1. The movie Amal discussed: When we see that the main character's belief in redemption and forgiveness blows up, we are watching the (emotional) reaction to the blow up of a "truth", a premise (redemption heals). Then we, the audience, are affected--as is the main character. That redemption and forgiveness heals is a belief we hold to be true. We, the audience, get emotionally involved due to the explosion of the premise - just as the character does. If we fail really to grasp what the "truth" (the premise) of a movie is, we are left with saying something like, "Oh, I really liked her (the main character); I felt sorry for her." An analysis of the truth and the blowing up of the truth gets us closer to the keys to what holds the whole movie together: it is more than a feeling-connection to a nice actor-character.
2. "Million Dollar Baby" I suggest that the premise is: training works, i.e., champions are trained, not born. OK, so training works. Nothing really "happens" in Act I. Act I is all a laying down of the "given circumstances." When she has a birthday (maturational change) he finally agrees to train her. As a controller, he says, "But don't call me boss." If I recall correctly, her reply was, "Alright, boss." Interesting material for their "types." Who is the protagonist, by the way? The girl or the man?
Then, what happens at the end of Act II, to turn it inside out into Act III, is that both the trainer (Eastwood) and the boxer (Maggie) turn their backs on their #1 command of training which is never to turn your back on your opponent. Maggie turns her back - and we who saw the movie know what happens. They violated their own premise!
All of Act III, then, is in the emotional residue of that truth being "blown." The emotion of Act III is repressed; it is repressed by Maggie due to her condition; it is held in check by Eastwood due to Maggie's condition. His demeanor contains it - or tries to. Maggie, then, emotional, and wanting forever to hang on to the memory of the "roar of the crowd" suggests something. she does not suggest a judgment, no! She suggests a new practice.
After all, her job is done: she reached her objective. Her objective was to get love. Eastwood's objective was to give love. What a fit the two of them were! He gave her the green (healing) robe with the Gaelic writing on it: "My Darling." He gave what she wanted to get. They only then had to follow through with their new "practice", "doing" - their new beauty -- and if you watched the movie you know what that was.
If I were to take the action through the four-fold table and the types, I'd start with something like this: Maggie wants support. He won't give it. She has a birthday; he changes his mind. He, the controller, sets the goals and rules and insists that she not set the goals and that she follow the rules. He heals her; he wraps her in green. They have switched types - he is such a strong supporter that he seems to be the controller, but that insane need to win no matter what put her in the driver's seat. Her talent simply needed training. Then they violated the cardinal rule of training (see above). She continued through Act III to be the controller - setting the goal, and he, following his objective to give love, did her bidding.
See how you can dig down into the heart of a movie without giving plot plot plot plot plot? We are looking for the dramatic and psychological KEYS.
No comments:
Post a Comment