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.

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.

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

Batman and Sherlock Holmes are both detectives of sorts but they approach their investigation into crime very differently. Batman is a Power of Truth character.  Holmes is a Power of Reason character. This makes all the difference in how their stories are told.

Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy (my favorite Batman movies) is remarkably consistent in its emotional and psychological characterizations. In the Emotional Toolbox method, rather than looking at genre, the essential emotional force driving the movie is analyzed. Nolan’s trilogy is a series of complex multi-layered Power of Truth stories.

These kinds of stories are driven by secrets, lies, conspiracies, or concealment. In the opening of The Dark Knight Rises, a huge lie is rotting at the heart of Gotham City.

Bruce Wayne/Batman languishes in disgrace, broken and hiding in his cavernous mansion. Harvey Dent, who had become the criminally insane Two Face in the previous film, The Dark Knight, has been put on a pedestal and is revered as a hero. His crimes are concealed and even blamed on Batman.

The Dark Knight Rises and all Power of Truth stories chronicle the most profound and personal betrayals. These stories also ask: when does betrayal look like loyalty and when does loyalty look like betrayal? These stories’ twists, turns, treachery, and reversals, changes everything the character believes is true. All the character holds dear is destroyed.  It is a story of emotional devastation.

One of the major betrayals at the heart of the film is Alfred Pennyworth’s omission in telling Bruce Wayne what happened just before Bruce’s great love, Rachel Dawes, died. Alfred argues against Bruce re-emerging as Batman, revealing the truth about Rachel.

Bruce argues that Rachel died believing that the two of them would be together; that was his life beyond the cape. He can’t just move on because she couldn’t move on– she died.

Alfred reluctantly tells Wayne the truth, “What if she had? What if, before she died, she wrote a letter saying she chose Harvey Dent over you? And what if, to spare your pain, I burnt that letter?”

Bruce accuses Alfred of just using Rachel to try to stop him. Alfred is adamant. “I am using the truth, Master Wayne. Maybe it’s time we all stop trying to outsmart the truth and let it have its day. I’m sorry.”

In Power of Truth stories, like Nolan’s Batman trilogy, things are never what they seem.  The tangled undergrowth of human duplicity and emotional treachery catches and pulls at every character in the film.

Power of Reason stories are much more straight forward.  The investigation is a puzzle to be solved logically, emotion doesn’t enter into it. Of course, there is deception in these stories, but the lies are exposed by the careful collection of empirical evidence and objective deduction.

Sherlock says:  “Impossible suicides? Four of them? There’s no point sitting at home when there’s finally something fun going on!

Mrs. Hudson: “Look at you, all happy. It’s not decent.”

Sherlock: “Who cares about decent? The game, Mrs. Hudson, is on!”

Power of Reason characters examine the situation, consult other expert opinions or past experiences, and put their minds to the issue in a thorough and objective fashion.  It’s all a puzzle to be solved or a game to win. The human cost of murder or suicide doesn’t factor into the equation.

These characters cannot abide deviation from their systematic and orderly approach to the world. They tend to discount or ignore emotional or spiritual (or supernatural) elements in a situation or a problem. If they can’t see it, measure it, categorize it or quantify it, they don’t believe in it.

Power of Reason characters don’t believe in getting personally involved or emotionally entangled in any issue. They always try to maintain a sense of cool detachment and personal objectivity. They are good listeners but deflect or avoid any intimate questions about themselves and are extremely private about disclosing anything they consider to be personal. They are excellent problem-solvers and experts on matters technical, scientific or arcane.

Moving from a cold clinical analysis toward a more human evaluation (which takes into consideration emotional connection, caring, and a real valuing of others’ feelings) is their journey toward greatness.

SaveSave

SaveSave

I love picking up books for a one pound coin in Bristol charity shops.  I read books that normally would never come my way.  One such book: The Suspicions of Mr. Whicher or The Murder at Road Hill House was particularly fascinating.

Here’s what I learned about the origin of fictional and real life detectives and detective stories:

A Detective was a recent invention (in the 1840’s).  The first fictional sleuth, Ausguste Dupin, appeared in Edgar Allan Poe’s The Murders in the Rue Morgue in 1841, and the first real detectives in the English-speaking world were appointed by the London Metropolitan Police the next year. The officer who investigated the murder at Road Hill House – Detective-Inspector Jonathan Whicher of Scotland Yard – was one of the eight men who formed this fledging force.

The Road Hill case riveted all of England. It was a classic “country house” murder.  Someone viciously killed a small child, took him from his bed, and stuffed the body down the privy (outhouse).  Logistically, only someone inside the house could have committed the crime.  No one else had the access to the necessary locations.  The (very public) unfolding of the investigation shaped the detective fiction of the era and beyond. Whicher’s personality inspired the first English detective novel, Wilkie Collins’ The Moonstone and its police inspector Sergeant Cuff.  Cuff has inspired nearly every detective in fiction since.

The Emotional Toolbox categorizes the stories we normally think of as detective stories as Power of Truth stories.

These stories are defined by the secrets, lies, conspiracies, and truths that are hidden or concealed from or by the characters. Power of Truth stories explore the most profound and personal of betrayals.

In The Suspicions of Mr. Whicher there are secrets, lies, and layers of betrayal at the heart of the Victorian home, a place considered irreproachable and sacred at the time of the murder. The case tore the roof off what was a deeply private place.  It exposed rot and malice in place of what was assumed to wholesome and pure.

Power of Truth stories feature twists, treachery, and reversals, each of which can suddenly change everything the character believes is true. They conceal and reveal larger underlying issues or covert agendas that secretly manipulate the characters or the story world itself.

The cruelty, hatred, and abuse seething beneath the violent explosion in the Road Hill Murder case revealed the twisted dark side in seeming respectable middle class Victorian family life.  This was a shock to the public and to Whicher himself.

Power of Truth stories are complex tales that usually deal with darker side of human emotion. Plotting is key to triggering the detective’s fear and loathing and  maintaining it at full force through the story.

The Power of Truth story world is rich and multi-layered. Nothing is ever quite what it seems. The protagonist can’t fully trust anyone. In some cases, the protagonist can’t even trust him or her self! The case broke Whicher professionally, personally, and emotionally.

A Power of Truth story is fundamentally about how others deceive a character and how that character deceives him or her self. Plot development typically investigates or uncovers the truth about one thing and, as a result, uncovers the truth about larger secrets, crimes, or conspiracies lurking below the surface.

Ultimately, these stories explore the essential nature of truth and whether it is ever possible to fully know or understand the complex mysteries of the human heart— our own or anyone else’s.

Power of Truth novels and films are rich, complex stories filled with profound questions about the nature of illusion vs. reality; guilt, innocence and culpability; the elusive boundaries of loyalty and betrayal; the corrosiveness of secrets and lies; and, certainty vs. the unknowability of some things.

These stories slowly un-peel multi-layered deceptions, forbidden truths, and deep self-delusion, exposing the most agonizing and dangerous human emotions.

For more information on creating these rich complex stories see:  The Power of Truth eBook

Characters quirks and unusual events that make a story interesting don’t necessarily give it a depth. Unconventional characters or unique circumstances can grab an audience’s attention but not make a story  particularly rich or profound. Alternatively, a story can be very deep and complex but uninteresting and tedious.

Jack Warner once said: “If you want to send a message, call Western Union and send a telegram.”  The primary purpose of entertainment is to entertain.  The most entertaining stories incorporate elements that are both interesting AND have some kind of deeper meaning.  All great movies have both.

“Beware of the allure of the bizarre, a quality that may attract but ultimately fails to satisfy. For strange effects and extraordinary combinations, we must go to life itself. When you see ordinary situations with extraordinary insight it’s like discovering a jewel in the rubbish.” Stephen Kendrick, HOLY CLUES: The Gospel According to Sherlock Holmes.

Loss is the key element giving every great film meaning because loss is the one thing that transcends culture, race, religion, sex, age, social, economic or political situation.  It is the one thing we all share as human beings.

We all lose the comfort and safety of the womb, lose our baby teeth, lose our innocence, lose our virginity, lose a friend or loved one through separation, death or betrayal, we face reversals of fortune, if we live long enough we lose our parents, if we live long enough we lose our children.  In the end we lose our own lives.  Life is made up of a series of loses, how we cope with loss is what determines our characters. How character is revealed through loss is what gives a story meaning.  What does your character have to lose?

I recently had a question from a reader about how different Character Types do the same job OR how the same Character Types might do a job differently.  This previous post answers both questions.  I love questions from readers.  Be sure to submit yours.

Three cop shows changed forever how police work is depicted on television. Each show was original and iconic in its own time. Each remains an example of emotional storytelling at peak intensity and engagement. Let’s look at Hill Street Blues, Homicide: Life on the Street and NYPD Blue and the lessons that can be drawn going forward.

Hill Street Blues redefined the cop/crime genre through intertwined partnerships that combined police officers’ stressful work lives with the conflicts in their private lives. Very few investigations or interrogations were ever featured on the show. Instead, each episode charted a “day in the life” of the precinct from the early-morning roll call to a late-night rehash of the day’s events. This recap was usually in the bedroom with lovers Captain Furillo and Public Defender Joyce Davenport. Hill Street Blues focused almost exclusively on the interpersonal relationships between the core cast members. The show also introduced a more “documentary” look and feel to the genre. Real-life personal issues and situations were explored in a raw and more explicit manner than previously depicted on earlier shows such as Columbo or Kojak. Real-life street slang was used throughout the program.

Homicide: Life on the Street exploded television racial stereotypes with multi-dimensional complex depictions of African Americans. The show was set in Baltimore, a predominately black American city. The storylines managed to cross racial barriers that were previously taboo on television. Homicide also broke many of television’s editing and narrative continuity rules. Jump cuts were numerous and unpredictable shifts in the narrative marked it as one of the most unconventional programs at that point in the genre. With a sharp unflinching honesty about race, prejudice and violence, the detective’s job is depicted as repetitive and emotionally draining. The show examined the enormous toll that policing took on individuals and on partnerships.

NYPD Blue was set against the backdrop of urban decay in New York City. Career cops were depicted as complicated, complex and often deeply flawed human beings. Although the show featured risky adult material, most of the stories were about families and the terrible emotional aftermath of violence. Less attention was paid to the crimes than how the crimes affected the relationships in the core cast. NYPD Blue was really about one man’s journey toward redemption. Andy Sipowicz (Dennis Franz) began the show as a drunken abusive racist cop who is about to be thrown off the force (for good reason). Seventeen years later, he’s earned the top position in the precinct and, although still Andy, is fit to lead.

Each of these classic cop shows focused on the “Why” of the human cop story rather than the “How” of the crime story. That’s what made them successful. And that’s what separates these shows from the current generation of procedural cop shows like Law & Order (and all its varieties). But even in the Dick Wolf Law & Order universe, “Why” each person does the job is based on the individual’s very clear Character Type. For example: Jack McCoy (Sam Waterston), over many years on the show, still wrestles with the same questions of ethical principle vs. political expediency and law vs. justice. His “Why” is clearly driven by the Power of Conscience.

In a one-hour drama it is only possible to do one thing well– procedure or personal relationships. There isn’t time to do both well. There currently is lots of procedure on television. Perhaps it’s time for the pendulum to swing back to emotional personal relationships in cop shows.

Clear true emotions travel. They connect with the audience and move them week after week to watch a show. The definition of “to be entertained” is to feel something. In the classic cop shows discussed above, the mechanics of “How” a crime is solved is so much less important than “Why” the cops are doing what they are doing and “Why” they are affected by the job. If there is no “Why” it’s just cops going through the motions, which can make a story feel by-the-numbers and hollow.

The “Why” provides the passion and inter-personal conflict between the individuals in the story (and all the internal conflict within the character). Too often writers simply project their general idea of being a cop and the mechanics of “How” to put the cops through their paces— Instead of being specific about “Why” one particular individual is a cop.

There are four basic categories of “Why” anyone becomes a cop (or anything else for that matter):

1. It’s a job. Being a cop is solid union employment and a way to make a living or support a family. The cop does what is expected and punches out. The cop puts in the time and is concerned and responsible on the job. But he or she doesn’t take the job home and retires as soon as is feasible.

2. It’s a career. Being a cop is a good opportunity for advancement. The cop is working to achieve something else. The job is a means to an end (rising through the ranks, running for political office, becoming a consultant etc.) It is a stepping- stone to something else and worth the hard work and extra effort to achieve a larger goal.

3. It’s a vocation. Being a cop is a life mission or a higher calling. The cop is there to make a difference, have an important impact or change people’s lives. The work is a consuming passion for the cop. There is no dividing line between work and personal life. Work is the cop’s life.

4. It’s a mistake. Being a cop is not a good fit. The individual is a cop for the wrong reasons or the wrong motivations. Or the reality of the job doesn’t conform to the idea of the job or the fantasy of being a cop. In any case, the individual puts in the time and effort, got the job and now is trapped.

Any kind of employment, but particularly policing, 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 Station House or Precinct. This is a great opportunity for personal conflict in a story. Too often in cop shows (or shows featuring any profession) everyone is doing the job for the same reason. That isn’t the case in life and it shouldn’t be the case in your drama.

Layered onto “Why” someone is employed as a police officer (it’s a job, a career, a vocation or a mistake) is the “Why” of the individual’s Character Type. Looking down on nine different police officers toiling away long into the night it might be easy or convenient to believe they are all working hard for the same internal motivation or with the same value system and world view in mind. Every one of the Nine Character Types sees the world very differently, believes very different things about how the world works, and sees the primary role of a cop from a unique perspective.

1. Power of Conscience cops believe policing is a duty and a responsibility to make the world a better place. Doing the right thing is crucial to these kinds of cops. Their struggle is what is the higher duty or the most right—law or justice. (These two principles are not the same thing). Hill Street Blues‘ Joyce Davenport (Veronica Hamel) is this kind of character. Howard Hunter (James B. Sikking) is the comic version on the same show. Homicide’s Tim Bayliss (Kyle Secor) is also a Power of Conscience character. Rylan Givens (Timothy Oliphant) is a more recent example.

2. Power of Will cops believe policing is a matter of strength and the ability to dominate the situation. The use of power is crucial to these kinds of cops. Their struggle is what actually constitutes strength or power— excess or restraint. (Does compassion and tolerance make you stronger or weaker?) NYPD Blue’s Andy Sipowicz (Dennis Franz) is this kind of character. A more recent example is Vic Mackey (Michael Chiklis) on The Shield.

3. Power of Ambition cops believe policing is a matter of winning or losing. Appealing to other’s self-interest is the way to get things done. Their struggle is with short cuts vs. the long hard patient slog—results or process. (If no one else plays by the rules why should they?) Hill Street Blues‘ John “JD” LaRue (Kiel Martin) is a Power of Ambition character. A more recent example is Lieutenant Cedric Daniels (Lance Reddick) on The Wire.

4. Power of Love cops believe policing is caring for others and helping them succeed. Compassion and understanding is crucial to how they get the job done. Their struggle is when to employ “tough love” or just give up on someone. (When does empathy or understanding simply enable bad or destructive behavior?) NYPD Blue’s Bobby Simone (Jimmy Smits) is this kind of character. Another example is Phil Esterhaus (Michael Conrad) on Hill Street Blues.

5. Power of Idealism cops believe policing is a matter of individual style and personal excellence. Use of unique talents and refusing to buckle under to stupid bureaucrats is crucial to their method of policing. Their struggle is how to maintain their individuality and still be part of a larger organization. (When does being a maverick or a rebel cause more harm than good?) Homicide’s Frank Pembleton (Andre Braugher) illustrates the Power of Idealism character as a cop.  A more example is Detective Jimmy McNulty (Dominic West) on The Wire.

6. Power of Reason cops believe policing is a matter of keeping personal self-control and maintaining the social order. Objectivity, expertise and a depth of knowledge are crucial to getting the job done. Their struggle is to connect with their own emotions. (When is objectivity actually alienation?) Dexter’s title character (Michael C. Hall) is one of the best recent examples of this kind of character on the police force. Monk’s title character (Tony Shalhoub) is the comedic example.

7. Power of Truth cops believe policing is a matter of uncovering secret agendas and avoiding hidden pitfalls. Establishing trust, knowing who your friends are and being attuned to conspiracies are crucial to getting the job done. Their struggle is to accept the ambiguity of the job and the possibility of never finding real certainty. (Is the “truth” a moving target or something fixed and certain?) Homicide’s conspiracy obsessed Steve Crosetti (Jon Polito) is this kind of character. Hill Street Blues’ loyal to the core Frank Furillo (Daniel J. Travanti) is another example.  Kurt Wallander (Kenneth Branagh) on the UK version of Wallendar is a more recent example.

8. Power of Imagination cops believe policing is a matter of listening to your instincts, following hunches and special intuitive clues. Often access to what others cannot see or hear or a quirky special kind of insight is crucial to doing their job. Their struggle is how to interpret their unusual intuition or how best to communicate it to others. (Do they take me seriously or do they think I’m crazy?) This kind of cop is rare on television. Hill Street Blues’ Michael (Mick) Belker (Bruce Weitz) is an uncouth ruffian version of the Power of Imagination character.  A more recent example is police consultant Allison DuBois (Patricia Arquette) in Medium.

9. Power of Excitement cops believe policing is an adventure and a thrill ride. Their charm, good-humor and ability to get themselves in and out of traps is crucial to how they do their job. Their struggle is in following orthodox rules when it is so much more interesting to play fast and loose, improvise and shoot from the hip. (Are we having fun yet?) Beverly Hills Cop’s Axel Foley (Eddie Murphy) is the quintessential example of this character.

The “Why” of policing combined with Character Type creates a variety of complex and interesting individuals. It would be possible, for example, to create four very different Power of Conscience characters depending on whether they view policing as a job, as a career, as a vocation or as a mistake. Their values and their world views would not change but their attitudes would clash. For example: How these characters define their “higher duty” or what is the “most right” is hugely influenced by the reason they are on the job. Those different perspectives provide enormous potential conflict. Here is the breakdown:

1. A Power of Conscience cop who sees policing as a job would probably believe the higher duty is owed to family. This cop would follow the rules, be conscientious and not take the job home.

2. A Power of Conscience cop who sees policing as a career would probably believe the higher duty is owed to the organization or society. The higher the cop rises, the more effective the position becomes to do good and improve the larger situation. This cop would be relentless in seeking opportunities to advance a larger moral agenda.

3. A Power of Conscience cop who sees policing as a vocation probably believes the higher duty is owed to the victims of crime. This cop’s passion would be justice for the victims and punishment for the criminals. His or her personal life would be consumed by this life mission.

4. A Power of Conscience cop who see policing as a mistake would probably believe the higher duty is owed to one’s self. Policing can be a murky business where there often is no right answer and true justice is hard to find. This lack of clear-cut black and white or right and wrong would probably be an unbearable burden on this individual– giving rise to external moral outrage and internal guilt or self-loathing. How can I be good or worthy in a cesspool?

Creating an ensemble which clearly addresses “Why” the cop is on the job combined with Character Type provides an endless source of internal and external conflict. Making use of the full variety of human experience in specific combination creates memorable partnerships, unforgettable enemies and extraordinary individual characters.

Loyalty vs. Betrayal When does betrayal look like loyalty and vice versa? Who can your character trust? Can a character be loyal to someone as he or she is betraying that person? Can loyalty be an act of betrayal?

Ally vs. Enemy How does the character’s view of “good” and “evil” shift or change? Who is hiding what? Who is working behind the character’s back for good or ill? How does the character work against him or her self?

Pursuer vs. Pursued What is the character running after and what is he or she running from? How does this change or reverse itself?

Truth vs. Lie How does the “truth” move and morph depending on perspective, or new or reinterpreted information? What is really the truth, how does the truth shift or change depending on shifting perceptions? What is delusion, what is misleading and what is outright active deception?

Desire to Suspect vs. Need to Trust How does the character wrestle with suspicion, paranoia, and the aftereffects of betrayal or seeming betrayal? Can your character fully know the heart of anyone? Can your character fully trust him or her self? Can anyone ever be 100% certain of anyone or anything?

Illusion vs. Reality What is real and what is a set-up, a lie, misinformation, a conspiracy, a delusion, or hidden below the surface of things? How much of perception is preconception, prejudice, ignorance, naivety, pretense, paranoia, duplicity, trickery, or a set up?

Certainty vs. Uncertainty What can be pinned down, proven and quantified, and what will always have an element of the unknown, the mysterious, or the unexplained? Is anyone ever all “good” or all “bad”? How does the character deal with moral ambiguity, shifting perceptions, or shades of gray? Isn’t every situation a shade of gray? Aren’t all people combinations of good and evil?

All great Power of Truth stories — mysteries, thrillers, suspense, and detective stories answer these key questions.

Easy Rawlins (Denzel Washington) loses his job and is offered a quick $100 to find a politician’s girlfriend.  She’s a white girl who likes hot jazz and has been seen frequenting an illegal “colored” nightclub.  Denzel quickly gets caught up in murder and blackmail.

In the best thrillers, (Power of Truth stories) the crime or mystery is a way of going deeper into the main character.  While the investigator is chasing someone or something he is usually running from himself. No such thing happens in Devil In A Blue Dress.  It’s a straight forward by-the-numbers episodic investigation.  No larger deeper truth is revealed.  We learn nothing new about the protagonist and he learns nothing about himself as a result of solving the mystery.

Worse, the devil in a blue dress isn’t devilish at all.  She’s just misguided, believing love will trump her mixed race background and she can marry her white prince charming.  She’s a femme fatale on the run without any dangerous claws.

Roger Ebert summed up my feelings perfectly in his review:

I liked the movie without quite being caught up in it: I liked the period, tone and look more than the story, which I never really cared much about. The explanation, when it comes, tidies all the loose ends, but you’re aware it’s arbitrary – an elegant solution to a chess problem, rather than a necessary outcome of guilt and passion.  http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19950929/REVIEWS/509290302

It doesn’t surprise me there was no second movie adaptation of the Easy Rawlins franchise.

I finally caught up with Shutter Island last night.  I wasn’t interested in the movie when it was released.  Something about the trailer turned me off or was irritating.  I can’t remember what that was.  But I’m preparing for my Thriller Workshop in New York City and thought I should see it.  I’m glad I did.

I liked the movie a lot.  It’s a classic Power of Truth story asking: Who can I trust?  Do I see what I think I see? What’s really going on?  What does it all mean? ** SPOILERS AHEAD **

Shutter Island reminded me very much of Memento.  In both films a man’s wife dies in the aftermath of a violent act.  Each man constructs an elaborate narrative about what happened and who is responsible.  Each man searches for his wife’s “killer.”  After the shock of being confronted with the truth, each man retreats back to his fictional narrative.

The film is an interesting follow up to What The Bleep Do We Know.  That film and my interpretation of it argues:

I am who I say I am.  I am the story I tell about myself– to me and to others.

I chose my story and I continue to chose it consciously or unconsciously every day.

Events in the past do not create or destroy my character– my reaction to, attitude toward and interpretation of those events is what creates or destroys my character.

At the end of Shutter Island, the protagonist (Leonardo DiCaprio), chooses madness.  He can’t face his role in the deaths of his wife and children.  He would rather “Die a good man (his fictional self) than live as a monster (and face what really happened)”.  He cannot do the work to process his grief, forgive himself and resolve his loss.

At the end of Memento, the protagonist (Guy Pearce) chooses to kill the only man who has the key to his wife’s killer.  He can’t face his role in her death. The truth is too painful so he “makes up his own truth”.  He cannot forgive himself and resolve his loss.  So he creates a mystery he can never solve.

Reality is the story we choose to tell about ourselves and our world.  Power of Truth characters struggle to define what reality they can accept and what reality they choose to ignore (or to hide).  Although they seek the truth, the person most often lying to them is themselves.

The protagonists in Shutter Island and Memento choose a story that fictionalizes and twists the truth. Each would rather be insane/lobotomized/lost in a haze of distorted memories rather than face responsibility for the death that haunts him.

Shutter Island is a fascinating psychological thriller that unwraps the protagonist’s psyche in a slow tortuous fashion.  The surprise twist is extremely satisfying.   Although the protagonist is judged insane, he makes a choice that proves his sanity in that he is fully conscious of what he’s doing.

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.