side of Time or Space they're on -- it's always the conflict itself that generates audience interest. And, after all, it is the audience we work to interest today -- as they are the only ones that keep us working tomorrow.)
For an example -- consider the following;
ALAN RICKMAN = SAH = "strong" ANTI-HERO
TOM HANKS = WAH = "weak" ANTI-HERO
and
TOM CRUISE = STH = "strong" TRUE-HERO
DANIEL DAY-LEWIS = WTH "weak" TRUE-HERO
Any combination of those different hero-types will make a great movie IF, and only if, the actors play up to their archetype and the storyline gives them a fabulous opportunity to do so while including conflict.
And this is assuming, of course, that the writer, director, or producer haven't screwed up the rest of the production by adding any of the other eighty-five deadly film component formulations that will betray the mass audience's 'suspension of disbelief' which financially devastates movies. That's where CFI steps in. We show producers how to avoid the clandestine flaws -- including archetypes.
Let's look at some combinations.
The extremely conflictive gap between STRONG true-heroes and STRONG anti-heroes is obvious and typical. Too much of that type of conflict spoils suspense, becomes blasé, and diminishes the conflict. Other combinations of archetypal conflicts are just as suspenseful and could be sprinkled into the mix.
Imagine the weak true-hero (WTH) Daniel-Day Lewis as a friend of the weak anti-hero (WAH) Tom Hanks … the friend who never gave up the conflict of searching for him while he was lost in "Castaway." Or better yet, imagine him as the man who married his wife while he was gone. THAT would have been great conflict!
Conflict creates interest -- whether it be actor to actor conflict, or whether it be two actors who don't conflict but are being conflicted by the circumstances.
Imagine if strong true-hero (STH) Tom Cruise had been with weak true-hero (WTH) Daniel Day-Lewis as they fought side-by-side to save Madeleine from the Indian anti-heroes in "Last of the Mohicans". Ya! That would have been a movie ... especially if they had both been in love with her -- a circumstance adding even more conflict. One of those two male true-heroes would have had to sacrifice his life in the end of the film to SAVE the other two. (Who to kill, who to kill...huuuummmm… Should Cruise stand and fight off the hordes to let Lewis and Stowe escape behind him -- or should Lewis run in front to distract the Indians and lead them off a cliff like lemmings? Hummmmmm.)
Take into account how the weak true-hero (WTH) Daniel Day-Lewis made for a very sloppy, goofy Anti-Hero bad-guy in "Gangs of New York". The role should have gone to a natural, inborn anti-hero like Willem Dafoe, or John Malkovich. Then the film would have rocked … even though Leonardo is a "weak" anti-hero too. The film was about the conflict between two self-oriented domineering criminals and their turf.
If a writer was using any of these or other people as ideas for his characters, it would be important to understand their archetypical behaviors, or he will betray the audience. (Your audience is your agent, studio chief, overseas distributor, publicist, player, casting director, marketing agency, theater buyer, and last, but certainly not least ... the theater going audience.)
Betraying the audience is death.
Understanding your storyline's archetypes is LIFE.
We identify who is what natural, inborn archetype using CFI’s confidential biometric software. Exactly how that works is confidential to all but our clients -- but it has never failed in thousands of trials.
|