One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest

I don't believe the Protagonist has to win but IF the Protagonist doesn't win, we need to do our due diligence on the character and make him or her likable, sympathetic, and less nasty than the Antagonist(s).

Take a look a GOODFELLAS...

Henry Hill is a bad guy but NOT as bad as Jimmy and Tommy so we like him more. We want him to get out of his fix and at the end, we don't care that he flips on Jimmy and Pauly... Well, I did care about him flipping over on Pauly but I understood it since Pauly actually says, "I have to turn my back on you now." --or something to that effect.

Another film to consider is BRAVEHEART...

We don't want William Wallace to die but he does and that's okay because of the "bigger picture" he painted. So, like McMurphy, he too, won.

I think it's natural for someone to sit through a film and at the end, SAY they didn't like it because the Protagonist didn't win. However, if it's truly a well told story, these same people will tell their friends about it because it affected them on other levels. In other words, people do in fact like it OVERALL but maybe just not how it played out in the end.

It's all in the telling of the story... If you're going to have an unresolved and or bad ending, you owe it to your audience to tie other subplots up and give them at least a little visceral satisfaction here and there... Otherwise, you've simply accomplished making a bummer of a film that nobody can find redeeming in any way...

Then it fails...

Suffice to say, it's a delicate process and whatever you pull over here has GOT to be pulled over there...

filmy

Interesting.

This is kind of linked to something that I've been looking at for years now, which is the idea that tragedy is falling out of fashion as a story shape in the film industry.

In the 1970's British TV had a strong tradition of making one off dramas -- it was called "Play for Today"

From that era we got the early works of Dennis Potter, Trevor Griffiths, Alan Bleasdale and Alan Bennett -- and strangely enough the most common story shape for those TV plays was the tradegy.

Stories of people destroyed by their characters flaws, as opposed to those who grow and overcome their flaws heroically.

I think you're right, any time you take the audience from the cathartis of a heroic journey and ending, the piece has to be superbly balanced. You have to give them other things, other releases.

This is where I got this idea that you have to give the audience a reason why the sacrifice of the central character serves a greater good, in order to defuse the frustration that they experience in the protagonists failure.

I think a good example of this is Armagedon, Bruce Willis dies but saves the world and his crew in the process.

I'm intregued by your "Least rotten apple in the barrel" theory, but I need to think about that one for a while. I'm not completely sold on it and can't for the life of me think why that is.

I might read the screenplay this weekend and see if there's any illumination to be had in it.

Another film to watch is Mel Gibson's PAYBACK... Based on an older film, it does the same thing as GOODFELLAS i.e., "least rotten apple in the barrel."

THIEF is another good example...

Why do we like these guys? Because when put in contrast with the Antagonist(s) of the film, they're not so bad... LOL.

Especially when you have that Protagonist do something nice for some other character or animal...

Cliche to a degree but it works...

filmy

That's a famous quote from forties film making.

"If you want to make a character likable, give him a dog" [sic]

That's not exactly it and I can't remember who said it.

But the jist of it.

So in fact, it's about redemption then -- the character has to have some or one redeeming feature. Providing the antaognists have none.

That's the problem though, isn't it more interesting to have antagonists who have redeming features?

Problem is that it's 1:43 am here and the only example I can think of is from the screenplay that I've just finished. LOL

AH, got one -- Dr Strangelove. The anatgonist believes that by starting the third world war he'll bring about a new purity, that he's serving the greater good.

This makes him a more interesting character because he's the "good guy" within his own character journey or perspective. Which has to be the case for every character doesn't it. In their own minds they all have to be the "good guy" of the story.

To go off movies and look at Milton's Paradise Lost instead, when Lucifer falls he says "Better to reign in one day in hell than a lifetime of slavery in heaven" not an exact quote, but he vibe is right.

So even Lucifer sees himself as the righeous angel.

clive said:

Dr Strangelove. The anatgonist believes that by starting the third world war he'll bring about a new purity, that he's serving the greater good.

This makes him a more interesting character because he's the "good guy" within his own character journey or perspective. Which has to be the case for every character doesn't it. In their own minds they all have to be the "good guy" of the story.

To go off movies and look at Milton's Paradise Lost instead, when Lucifer falls he says "Better to reign in one day in hell than a lifetime of slavery in heaven" not an exact quote, but he vibe is right.

So even Lucifer sees himself as the righeous angel.

Click to expand...

This brought to mind The Rock (Michael Bay, 1996). For me, it rises above the normal blockbuster thriller because the antagonist is a hero, is called a hero throughout and believes he is doing the right thing

I really did not like the film "Million Dollar Baby" for that very reason. Even more so because the story did a complete and unexpected 180 on me right in the middle.

It was built up a certain way, and I was looking forward to a warm and inspired ending

Requiem for a Dream (for me) was an excellent film. Well made, great performances (that Ellen Burstyn lost the Oscar to Julia Roberts is an injustice). It focused on four characters, all deeply flawed, and NONE of them ended up in a good place or creating a better place for others -- unless you use their stories as inspiration for how to NOT live your own life...then it might do some good at the personal level. Certainly not, though, within the context of its own story.

Three words, Conan the Barbarian.

Poor guy, everything that happens to him is just plain bad. I mean come on, the tree of woe is nothing compared to having your parents killed, becoming a slave, watching your true love die and then to find out you were wrong about the riddle of steel.

Three more words, Conan the Destroyer.

Same deal, he has to put up with a spoiled brat, face the wrath of a backstabbing basketball player and fight a god all for a promise that could never come true. In the end, everything wonderful happens to everyone except Conan.

I think if the protagonist makes the viewer learn a meta-lesson then that's okay with me. Most of my favorite movies have unhappy endings.

Just my $0.02:

We almost always expect the protagonist to come out the big winner in a film (kills the bad guys, gets the girl, earns street cred, etc...) but in real life that never really happens, that's why we enjoy film so much.

The second act of a film is almost always the most lively, but as we saw in The Empire Strikes Back, everything quickly goes to hell as soon as the second act starts. This is probably why Empire was the superior film... In real life, everything just seems to fall apart and just end that way.

From Clerks:

Randal: Which did you like better? Jedi or The Empire Strikes Back?
Dante: Empire.
Randal: Blasphemy.
Dante: Empire had the better ending. I mean, Luke gets his hand cut off, finds out Vader's his father, Han gets frozen and taken away by Boba Fett. It ends on such a down note. I mean, that's what life is, a series of down endings. All Jedi had was a bunch of Muppets.

This is probably why the acting students didn't like Cuckoo: They probably liked Return of the Jedi better because they don't understand the concepts of closure and justice and just wanted to see a big party at the end of the film after killing the bad guys.

Donnie Darko?

I mean, Donnie is pretty much shown how surviving the initial accident of the jet engine leads to a chain of events where numerous people die or have their lives ruined just by his existence. He then chooses to erase it all by sacrificing himself despite all the people he potentially saved never knowing about it.

I am actually grappling with this very concept on my current project which is why it's going through a rewrite. I ended it on a down note, leaving the audience with a slap in the face to force profound reflection. This slap was intentional because I wanted to make a point, but I may have driven it home a bit too hard. I believe I can achieve a similar affect with a different, more upbeat twist. We'll see how it plays out on paper. I may shoot it both ways and decide in post.

I really liked Braveheart, but I didn't like Million Dollar Baby. Yes, the story was solid and the acting was well done, but I didn't like it. This was one of the few films I hadn't heard much about other than its critical acclaim so I wasn't sure what to expect. Some stories warrant tragedy but perhaps the audience is getting too much of it in real life these days. When I watch movies I want to escape. I don't need a reminder that life is hard or unfair because I deal with it every day. I really didn't like Upside of Anger for this very reason. Neither of the main characters had any redeeming qualities in my opinion. I just didn't care what happened to them and therefore couldn't connect with their emotions or their situation.

And, yes, Empire still stands as the best IMHO because it really allowed you to see the vulnerable side of everyone and connect to them on a much deeper level. Even Vader became more "human" with the father-son connection and how it played out. Lawrence Kasdan should've been involved in the prequels. They lacked this extra dimension other than the cliche' romantic romp in EPII. Neither character was genuine enough to sell the romance. Perhaps it was Hayden Christensen's performance that blew it for me. He didn't sell it well at all. But I digress.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest ended the way in which it needed to drive the point home and force profound reflection. I liked it. And McMurphy did win. Even though he didn't make the final play, he cleared the path. The lives of those he touched are forever changed. And that goes for those who saw the film and actually "got it". Kids these days are so inundated with "winning spirit" that they often forget that to grow and ultimately succeed they must fail and try again. Nothing impresses me more than someone who gets knocked on his ass over and over only to get right back up. Even if the protagonist gets pounded so hard that he can't get up, what he inspires in others through his determination is well worth the effort in his mind. This concept can work both literally and figuratively. Mushy romance movies use it all the time. The only exception in recent memory was The Breakup. Those who rarely fail often end up arrogant, haughty. Anakin was arrogance personified because he rarely failed and when he did he became violently angry. I actually know people like this in real life and it usually erupts when playing video games. Controllers get thrown along with every expletive in the book. My nephew was like this.

I would use this sparingly because unless the cause is worthy enough to inspire others to carry the torch should the hero fall then it won't sell. An analogy: no one is going to rally behind someone literally beating a child no matter how determined he is. This would have a reverse effect; I'd rally behind the child and beat the shit out of the protagonist. Now if the contest between protagonist and child were a video game and the child needed to learn some humility, then I'd rally behind the protagonist. I'd first need to see the arrogance of the child, though; otherwise the protagonist may come off as a bully. Sure, let them win sometimes to build confidence but make darn sure you teach loss and humility. Anakin getting chopped to pieces is what he deserved for his arrogance. Lucas must have dealt with kids like my nephew a time or two.

Rankles said:

Donnie Darko?

I mean, Donnie is pretty much shown how surviving the initial accident of the jet engine leads to a chain of events where numerous people die or have their lives ruined just by his existence. He then chooses to erase it all by sacrificing himself despite all the people he potentially saved never knowing about it.

Click to expand...

Brings to mind The Butterfly Effect. No one will ever know the protagonist's sacrifice except the audience. I liked this movie. I actually haven't seen Donnie Darko, but I'll be sure to watch it now.