Non-Linear Stories

They might not be particularly common, but stories that are presented out of chronological order can be fascinating exercises in audience manipulation. If you pull it off, a non-linear story can really keep your audience engaged, working out the mystery that unfolds, searching for the clues that they find as we are presented with each fragment of time, leading to that great pay-off.

However, there is the risk that you confuse the viewer and lose their interest. A central mystery, about why the story is told out of sequence, isn’t enough. You have to justify telling a story in this way through the arc of your Character, or Characters.

Will we learn of shocking or vital personal revelations by watching the story’s end at the beginning of the movie? Do we learn to empathize with a Character, or Characters, by first learning about their future? Some great examples that show how this can be done well are Memento, Pulp Fiction, Back To The Future, Looper and Timecrimes.

Memento

Memento is the first great example of a non-linear narrative that come to mind. Christopher Nolan’s breakout hit, based on a short story written by his brother, tells the story of amnesiac detective Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce) as he tries to find his wife’s killer. He has to tattoo clues onto his body, and takes polaroids, because he keeps forgetting what he had previously discovered.

The film takes place out of order, representing Leonard’s patchy memory. As the film progresses, we learn of vital clues that will help the audience solve the mystery. We also find out that Leonard is being manipulated. The film’s structure is vital to how the plot unfolds, and how Leonard changes as a person.

Christopher Nolan loves telling his stories in a non-linear fashion- Dunkirk, Inception, Batman Begins and The Prestige all employ this technique. It always works because Nolan, despite his love of spectacle, puts Character first.

Pulp Fiction

Quentin Tarantino’s most famous film features a wide variety of characters, all with different arcs, intersecting with one another as the complex script jumps backwards and forwards in time.

One of the most famous moments, presented out of chronological order, is a flashback to Christopher Walken’s soldier telling a young Bruce Willis about the history of his late father’s wristwatch during their time together on the battlefield. It tells us about Bruce Willis’ character, and this also pays off later in the film.

Tarantino is a huge fan of structuring his films in a non-linear fashion, most notably in The Hateful Eight. As the writer of his films, as well as Director, he always justifies the use of this style of filmmaking because it is always done in service of his Characters.

Justify Your Method

Back to the Future, Rian Johnson’s 2012 film Looper, and Nacho Vigalondo’s 2007 Spanish film Timecrimes (Los Cronoscrimines) are both high-concept Science-Fiction films that are centered around Time Travel technology. They can justify the use of a non-linear narrative even more than the aforementioned examples.

The fact their films have a non-linear narrative is central to the film, as opposed to a gimmick. Their Characters experience events in a non-linear fashion and it shapes their evolution throughout the films. These films have both Story and Character reasons for being non-linear.

Structure of A Character’s Journey

You better have a good reason to tell your story out of order. If you just do it as a gimmick, your story is confusing and unsatisfactory for the audience. But, even worse, you’ve betrayed your Character. Even if your film’s structure is out of order, before you put pen to paper, or finger to keyboard, you need to map out your Character’s journey from start to finish. 

One method is to plan out your story, and therefore the Character’s arc, in chronological order. That way, you know where you character starts and where they end up. Then, as you rewrite, you can begin to move all the plot points into an order you feel will benefit your story and your Characters.

If you know your non-linear structure well enough, you can plan out your character’s arc this way. That way, audience and Character experience the same arc at the same time, and only you know how it truly ends. Think about why you’ve placed this flash-back, or that flash-forward, on page 24 for example. Are you hitting a story beat? Do we need to know this revelation about the Character at this exact point for maximum impact?

The Character Map

When you use a Character Map, it doesn’t matter what order your story is in. The film examples above show you how different writers and directors approached this kind of narrative, and that they had a good reason to do it. 

You can write your non-linear story any way you want, but it’s going to be a lot easier, and your Characters will be much better, if you use a Character Map first. It will help you work out what your Character is like at the start of the story, and who they are by the end of it. You’ll know how they present themselves to others, what they’re afraid of, what traits they rely on, what traits get them into trouble and what they have to do in order to change.

The order in which you tell that Character’s journey is up to you. But have your Character mapped out first so you don’t have a nonsensical mess with no emotional anchors. My Character map eBook can help you. It’s available at my online store.

Let’s say a powerful older male judge on an important talent show demanded to kiss a shy young woman on national television BEFORE judging her performance.  She refused and he insisted, pulling the young woman close and kissing her without her consent.

Wouldn’t the #MeToo and #TimesUP internet be enraged, asking that he be booted off the show or severely punished? There was some viewer push back on Twitter but not nearly enough.

Inappropriate pressure was applied to 19-year-old American Idol contestant Benjamin Glaze. He told the judging panel he had never kissed a girl. Katy Perry motioned for him to give her a peck on the cheek — only to turn her face at the last second and kiss him full on the lips. Then she demanded a “smacking” sound from him.

Glaze staggered in surprise.  The other judges, Luke Bryan and Lionel Richie howled with laughter and gave Perry high-fives. Glaze was rattled before his performance.  He said he was uncomfortable because he wanted to save his first kiss for his first relationship.

American Idol and Katy Perry insisted it was all in good fun. But that’s what inappropriate men have been saying to women for years. #MeToo applies to men. I don’t care how Glaze or the show has backpedaled, saying it all turned out okay. Pressure much? I don’t care how important or attractive the celebrity is- no thanks means no.

SaveSave

Power of Reason Month

This month is Power of Reason month. We’ll be examining a type of Character that know exactly how the world should be. Power of Reason Characters solve problems with a sense of detachment. These Characters are precise, seeing the world as complex puzzles to be solved. When their own personal logic is challenged, they can turn to the dark side as they try to revert any deviation. Nothing distracts them from their singular view of the world- emotion does not factor into their actions.

Throughout March, we will look at Scientists, Serial Killers and Strategists and try to understand why these Characters are so rigid in their logic and reasoning. Power of Reason Characters may seem one-note and unwavering, but their detachment and problem-solving can be as fascinating as it is horrifying.

Power of Reason Detectives

By their very nature, Detectives that adhere to the Power of Reason Character Type have no time for the consideration of others- they can be blunt and rude, because other people and their feelings get in the way of logic and solving the puzzles that need to be solved.

Unlike Power of Truth Detectives, they don’t seek to uncover conspiracies, they merely see conundrums that can only be answered logically. Those who don’t think like them are a hindrance to their methods.

Let’s look at two of the most notable of these detectives.

House

Dr. Gregory House (Hugh Laurie), the titular star of the Fox show,  has a horrible bedside manner. Doctors are often emotionally detached due to the nature of their job.

They see the body and its ailments are puzzles to be solved and can’t afford to become invested in those who might die.But House takes this to the extreme. He is rude and initially unlikeable.

But it is this attitude that makes him a good medical detective. Nothing distracts him from his goal, and it’s how he often gets the job done. As a person, this lack of sentimentality and warmth is a problem. As a detective, it makes him the best at what he does. This is the trade-off for Power of Reason Characters- be great and alienated, or ordinary but loved.

Poirot

Agatha Christie’s iconic sleuth Hercule Poirot, most recently portrayed by Kenneth Branagh, is no less abrasive than House. However, Poirot’s approach is more charming because he realizes understanding human behavior will help him crack his cases. House sees people as problems, whereas Poirot sees them as flawed individuals whose flaws contain the answers to solving his mysteries.

Although not everyone liked it, the recent Murder on the Orient Express film adaptation did a great job of depicting Poirot’s worldview being tested and forcing him to make sacrifices. By the end of the film, in his own way Poirot becomes a little more human.

His methods are every bit as effective as House’s, but Poirot realizes that empathizing with his suspects allows him to understand them and therefore figure them out as innocents and culprits.

Since 1929 — the year of the very first Academy Award ceremony — only one woman has ever won the Academy Award for Best Director (Kathryn Bigelow The Hurt Locker). As of 2018, only five women have ever been nominated for the Academy Award for Best Director:

Lady Bird helmer Greta Gerwig became that fifth nominee this year. She joined Lina Wertmüller (Seven Beauties), Jane Campion (The Piano), Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation) and barrier buster Kathryn Bigelow in the exclusive club.

Wonder Woman director Patty Jenkins didn’t make the cut even though she was widely regarded in the press as a contender. The film was a commercial and critical hit. It grossed $821 million worldwide and was predicted as a serious contender for a Best Picture nomination, having received one of 11 nominations for the Producers Guild of America’s Darryl F. Zanuck Award. No dice.  That the film was listed as one of the American Film Institute’s Top Ten Films of 2017 didn’t make a difference.

Perhaps there’s only room at the table for one woman at a time.  So here’s a modest proposal– Let’s split the award in two.
One award for Best Female Director and one award for Best Male Director.  That would level the playing field. Arguments about “diluting the award” are irrelevant and really only apply to men (since women have been by-and-large excluded).  Its Awards are divided in sports and in the Actor categories. If the difference is between women being excluded or recognized for their ability among their peers, I say split the category.

SaveSave

SaveSave

This month is Power of Love month, where most of the website’s content is dedicated to those who are caregivers and romantics. They believe that those they love owe them for their constant affections. There is nothing they won’t do for love, with it be for selfless or selfish reasons. These Characters can be mentors and parents, lovers, or stalker or clingy, needy nightmares!

We will celebrate Valentine’s Day month by examining these characters. I’ll be looking at some of these examples from TV, Film and elsewhere throughout the course of February.

I recently viewed an excellent high-concept sitcom produced by NBC and Netflix called The Good Place. It’s created by Michael Schur, the co-creator of Brooklyn Nine-Nine and Parks & Recreation. Unlike, but those sitcoms, it manages to do something really original. I have to be careful how much I say because each episode is full of twists and turns I don’t want to spoil the fun.

The basic premise it this: Eleanor Shellstrop (Kristen Bell) has died and gone to “The Good Place”, which is basically Heaven. But Eleanor doesn’t belong there- she was brought to “The Good Place” by mistake- and is terrified someone discovering the mistake. With the help of her friends, she tries to avoid detection until she can become a good enough person to stay.

The Good Place is managed by Michael (Ted Danson), the architect of the neighborhood and a classic Power of Ambition character, desperate to please his boss and keep the inhabitants of The Good Place happy. Eleanor’s fellow inhabitants include Chidi (William Jackson Harper), a Moral Ethics professor who couldn’t be more Power of Conscience if he tried- his constant consideration for every possible ethical outcome caused his death.

There is also couple Tahini (Jameela Jamil), a British socialite who is determined to have the best, the finest, the most exquisite things in The Good Place, and Buddhist Monk Jianyu (Manny Jacinto) a simpleton who lacks common sense – Power of Idealism and Excitement respectively- who are incompatible as soulmates. Eleanor, both before and after her transformation from a self-absorbed jerk, is Power of Love.

Eleanor very quickly attaches herself to the rest of the ensemble out of necessity, believing they owe her something as they become embroiled in her conspiracy- that Michael cannot know that she should be in The Bad Place. Power of Love characters make themselves indispensable to those around them, smothering them with affection or acting needy and possessive of them. Without these people, Eleanor faces eternal damnation.

As the series progresses, the main ensemble of characters are kept together by Eleanor as she truly learns to love them and becomes protective of them. The most selfish character becomes the most selfless, at first out of necessity, then eventually out of genuine affection for her friends. Eleanor judges herself by how her friends perceive her. Everything she does in The Good Place is for her friends, and for Michael’s self-preservation.

The show is full of ethical questions, which makes it a bit more interesting than your average sitcom. It is a Power of Love because every decision our lead characters make is out of love for the others, or because they feel they owe something to the others. They are all dependent on each other, and though it may not seem like it at the start of the show, they love each other.

I would highly recommend this show; it’s the best new sitcom I’ve seen in quite a while and provides a great example of a Power of Love character in Eleanor.   The Good Place it is a Power of Love story answering the question– what do we owe each other?

SaveSave

Each Character Type has unique flaws that can drag them down, and can be overcome to create a satisfying story – Protagonist has a problem, their traits make things more difficult, they overcome those character traits to resolve their conflict, etc.

But what if your character tries to redeem themselves and fails so many times in ways that are harmful to others, that they can never truly be redeemed? To examine this, we’ll be looking at the Netflix adult animation Bojack Horseman. Be advised that MAJOR SPOILERS follow for all four seasons of the show.

Bojack Horseman (voiced by Will Arnett) is Power of Ambition, but the front that he puts on is so typically Power of Excitement that it is initially hard to determine which type he is. His party-loving ways seem like Power of Excitement behaviour, but deep down all his wants is to be liked, and to be successful again.

Bojack is a washed-up actor famed for his role on a network family sitcom back in the 90’s. Now he just drinks and makes the lives of those around him- agent Princess Carolyn (Amy Sedaris), rival Mister Peanutbutter (Paul F. Tompkins), roommate Todd (Aaron Paul) and biographer Diane Nguyen (Alison Brie)- a living hell. Bojack is aware of his deep insecurities and reckless behaviour and manages to ruin the constant shots at redemption that come his way.

Many characters that seem irredeemable never actually try to fix themselves. But Bojack has attempted on multiple occasions to get his life back on track, even abandon Hollywood and live a quiet life, but every time he tries this it ends in disaster and he returns to his miserable bachelor pad near the Hollywood sign.

Most notably he tries to seduce the underage daughter on a woman he once loved, and in a later season, he upsets a man who fixes up Bojack’s decrepit country house while mourning the death of his wife. Even his shots at rehabilitation and growth end in disaster. At some point, an audience must realise that no matter what, a character will never truly change.

Bojack discovers he has a sister, a young woman in his life that he has neglected up until that revelation. It seems like he has found someone to care for, and who may be a positive influence on him, but the viewer is left knowing that inevitably Bojack will destroy the relationship in some unforgivable way.

There are only so many times he can get himself clean of drugs and alcohol, and claim to be thinking of anyone but himself. He is a self-loathing narcissist who may experience profound revelations but never acts on them, and likely never will.

I cannot think of another show willing to show a character is such a self-destructive cycle, especially because the rug is always pulled from underneath our feet. Bojack may never change, but even though he tries- and effort should be commended- he is arguably worse than those that never try.

They may have a shot at redemption, but unwillingness holds them back. Bojack is willing to try, but he is his own worst enemy, and perhaps is truly irredeemable. I’d like to see more writers taking such a risk with their characters, especially ones as amusing as Bojack Horseman.

You may think, as a writer or just someone who enjoys watching Documentaries on TV and at the Cinema, that because they are non-fiction that no effort is required to create characters. This couldn’t be further from the truth – Documentaries don’t work, even though there is automatically a story to be told unless the Director and Editor can craft compelling characters out of the story presented to them, and the footage they shoot.

How to find the Character

Once a Documentary has finished shooting, there are hours and hours of footage to go through. This is where the character is created, as opposed to on a page before the cameras even start rolling. There is an element of creating the character during filming when a director decides what angles to shoot their subject at, or when to film them during their day-to-day activities or in an interview. But it all comes down to the edit suite.

The key is to pick the moments in the life and clips that reinforce what you think is most true about the character; you have to decide what the essence of the subject is and find the moments that will strengthen that and don’t confuse things. Real lives are messy and inconsistent, but they can’t afford to be shown in the same way in a Documentary, or you immediately betray your character, and your audience will remain unengaged.

Tying Character to Subject matter

Just because you edit the footage of your real-life subject doesn’t mean they can’t be surprising or complicated, but you want their presentation onscreen to be consistent, in the same way that a screenplay needs to be structured. If they are not “written” in the edit, you are just presenting improvisation, which very few filmmakers can pull off effectively.

Make sure the actions and dialog of the characters you include in the documentary relate directly to the theme or subject of your documentary. What we see of your character should demonstrate the worldview that they have. When your selected footage shows the audience how your character sees the world, then you’ve got a character as good as any that you could create yourself. 

If your documentary is trying to make a point, you need to ensure your subjects either make that point for you, or at least are edited to reinforce your point- for example, if there is some injustice your documentary is trying to combat, make sure we see the effect the injustice has on your characters. If you’re trying to tell a story about one particular figure, make sure you present to the audience exactly why this figure is interesting enough to dedicate an entire documentary to. No matter how good your documentary, it will be nowhere near as good if you don’t tie your subject directly to the subject matter.

Examples

Here are a few great examples of Documentaries that craft characters effectively. I’ll try not to go into too much detail, so I don’t spoil them for you! All are well worth watching as exercises in how to craft characters in non-fiction stories.

The Imposter

The Imposter works so brilliantly because its central subject, Frédéric Bourdin- a great example of a Power of Ambition figure, incidentally- is so unreliable yet persuasive. Your opinion of him continually switches as the story unfolds. This is down to a central creative choice, explained in more detail by Tony Zhou’s video essay below, of having Frédéric address the camera directly. No other subject in the film is interviewed in this way.

The documentary is all about questioning what is real or not, and the documentary is shaped around Frédéric’s testimony. Every second he is on screen, it feels like his performing. We never see him act naturally, as though he is a flawed individual. He is shown to be always putting on a front, and the mystery of what is behind that is what grips the audience throughout.

Tickled

New Zealand documentary Tickled explores the unbelievable story of a dark conspiracy behind competitive tickling videos. To say any more would be to ruin the whole film. But the key figure behind it all, who is hardly seen, has a presence felt throughout the film.

Every single figure in the documentary, apart from director and presenter David Farrier, is only shown in relation to the central figure at the top of the conspiracy. Not only does it make their eventual appearance all the more impactful, but effectively demonstrates the reach that they have, and the lives that have been ruined by interacting with them- very much a Power of Will character.

By the end of the documentary, the only character we are genuinely interested in is the person behind the tickling conspiracy that spans decades and continents. This was a deliberate creative decision because they are by far the most engaging subject in the documentary. Nobody else is defined outside of their relation to the mysterious central subject, so all our attention is kept on that central subject.

Catfish

To say much more than Catfish is a Power of Love story would be to give the whole thing away. But the theme of the documentary is that of combating loneliness. Despite the initial appearance of being a mystery, at its core Catfish is a love story. Director and subject Nev Schulman has an online relationship with a girl calling herself Megan, but all is not as it appears. Nev and Megan’s actions throughout the film- as their relationship is the central focus of the film- are driven by a need to be loved.

Megan is mainly offscreen as Nev takes the viewer on a journey, so we begin by experiencing his lust, curiosity, disappointment, and excitement (not necessarily in that order) and finish by learning about Megan’s needs and wants. The documentary only shows us Nev in relation to what he wants and needs from Megan, so all we are focused on is who he is as Megan’s lover, not as a three-dimensional person.

Both subjects are trying to find love and to be loved by another, and the documentary is successful at showing those desires by focusing exclusively on the lengths both characters go to be with one another.

Tickling Giants

Bassem Youssef, the Egyptian equivalent of fellow Power of Truth figure Jon Stewart, is the subject of this documentary. Youssef creates a satire show that lampoons Egyptian politicians, and the film tracks the show’s rise, fall and Bassem’s exile from the country that fell in love with his desire to call out injustice and incompetence.

Youssef is shown to be reckless in pursuit of satire, standing up to his country’s leaders no matter the cost to those he loves. Even when he is with his parents, wife, children, and friends, anything he says or does is concerning his show. He cares for his staff, who also feature, but all of them are presented in the same way as Bassem – calling out those in power for what they do to the people of Egypt.

By focusing on Bassem’s show, as opposed to just Bassem, Tickling Giants successfully shows the viewer what satire means to the subjects of the documentary, and what it stands for in a country like Egypt. The show that the subjects have created is bigger than any single one of them, which is a point Bassem constantly raises both through his narration and to everyone he interacts with in the film.

Exit Through The Gift Shop

This documentary smartly diverts attention from its director- the artist Banksy, who chooses to remain anonymous- by distracting the viewer with another artist called Mister Brainwash. Mister Brainwash completely misses the point of Banksy’s art when he tries to imitate him, which is where the humour of the film comes from.

Mister Brainwash is such a larger-than-life, Power of Excitement character that the viewer forgets that the documentary is meant to be about Banksy- a shrewd move by a man who wants to be left alone so people will just focus on his art and not the artist behind them.

Exit Through The Gift Shop is ultimately about whether there is any point to art, and whether something with no thought behind it can be called art. Mister Brainwash hilariously proves Banksy’s thesis right. By focusing entirely on a subject who distracts from the intended subject of the documentary, the viewer becomes more interested in the themes of the film and less on the figure who is directing.

Banksy is the documentary’s starting point, but he wisely takes control of the film’s narrative, so Mister Brainwash becomes our guide to the stupidity behind much of modern art. He is a character who is all style and no substance, so it is left to the viewer to decide whether he can be called an artist in the same way as Banksy is perceived to be an artist. This documentary is the ultimate act of self-deprecation.

Call Me Lucky

Call Me Lucky only works because of the journey that its subject, Barry Crimmins, goes through. If it had focused exclusively on Barry’s life as a stand-up comedian, it just wouldn’t work that well. Barry rages against the system, but it is what happens to him after he leaves the world of comedy behind that reinforces his viewpoint.

He is portrayed as a survivor and a victim, and this is the motivation that drives his moral crusade and successful activism (as to what he is crusading against, you’ll have to watch the documentary to find out- no spoilers here!)

Barry Crimmins is a Power of Conscience character, who operates by his own rules. This leads him to self-destructive behaviour early on, but once he finds a purpose to direct his unique moral code and brand of justice towards, he begins to heal as a person. The film always shows Barry in relation to his activism- whether being interviewed, portrayed in archive footage or talked about by other people, he only has justice on his mind. This documentary is about justice, and has a thoroughly likeable central subject to keep the audience engaged with the justice that needs to prevail.

Video Essay

This excellent video essay describes why The Imposter is so effective in its crafting of a character. Fair warning, it spoils the entire film, so go and watch it first!

SaveSave

Wrestling is something I never thought I’d cover on this website. But watching the excellent Netflix series “GLOW” made me think about just how much characterisation is built into wrestling.  It’s  essentially an over-the-top soap opera, but with fighting.

Wrestling works on two levels- the first and most obvious level is the actual physical activity itself. The second, which keeps people coming back for more, is the narrative element. Characters and elaborate storylines are mapped out to engage the viewers. Mexican Lucha Libre wrestling, in particular, is essentially a telenovela with capes and masks.

There is a reason that former Wrestlers like Hulk Hogan, Dave Bautista, Jesse Ventura, John Cena and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson transitioned so naturally into acting. They are not competitive athletes, they are actors playing to a crowd in a  different narrative arena. It’s not like MMA (Mixed Martial Arts), or Cagefighting. These are actual sportsand far less about showmanship. They are not primarily a form of narrative entertainment.

Watching GLOW- an acronym for “Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling”- made me appreciate the efforts that go into crafting storylines and characters. It’s based on a true story which is covered in more detail in the 2012 documentary of the same name.

In the show, it is a shlocky filmmaker (Marc Maron) who is running the show.  He’s not a professional wrestling coach.  He hires young pretty actresses not professional wrestlers. GLOW was meant to be entertainment, as is WWF. The show is treated like more like a continuing soap–opera than a sport. Each “wrestler” is shown throughout the show not honing their craft, but developing their character.

The producers of these wrestling shows couldn’t, and still can’t, just rely on the prowess of the staged fights (and they are all clearly staged, sorry to break it to some of you!). The audience needs a story of personal rivalry to keep audiences entertained. In GLOW, Alison Brie’s character realizes that to stand out, she has to carve out a niche as the despicable villain that the audience will turn against. The same character dynamics apply to wrestling as would apply to a crowd-pleasing summer blockbuster.  Great villains make great stories.

The lesson here is that even something as ridiculous as the “sport” of professional wrestling has to tell an engaging story, and create characters that spectators can connect with emotionally. Don’t turn your nose up at this kind of narrative, it is as legitimate a form of storytelling as any novel. (Charles Dickens was actually writing the soap operas of his day in serialized newspaper form). You can learn the lessons of story-telling from anywhere!)

SaveSave

SaveSave

This month is Power of Conscience month, where most of the website’s content will be dedicated to those who think themselves righteous, the justice seekers, though who believe only they know what is right or wrong, and will go as far as they have to do ensure that their judgment is carried through. After last year, a light was shone on what is right and what is wrong. Power of Conscience dominated last year, so it’s a good way to start 2018 by examining these characters. I’ll be looking at some of these examples from TV, Film and the world of politics throughout the course of January.

Today, we’ll be examining an actor who seems to always play Power of Conscience characters – Kyle Chandler. He always plays the character who does the right thing, and lives a humble existence trying to hold others to the law, or some kind of code. He is honourable and loyal, steadfast and decent. He will do what he believes is the decent thing for his team, his family, and America as a whole, as we will see by analysing three of his most iconic roles, all of which are Power of Conscience characters.

Eric Taylor in Friday Night Lights

“Right here, right now, God has placed you to do what you do best. Go all the way.”

The fatherly coach Eric Taylor (Kyle Chandler) in Friday Night Lights demonstrates the best qualities of a Power of Conscience character.

He sets a moral example for the high school boys he coaches.

Taylor promotes teamwork, good sportsmanship, responsibility to others and the ethics of fair play in a small town that likes to win and has little patience for losing. He faces constant pressure to bend the rules in order to win games. He shows his team what winning is “worth” and what truly defines “winning.”

In the pilot episode, Taylor prays about strength of character.

Coach Taylor: “Give all of us gathered here tonight the strength to remember that life is so very fragile. We are all vulnerable, and we will all, at some point in our lives… fall. We will all fall. We must carry this in our hearts… that what we have is special. That it can be taken from us, and when it is taken from us, we will be tested. We will be tested to our very souls. We will now all be tested. It is these times, it is this pain, that allows us to look inside ourselves.”

Taylor is always torn between his duty and obligations to the team and the demands of his growing family. Like all Power of Conscience characters it’s not easy for him to balance the conflicting demands for his time an attention. Taylor struggles with what is the higher duty in any given situation.

John Rayburn in Bloodline

Chandler plays a similar role in Netflix’s show Bloodline, but he is the patriarch of a dysfunctional family as opposed to the father figure for a team of college football players. He is the big brother who cleans everyone’s mess up, similar to the Older Brother in the biblical parable of The Prodigal Son.

John’s reckless brother Danny (Ben Mendelsohn) is a Power of Excitement who upsets the family balance, and Rayburn is tested by a polarising opposite to his character, as is Agent Denham in The Wolf of Wall Street.

Rayburn is driven to protect his family, no matter the cost. He doesn’t do this out of love or obsession, but because they are his family and he believes it is his job to do the right thing. This is the closest Chandler gets to showing us the darkest side of Power of Conscience.

Agent Patrick Denham in The Wolf of Wall Street

Working for the FBI, it’s obvious that Chandler’s portrayal of G-Man Patrick Denham is Power of Conscience. FBI agents can often be confused with Power of Truth, for their detective/cop abilities, or Power of Reason, since FBI agents are trained to be meticulous and methodical, like Robert Mueller and James Comey.

However Denham, like all FBI agents, is driven by the law. He defines himself by it. In one telling scene, after he has arrested Power of Will protagonist Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio), we see him go back to his normal life on a very average salary, in amongst the fabulously wealthy. He is content to live within his means, and not aspire for more.

In a film about greed, wealth and hedonism, Denham is the dogged Power of Conscience character upholding the law and doing what is right, even though he will never be as successful, comfortable or affluent as crooks like Jordan Belfort. It’s fascinating to see Chandler’s typical Power of Conscience character distilled into a 2.5-hour movie, as opposed to ongoing TV series.

This month is Power of Conscience month, where most of the website’s content is dedicated to those who are justice seekers. They believe only they know what is right or wrong, and will go as far as they have to do ensure that wrong is punished or set right.

We will start 2018 by examining these characters. I’ll be looking at some of these examples from TV, Film and the world of politics throughout the course of January.

Frank Castle, A.K.A “The Punisher”, in Netflix’s recent show of the same name, brings to life one of the most controversial and iconic characters in Comic Book history. Driven only by vengeance, he will not stop until everyone involved in the brutal murder of his wife and children is dead. This show and its central character are great recent examples of the Dark Side of Power of Conscience. In fact, the show is full of great Power of Conscience characters

Power of Conscience characters take the law into their own hands and exact their own unique brand of justice. They are fighting for what they believe is right, and never listen to anyone who suggests they may be wrong. Even when they are acting to protect others, they are oblivious to the fact that their approach may actually put people in harm’s way

Frank represents the darkest side of Power of Conscience- he has continued to go further and further to do what he believes is right, without listening to those who may curb his righteousness that he seems like a total lost cause, and many believe him to be nothing more than a psychopath. he has good reasons for what he is doing, but what he is doing will not bring him peace or ultimately resolve his inner conflict, or get rid of the inner demons that haunt him. Frank Castle is a tragic character because he cannot see beyond his mission. As many characters remind him in the show, “say you I’ll kill everyone involved in my family’s death- what then?” and Frank never has an answer.

The show also features David Lieberman, A.K.A. Micro (Ebon Moss-Bachrach), a whistleblower who has to pretend to be dead in order to protect his family. He paid the price for doing the right thing, and Whistleblowers tend to be Power of Conscience characters. He is morally twisted and has no problem enabling Frank’s brutal murdering spree against those who have wronged him, but he represents the lighter side of Power of Conscience. He is one of the few to support Frank, and tolerate him. He understands that Frank is very much like him, but is able to go further than him in order to exact justice and vengeance, so he partners with Frank in order to achieve what he believes to be right.

He is doing it all for his family, both to protect them and eventually return home to them. But he is the only one stopping himself from getting his life back. He is too determined to finish what he started- being a Whistleblower and doing the right thing.

Frank only considers one person as family, and that is journalist Karen Page (Deborah Ann Woll). Karen has escaped death at the hands of brutal gangsters, vigilantes and even ninjas, but through it all, she has been dedicated to exposing corruption which she does through official channels. She could easily be viewed as a Power of Truth character, but her sense of right and wrong is more important to her than solving and mystery or exploring a conspiracy.

In the past, dangerous people have asked for her help and she has turned them down because it goes against her own moral code. The fact she is one of the few to constantly defend Frank, despite his brutal methods, shows she will support those who she believes to the good and pure in their actions, even if they cross the line.

SaveSave

SaveSave