By Guest Contributor Oscar Harding
Idris Elba’s detective John Luther, the eponymous character of the hit BBC crime series is far from an ordinary detective. He is morally dubious and his methods are always questionable. He is not as concerned with justice as defined by law but rather what is practical and efficient.
Sometimes it’s hard to know if he does what he does for himself, as opposed to for the good of the public, or just to solve a mysterious puzzle. It’s challenging to determine whether he is a Power of Reason character or Power of Will character- Here are the differences.
Power of Will characters believe it’s a “Dog Eat Dog” world, where the strong are hunters and the weak become the hunted. They use violence and intimidation to expand their domain– whether that be a physical territory or control over a business or a group of people- Characters from Michael Corleone to Gordon Gekko to Andy Sipowitz on the iconic NYPD Blue are great male examples. On the female side, we have Marquise de Merteuil, Patty Hews, and Monica Rawling- all played by Glenn Close.
Luther breaks the rules and threatens his suspects or criminal lowlifes. He, more often than not appears to be on the other side of the law. Luther is every bit the ladies’ man, but he turns the charisma on and off like a switch. It’s fair to say Luther has a bit of the sociopath in him, as, it can be argued, do most Power of Reason characters (to varying degrees).
Power of Reason characters see the world as a series of puzzles and conundrums to be solved. For all his reliance on brute force, Luther is a genius detective and the best at what he does. Most of the time he appears to be coolly detached and is an excellent problem-solver.
Power of Reason characters can often be scientists or serial killers- and considering his troubling relationship with murderer Alive (Ruth Wilson) is attracted to that ultimate dispassion. The intellectual cat and mouse game with her is infinitely sexy to him and he seems to be forever dancing on the very edge of that step too far with her.
He may dominate in the same way as a Power of Will characters, but he is far more intellectual. Crucially, he understands the minds of the psychopaths that he hunts. He knows how they think. Power Will character don’t care how anyone else thinks. They are more of the “smash and grab” persuasion. John Luther’s complex relationship with Alice Morgan is a perfect example of something a Power of Will character would not have time for or tolerate.
Power of Reason characters are occupied solely with the challenge or puzzle at hand, looking for the next step in the solution. Luther is a loner who isolates himself. Power of Will characters like to be surrounded by others and prefer to have minions to carry out their dirty work. Power of Reason characters are strategists, Power of Will characters hire strategists because careful reasoned thinking is NOT their forte.
Luther anger and aggression burns cold, not hot. It doesn’t negate his dispassion. He is often willing to die in order to solve the case and prove that he is right. No Power of Will character would do such a thing. Both approaches are selfish, but Luther puts his life on the line not for reward, but for the satisfaction of solving the puzzle and proving that he is right.
For more examples of all the character types, you can purchase my in-depth e-books at the ETB shop, or you can read more articles on all the “Power Of…” types including James Bond, Doctor Who, Batman and Sherlock Holmes, every Tuesday. There are also 9 pinterest boards full of character examples online. Check them out and let us know at [email protected] if you have any other suggestions.
]]>
Despite strong performances all around, the sequel to Top of the Lake disappoints because of the ridiculous contrived coincidences powering its plot.
## SPOILER ALERT ##
Teenaged Mary, (Alice Englert) is the long lost daughter given up for adoption by Robin (Elizabeth Moss) the cop investigating the “China Girl” murder. Mary just happens to be sexually and romantically involved with the killer, nicknamed “Puss” (David Dencik).
The brothel Puss helps run, where “China Girl” worked, is also an illegal surrogate “farm”. It caters to Australians so desperate to have a baby they don’t really check the girls’ backgrounds.
The supervising cop on the investigation just happens to have used one of the brothel girls as a surrogate for the child his mistress wants to have. He KNOWS his surrogate is a prostitute because he has frequented the place.
His mistress, Miranda (Gwendoline Christie) just happens to be Robin’s partner on the police force investigating the China Girl murder.
This is too much coincidence to sustain credibility.
When is coincidence a good thing? K.M. Weiland describes it beautifully:
“At some point in almost every story, there is going to be something coincidental that kicks off the plot. What is it that first brings the protagonist and antagonist into opposition? Often, it’s a coincidence:
- Roger Thornhill accidentally hailing the page boy who is looking for a government agent in Alfred Hitchcock’s North by Northwest.
- Harvey Cheyne falling into the ocean and being rescued by fisherman Manuel who just happened to be there in Rudyard Kipling’s Captains Courageous.
- Katniss’s sister Prim just happening to be drawn as a tribute in her first eligible year in Suzanne Collins’s Hunger Games.
- D’Artagnan just happening to insult Athos, Porthos, and Aramis on his first day in town in Alexandre Dumas’s The Three Musketeers.
- Flik catching just the end of the circus bugs’ Robin Hood act and believing they’re really warriors in A Bug’s Life.
All of these things just happen. Although there are some causal dominoes leading the protagonists up to a few of these examples, there’s not enough cause in play here to let any of these moments avoid being coincidences.
And yet they still work. Why? Because they only make things harder–and more interesting–for the characters. You’ll also note these major coincidences are pretty much the only major unexplained coincidences in their stories. It’s not on Pixar’s list, but we could add to their above rule:
Only one major coincidence per story: early in the story.”
That’s a rule to live by. For another of my blog posts on coincidence click HERE
]]>
It all started pleasantly enough. The sun was shining, it was warm, and I was hurrying along the tree-lined road. The concrete island in the middle of the street was not exactly where I should be crossing but… I was in a hurry and the regular crossing was further down the way.
As I rushed across intersection, my foot slipped and I took a tumble toward the pavement. My head hit the pavement so hard it shattered my sunglasses. The plastic pieces cut my forehead above and near my eyebrow. Blood ran down my face. I tried to break my fall with my left hand. My fingers were forced into an almost right angles to my hand. In other words, two fingers were now in an an “L” shape! My knee was slammed and skinned.
But momentarily, almost as my head was hitting the pavement, several people rushed to my aid. A nurse showed up out of nowhere who checked my vital signs and made sure my neck wasn’t broken. Then the ambulance drove up. I was whisked off to A&E or the emergency room.
One of the burly young ambulance EMTs had his name written in elvish on his arm. How nerdy is that– and how nerdy is the fact I recognized it as elvish. He’s the dad of small daughter and has a job that daily points out just how fragile the human body is and the staggering variety of ways in which it’s possible to injure it. So he has a guardian angel prayer on his inner bicep. Then he’s got a full guardian angel on his upper shoulder. I felt very protected.
Now the irony of all this is– next week I am going to work with the writers, directors, and producers of Casualty. The show is a long running drama on the order of ER. I’d never been in a British emergency room before and my bed was placed with a full view of everyone coming and going. It was the perfect vantage point. In came the young and old, the critical and the minor accidents, like me.
I had an X-ray to make sure my fingers weren’t broken. They weren’t, only severely dislocated. Then a doctor who specialized in anesthetic injected my fingers and joints and the bone doctor snapped them back into place. I didn’t feel a thing except a small pop. They were straight again! I had another X-ray to make the bone didn’t when the fingers were repositioned. While I was waiting I was served a selection of sandwiches and a very nice milky tea. The report came back from radiology, all was okay. My fingers were taped, I got a few stitches and I was sent on my way.
I asked the doctor who administered the anesthetic why he chose that particular specialty. He said there was great variety of cases. You are only responsible for one patient at a time. And when you are done, you are done. You leave your work at work.
That brings me to the point of this post. There are a number of ways to approach being in the medical profession —
1. It’s a job. Being a doctor is solid professional employment and a good way to make a living or support a family. The doctor does what is expected and punches out. He or she puts in the time and is concerned and responsible when on the job. But the doctor doesn’t take the job home and retires as soon as is age-appropriate and financially feasible.
2. It’s a career. Being a doctor is a good opportunity for getting ahead in life. The doctor is working to achieve advancement either in the organization (or hospital) or in the specialty. The job is a means to an end (rising through the ranks, achieving greater recognition, becoming a sought after expert etc.) It is a stepping- stone to something else and worth the hard work, discipline, and extra effort to achieve a larger goal.
3. It’s a vocation. Being a doctor is a life mission or a higher calling. The doctor is there to make a difference and impact people’s lives. The work is a consuming passion for the doctor. There is no dividing line between work and personal life. Work is the doctor’s life.
4. It’s a mistake. Being a doctor is not a good fit. The individual is in medicine for the wrong reasons, the wrong motivations, or to please someone else. Or the reality of the job doesn’t conform to the ideal of the job or the fantasy of being a doctor. In any case, the individual puts in the time and effort, got the job, and now feels trapped.
Any kind of employment, but particularly in medicine, has a variety of people who look at the “Why” of doing the job very differently. All individuals naturally assume their “Why” is the most valid reason or, if everyone else was honest, is the real motivation “Why” anyone works at the hospital. This is a great area of opportunity for personal conflict in a story. Too often in medical shows, or shows about other professions, everyone is doing the job for the same reason. That isn’t the case in life and it shouldn’t be the case in a drama.
$ $ $ $ $ $
As a side note, the whole experience cost me exactly nothing. No charge. Zip. Zero. Nada. My care was prompt, professional, and very concerned and personable. Despite paying the equivalent of a mortgage payment for health insurance in the US our deductible is $1600. The whole bill including ambulance would have cost several thousand dollars– or my deductible at the very least. When I tell this to my British friends they shake their heads and mutter softly, “Madness. Absolute madness.”
]]>
As reported in C21 Drama Weekly
Here is a post from a wonderful blogger Jan O’Hara writing on Tartitude. She was thinking about Sherlock Holmes and asked if I thought he was a Power of Reason Character. My answer was: Sherlock Holmes is indeed a Power of Reason character– Everything can be explained/deduced rationally and logically. “It’s elementary, my dear Watson.” Power of Reason characters care more that something makes sense or is practical and less that it is moral or kind. Moving from a cold clinical analysis toward a more human evaluation (which takes into consideration connection, caring and a real valuing of others) is their journey toward greatness.
Here is Jan’s review of the new BBC re-envisioning of Sherlock Holmes in a modern day setting. Looks interesting.
]]>1. Have you seen BBC’s Sherlock Holmes? Thus far it’s a three-episode series set in contemporary London, and to podge a British term, it’s brill. Smart, fast-paced, relying more on intellect and issues about character than on the stars’ appearance, it won thumbs up from all four members of my family.
What they do well, IMHO:
a. Respectful blending of past with present: Watson is a recovering war vet, wounded from a tour as a physician in Afghanistan. He’s a blogger! Despite modernization, though, the essence of the series feels true to the original books.
b. Technology is important in the sleuthing process, but not the focus. This is not a series about gadgets.
c. There’s a fascinating and believable relationship between Watson and Holmes in which each make the other bigger. Without Holmes, Watson would be limping in a half-existence, devoid of the risk and stimulation which is his life’s blood. Watson, on the other hand, both grounds Holmes and validates him.
d. The writers have set up a central question about Sherlock, articulated by Lestrade in this quote: “He’s a great man. if we’re very lucky, one day he might be a good one.”
Will Sherlock cross from brilliance into psychopathy, perhaps out of sheer boredom? Will he learn to engage emotion and vulnerability along with his impressive intellect, particularly around the female sex? These are great questions to have a viewer asking within a few moments of beginning a series.
by John Fox for Screenwriter’s Goldmine. It outlines the elements of the acclaimed internet drama, Sofia’s Diary. Here’s what John had to report from the conference:
]]>Nuno Bernardo, from BeFilms, created the original Sofia’s Diary in Portugal, an online drama with videos, blogs, interactive text messages, message boards and a TV show. It was a huge hit in Portugal and went on to spawn versions around the world, including the UK. Recently, he has created a new show Flatmates. This is for an older audience, but works along the same lines.
Nuno is also working on other drama and non-fiction projects.
If you haven’t seen Sofia’s Diary, here’s (part of) the UK version:
http://www.bebo.com/sofiasdiary
Nuno comes from a marketing background and this was his starting point for Sofia’s Diary.
He realized the teenage audience was becoming increasingly difficult to reach, especially through TV. Teenagers are increasingly more interested in the internet – as both a channel of entertainment and information (music, gossip sites, blogs, etc) as well as a way of communicating, through messenger services such as msn.
What sets internet use apart from TV is the interactivity between users. This is also borne out by the fact that teenagers are the heaviest users of text messaging. (Nuno quoted a figure of 200 texts a day for some teenage groups.)
From this, the idea for Sofia’s Diary was born.
The interesting thing from a writing/storytelling point of view is that it was is about creating a whole virtual world for the character and audience, and making a lot of this real time.
This included –
- Phone texts, sent directly to subscribed users, telling them about something that had just happened (and sometimes asking for advice).
- Internet diary blogs, updated every day at 8:30pm. These constituted -a daily experience- for the character, and always left a problem for the next day while asking advice – for example: I’ve just found out that my boyfriend kissed my rival. Should I forgive him? Users were then invited to leave responses on message boards. This created debate amongst users, with the characters also joining in at times.
- Sofia had her own blog, as did many of her friends, all giving different points of view of central events.
- Weekly/monthly magazine diaries, published in teen mags.
- A radio soap, available for download – again -a daily experience-.
- A mobile phone alert service.
The idea for all of this was to connect with the teen audience by creating the world of Sofia in terms/medium that they themselves use – basically, communicating with them how they communicate with each other.
And all of this through a story which reflected/mirrored their lives/concerns.
Sofia’s Diary was launched in Portugal and was an instant success.
In 2003 it was extended to a television show on the Portugese PBS.
5 minute episodes were produced each day, with a 30 minute episode at weekends. This debuted to some of the best audiences on Portugese TV.
Unlike the other aspects of the Sofia’s Diary, the TV show was not a year-round experience, but ran for 26 weeks a year.
The brand also moved into books, DVDs, a Sofia’s Diary magazine, sponsorship and product placement deals, and product licensing.
Sofia’s Diary then went international, adapting to the local audience and culture. For instance, the South American version had a more sexually active teenager than the one in Portugal. (In the UK, instead of Sofia’s family consisting of mum, dad and brothers/sisters all living together, we had a more dysfunctional UK family. Go figure…)
The show launched in the UK with 5 million hits in its first week. After 6 months that was up to 30 million hits a week… The show then began running on Channel 5.
Nuno explained how it all worked in more detail.
First of all, it’s important to realize this was an ongoing, live experience – 7 days a week, featuring radio, blogs, live texts, magazine articles, comment boards.
It was all a constantly on-going story, so there was a strong sensation of living the story, like a great big multi-platform soap.
Elements were created to interact with each other – for example, the radio show fitted in with the blog, which fitted in with the text messages – but each element could also be viewed/experienced alone.
In other words, most of the audience would listen to the radio show one day, receive texts another day, read the blogs for a couple of days, maybe spend an hour on the message boards at the weekend exchanging views and advice. It wasn’t necessary to view everything to understand the story.
However, all the different platforms were supporting and cross-promoting each other – which is a really interesting concept for writers to think about. Many people are very wary of the whole idea of writing for online drama, or are simply not that interested (“it isn’t real writing”), but viewed in the above terms, it suddenly seems like being given a big box of tricks, in every medium and platform possible, to tell your story.
The other important aspect was the extent to which the whole thing was hugely interactive.
The audience’s view and opinion on what was happening to Sofia (and her friends) was actively sought. And as that opinion came in, it could affect the story.
It’s a fine line, but as Nuno explained, the audience felt ownership of the show, but they weren’t writing it or dictating where it went.
This was especially true when it came to adding the TV show element, which was filmed way in advance so could never have reacted to the views of the audience anyway.
Nuno also gave another interesting reason for NOT giving the audience power over the direction of the storyline. The audience will always protect the protagonist (if you are telling your story correctly!) and punish the antagonist, which would ultimately lead to very boring stories, with little conflict or drama.
However, the feedback from the audience could also act as real time criticism of the story. For example, on several occasions it became clear through the online discussion boards that the audience hadn’t understood very clearly why a character had behaved in a particular way, or had misconstrued their motives because the story, in that instance, had just been told too fast.
The writers were able to read this and go into the blogs or send out texts the next day and clear those kind of issues up (in character of course), reassuring the audience.
Therefore this rolling multi-platform story was starting to interact heavily with the audience, -interrupting- their lives with unexpected and unplanned text messages from the characters, (“Oh my god, I’ve just found out Dave kissed Francesca…!”)
This is storytelling which apes life-like experiences, blurring the story/reality lines. (Not that I believe that the audience isn’t capable of distinguishing the two. Of course they are. But it questions HOW we tell stories.)
And then Nuno’s next project took that even further.
For Flatmates, again created originally for Portugal, Nuno took a group of 3 flatmates and an older age group. From a storytelling point of view, this complicated (in a good way) the relationship between the audience and the characters. The audience have favourites, and the three flatmates can fight it out online with their blogs, the users then fighting on the message boards.
This led to a different, and potentially more interesting, dynamic between audience and characters.
Another thing they found was that teenagers didn’t like the websites for TV shows. They seemed tacked on, with no interactivity, and histories and blogs which started the day before the show’s debut. Therefore, when creating the blogs, they created a past for the characters, even using the actors family photos, etc to fill that past out.
The audience chose the actors through online auditions which the audience voted for. This had also happened with Sofia’s Diary.
The community/fans were invited to come along to the bar featured in the show, to mill around as extras, but also to interact with the actors, who stayed in character the whole time.
The actors appeared on a daytime talk show as their characters, and the show introduced them as such, blurring the lines between reality and fiction, or at least playing with them.