Archives for October 2015

In my last post, I looked at whether Trump and the Republican Presidential candidates are likable by screenplay standards. In this one I’ll be looking at the two major democratic candidates – Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders – and evaluating if they would be likable by the standards of a screenplay.

I reminder readers that this has nothing to do with whether or not any candidate would actually make a good President. In my first post on what makes likable characters, I described the stoner leads from Pineapple Express as likable, but I wouldn’t vote for them. This is just a thought experiment, to see what political narratives look like through the lens of screenwriting rules.

What Makes a Character Likable?

In my first post on what makes a character likable, I laid out Eric Edson’s criteria from The Story Solution:

1. Courage
2. Unfair Injury
3. Skill
4. Funny
5. Just Plain Nice
6. In Danger
7. Loved By Friends And Family
8. Hard Working
9. Obsessed

To be likable, a character only needs a majority – 5 out of 9 traits.

Let’s see how the candidates stack up.

Is Hillary Clinton Likable by Screenplay Standards?

I’m going to come back to skill, but the others are pretty clear:

• Courage – No. Hillary hasn’t made any stands that require courage in her party.
• Unfair Injury – No. Hillary has establishment support.
• Funny – No.
• Just Plain Nice – No.
• In Danger – No.
• Loved By Friends And Family – No. There are hints Bill Clinton doesn’t fully support her.
• Hard Working – No.
• Obsessed – Yes. Hillary is clearly obsessed with political victory.

Skill should be an easy one for Hillary, given her history of skillful political maneuverings. However the recent email scandal shows a lack of skill.

It would actually be worse for Hillary if her email server was an honest mistake rather than an attempt to illegally hide her communications, because an honest mistake would show a lack of political and technological skill.

Hillary would actually be more likable if she positioned herself as a Frank Underwood style power-hungry politician who had the skill to hide her misdeeds from the federal government. Right now, it just looks like she doesn’t even have the skill to keep what she considers a non-issue from becoming a major news story.

But even if she had skill, Hillary doesn’t meet the criteria to be likable by screenplay standards. That may partially explain why despite having massive resources and political connections, she is losing in every poll to Bernie Sanders.

Is Bernie Sanders Likable by Screenplay Standards?

I’m come back to courage and unfair injury, because I think they may be a bit more complex in Sander’s case.

• Funny – No. Sanders is pretty serious.
• Just Plain Nice  Yes. Sanders actually said he was tired of hearing about the email scandal of his biggest political opponent, and sought common ground with the students who disagreed with him at Liberty University.
• In Danger – No.
• Loved By Friends And Family – I don’t know anything about his family, but I’ll say yes here, based on the massive support he has from his community.
• Hard Working – Yes. Sanders has been working on civil rights issues for decades.
• Obsessed – Yes. Sanders has been been working on civil rights issues for decades.

Not bad – 4 out of 6. But what about Courage, Unfair Injury, and Skill?

I initially I might have said yes on Courage, since Sanders has positioned himself as the guy willing to stand up to the big banks, and turned down donations from interests he doesn’t want to be beholden to. However, Bernie failed to stand up to #BlackLivesMatter when they shut down his speech in Seattle pushed him off his own stage.

Tell me, does Sander’s body language strike you as courageous here?

You could argue by giving them the stage, Sanders was being Just Plain Nice, but Sanders was already nice. No one would have thought him otherwise if he’d told the activists to wait until his speech was finished. An image like the one above makes Sanders look like he lacks the courage to stand up to powerful interests of any kind.

• Courage – No. When put under pressure, Sanders folded.

You might think Sanders political positions are courageous, but he hasn’t demonstrated those through action yet. I don’t have a photo as vivid as the one above showing Sanders being courageous. When it comes to storytelling actions and images matter more then words. We have to see the character do something brave, not just talk about it.

For Unfair Injury, Sanders has no early disadvantages to overcome, however like Trump, the media has consistently refused to cover him and covered him unfairly when they do. This graphic which made the rounds on social media sums it up well:

When the media describes Sanders and Trump as outsiders, they never define what they are outsiders to. Sanders has been in politics for over thirty years, and Trump is a billionaire. Neither of these men are outsiders they way you and I are. What they are outsiders to is the media and political establishment. Like Trump, the media has made Sanders more likable by their unfair treatment of him.

• Unfair Injury – Yes. Sanders has been mistreated by the media and political establishment.

Note that Sanders would not be likable by storytelling standards, if he wasn’t made an outsider by the media. The media actually made Sanders likable.

Whether or not you believe Sanders has Skill depends a lot on your political beliefs. The biggest criticism of Sanders proposals is that they are a socialist schemes which won’t work. If Sanders can demonstrate that his proposals will work, and that he has the skill to pull them off, he’ll be significantly more likable.

I won’t claim to have the political insight to know whether or not that is the case. However, unlike Trump, who has shown skill and business, and Hillary, who has shown some previous skill in politics (though not in her recent scandals), Sanders hasn’t demonstrated his skill yet.

• Skill – I’m going say no for now, with the possibility that Sanders could turn it around.

If I was advising his campaign based on this list, I’d tell them to throw significant resources behind making people believe Sanders is a master of political accomplishment, and seek out ways to demonstrate courage in the public’s mind.

Still, at five out of nine, Sanders is likable by screenplay standards, and significantly ahead of his primary competition.

Could the Candidates Win Against Trump?

The comparative liability of each candidate by screenplay standards matches the polls.

The media has repeatedly said Hillary will win and the party should just skip the debates and give the nomination to her, but every time they do, they actually just make Sanders more likable.

Based on this theory, a Trump vs. Hillary matchup would mean a landslide in favor of Trump. Sanders stands a fighting chance only if he can demonstrate some serious skill and courage before the vote.

However, Trump is systematically working to improve his likability. Expect him to work to demolish his opponents likability as well.

Remember, a candidates likability has nothing to do with whether or not they would make a good President. However, storytelling principles have a direct effect on who wins the election.

How we tell stories actually determines who becomes President.

—

Many thanks to the kind words Scott Adams shared about the my last post. It was inspired by his writing, so if you enjoy these posts, you’ll love his blog.

When you’d like a break from excitement of politics, perhaps you’d like to visit a meditation center? Fortunately, my old zen group is trying to build one in Los Angeles right now. You can learn more about it, and donate here.

Coincidentally, I edited the video for their campaign.

—

Read More: Is Trump A Likable Character By Screenplay Standards?

Scott Adam’s recent post suggesting Trump may be using screenwriting principles to engineer his campaign, got me thinking – can a Presidential candidates be evaluated like screenplay characters?

Much of the language used in politics is similar to storytelling. If media is about creating narratives, then how likable political characters are could have a direct impact on their campaign.

This has nothing to do with whether or not Trump or any of the other candidates would make a good President. In my first post on what makes likable characters, I said Ebaneezer Scrooge is a likable character, but I certainly wouldn’t vote for him. This is just a thought experiment, to see if screenwriting principles apply to political narratives.

What Makes a Character Likable?

In my first post on what makes a character likable, I laid out Eric Edson’s criteria from The Story Solution:

1. Courage
2. Unfair Injury
3. Skill
4. Funny
5. Just Plain Nice
6. In Danger
7. Loved By Friends And Family
8. Hard Working
9. Obsessed

To be likable, a character only needs a majority – 5 out of 9 traits.

Test this list on your favorite film characters and see how they score. Try it on anti-hero characters you like. Try it on characters you don’t like. So far I haven’t found a popular film or television hero it doesn’t work on.

This list explains why seemingly mean or “unlikable” anti-heroes are so frequently featured in modern media. Most people don’t consider Trump “nice” – but neither are the anti-heroes that populate HBO shows and dark R-rated films. Nice and likable are not the same thing.

How Likable Is Trump?

I’m going to start with the skill, because I think courage and unfair injury may be a bit more complex in Trump’s case.

• Skill – Yes. Trump is an incredibly skillful business man.
• Funny – Yes. Trump frequently rebuff’s his opponents with funny lines, like telling Megyn Kelly he’s only made fun of Rosie O’Donald, or saying to Jeb Bush “more energy tonight, I like that.”
• Just Plain Nice – No.
• In Danger – No.
• Loved By Friends And Family – Yes. Trump frequently appears with his family, all of whom support his campaign, and are attractive and accomplished in their own right.
• Hard Working – Yes.
• Obsessed – Yes.

That alone is 5 out of 9 – enough to be a likable character. But what about the last two – Courage and Unfair Injury?

Initially, I thought no on both of them. Trump seems driven more by ego than courage, and he had no unfair injury growing up. However, when Trump began his campaign, he was attacked by the media and written off by them. Trump has frequently complained that the media and the Republican establishment have not treated him fairly.

There is a screenwriting principle that if you’re going to have an edgy or morally ambiguous hero, you need to have an even worse villain who is even more unlikable. Ex: Batman might be a dark knight, but the joker is completely insane.

In the media, Trump has his worse villain. If you buy Trump’s narrative, the media and political establishment’s treatment of him constitutes unfair injury, and his standing up to them and their political correctness requires courage. So –

• Courage – Yes. Standing up to media and political establishment.
• Unfair Injury – Yes. Unfair treatment by media and political establishment.

Did you catch that? The media has actually made Trump more likable.

You don’t need to buy this interpretation to consider Trump likable by the other criteria, but it’s not a stretch to say that the media has become so powerful and so unlikable, that being attacked by them and standing up to them will raise any candidates profile.

If that idea causes too much cognitive dissonance, try imagining the opposite. What if the media loved Trump, and Trump was able to passively ride their support? Wouldn’t that make him less likable?

How Likable Are The Other Candidates?

Again, I remind you – being a likable screenplay character doesn’t make someone a good choice for President. Ebaneezer Scrooge is a likable character. But being likable certainly doesn’t hurt. Compare Trump to the candidate the Republican establishment has been pushing for – Jeb Bush:

• Courage – No.
• Unfair Injury – No.
• Skill – No.
• Funny – No.
• Just Plain Nice – Yes.
• In Danger – No.
• Loved By Friends And Family – No. His family has given little public support, his mother has said he shouldn’t run, and he’s losing in his home state.
• Hard Working – No. “Low-energy.”
• Obsessed – No.

Yikes! The best you can say about Jeb is that he isn’t intentionally mean.

What about Ben Carson?

Admittedly, I know less about him then I do the other candidates, but we’re evaluating the candidates like a movie character. You don’t know every little thing about a movie character, only what happens when the cameras are rolling. So take this not as an evaluation of him as a person, but as a character in the media.

• Courage – Maybe, but I haven’t seen it.
• Unfair Injury – Yes. Growing up black in Detroit likely put him at a significant social disadvantage compared to the other Republican candidates.
• Skill – Yes. Neurosurgeon.
• Funny – No.
• Just Plain Nice – Yes. Even Trump says he’s a really nice guy.
• In Danger – No.
• Loved By Friends And Family – Yes. Loved by his community.
• Hard Working – Yes. Again, neurosurgeon.
• Obsessed – Doesn’t seem like it. Retired as neurosurgeon at the height of his skill.

So again that’s 5 out of 9 – unfair injury, skill, just plain nice, loved by friends and family, and hardworking. Carson is likable by movie standards.

Where he could stand to improve is being funnier and more courageous. Carson seems very serious and soft spoken in every appearance I’ve seen him make. If he got people laughing and was willing to stand up to powerful interests in a public way, he could be more likable by screenplay standards.

Storytelling Principles Apply to Politics

So Jeb Bush 1/9, Ben Carson 5/9, and Trump 7/9 on the screenplay likability scale.

Doesn’t that reflect where they stand in the polls right now?

Screenwriting and storytelling principles go way beyond movies. They actually determine who we choose as our President.

—

By the way, if you like deconstructing the news and seeing behind the media’s narrative, you may also like the short documentary I made, My Dad & The Drudge Report.

—

Read More: What Makes A Character Likable?

One of the most common pieces of screenwriting advice is that your main character has to be likable. But what does that mean? And why do many of our favorite characters tend to be difficult individuals or anti-heroes? Are they likable, or really just watchable? What makes a character someone we want to see through a story?

The Story Solution by Eric Edson lists nine attributes for likable characters:

1. Courage
2. Unfair Injury
3. Skill
4. Funny
5. Just Plain Nice
6. In Danger
7. Loved By Friends And Family
8. Hard Working
9. Obsessed

In order for character to be likable, they only need to have at least five out of nine. Many characters have more, but five is the minimum for us to want to see a story about this character.

I don’t like most screenwriting books, but this list is the best I’ve found for explaining why seemingly “unlikable” characters are so watchable, and why the current trend of “anti-heroes” and difficult characters in film and television is drawing audiences.

Why Do We Like Mean Characters?

Let’s apply this list to one of the most seemingly “unlikable” characters in film history – Ebaneezer Scrooge.

Despite his name being synonymous with mean miserly people, there are more film adaptations and theater productions of A Christmas Carol then any other story. How does a character this mean keep getting his story told and attract such a-list talent (Jim Carry, Patrick Stewart, Bill Murray, etc.) to play him?

Is Scrooge likable? Let’s look at the list:

• Courage – No.
• Unfair Injury – Not really – though one could argue his isolation as a child shown in flashback counts.
• Skill – Yes. Scrooge is a skilled business man.
• Funny – Yes. Even when he’s being mean, Scrooge has some killer lines.
• Just Plain Nice – No.
• In Danger – Yes. Scrooge is being haunted by ghosts.
• Loved By Friends And Family – No.
• Hard Working – Yes.
• Obsessed – Yes.

Scrooge has 5 out of 9. His skills and mastery as a business man actually makes him likable.

In How to Write Movies for Fun and Profit (part comedy book, part screenwriting book), the authors Thomas Lennon and Robert Ben Garant suggest that if you want to attract a movie star, write a character who is perfect, except for one major flaw. Scrooge is the perfect businessman. He’s shrewd and a master of making money. He just isn’t nice. Pretty good flaw for a business man, right?

Most people when they think about likability only look at “is this character nice?” and maybe “are they loved by friends and family?” or “are they funny?” but mastery over a skill can make a character just as likable.

We like seeing people who are good at something so much we’ll forgive them for being mean to others on the way to sucess. See Sorkin’s latest work with Steve Jobs and The Social Network for a great example of this.

Can Characters Without Mastery Be Likable?

What about a character with no mastery? Take for example the lovable losers that populate Judd Apatow comedies and Seth Rogan’s early roles? Are they likable by this definition?

• Courage – Usually yes by the end of the film.
• Unfair Injury – Usually.
• Skill – No.
• Funny – Yes.
• Just Plain Nice – Yes.
• In Danger – Often.
• Loved By Friends And Family – Yes.
• Hard Working – No.
• Obsessed – No.

So if you’re going to have a character without mastery, they have to be funny or thrown into dangerous circumstances over their head where they show courage. Pineapple Express is probably the best example of this, since it has all those qualities.

Lovable loser characters are funny nice people. Maybe something bad happened to them that kept them from success (Unfair Injury). Maybe they rise to the occasion (Courage) of some difficult circumstances (In Danger). We forgive them for not being masters of a trade because they have other likable qualities.

By the way, the action formula in Pineapple Express  goes all the way back to Hitchcock in North by Northwest. An average man (Just Plain Nice, Loved by Friends and Family) thrust into a dangerous situation (Unfair Injury,  In Danger) must rise to the circumstances (Courage). The horror formula is pretty close to that too.

Is Your Character Likable?

The list is a good diagnostic tool. If your character is going to be mean, he’d better be funny. If he’s not skillful, it better be due to an unfair injury. Likability can be counter-intuitive.

Recently, I used this list on a screenplay I was working on. The main character just wasn’t working, despite being a nice family man. I’d started him in the midst of such great problems that his skills weren’t clear. I had to go back and establish his talent before creating the problems that would overwhelm him, and give him more of a sense of humor when they first begin.

I use this list when editing too. If you’re establishing a documentary character, all the same rules apply.

Like all film advice – take what works for you, and leave the rest. I’m not certain this is a universal rule, though I haven’t found an exception yet. It does explain why we root for seemingly mean or weak characters, and why just being nice isn’t enough for a film hero.

Read More: How to Structure Documentary Openings

When newspapers print corrections, their corrections often only amplify your memory of the original headline and make the lie worse. So even if I were to correct a bad news story based on false science, it’d only open you up to the influence of the original headline.

Thankfully, the headline I gave you – Meditation Makes You More Creative – is totally false! Or is it? Let’s take a look at the science.

The actually study Increased False-Memory Susceptibility After Mindfulness Meditation was reported under the headline Mindfulness meditation linked to false memory recall.

A couple problems with this study:

1. They didn’t study meditation. The actual study says they used a “mindfulness induction.” Induction is what’s used in hypnosis, not meditation. The idea that you can create false memories through hypnosis is well established, but entirely different then meditation.
2. They didn’t study memory. The researchers gave participants 15 words related to trash, and asked them to remember as many of these words as possible. At the end, people who did mindfulness meditation were more likely to report the word “trash,” which was not on the list. This isn’t a personal memory – it’s word recall, after cramming for a test.

An alternative interpretation of this study would be that people who practice mindfulness meditation are more likely to see the patterns behind the information they’re presented.

Why didn’t the researchers chose this interpretation? As long as we’re drawing broad explanations for remembering the word “trash” after being given the hypnotic command “remember as many words as possible,” you have to ask that question.

Another interpretation – that when you cram for a test and are given less time to reflect then the control group, you’re more likely to make things up. The researchers were only studying short term cramming, so this is an entirely valid interpretation.

Perhaps the most likely interpretation – people given the command “remember as many words as possible” and then put under hypnosis are more likely to respond hypnotically – i.e. to follow the command as it was given, and remember as many words as possible, whether or not they were shown to them before.

If I were re-titling this study, I’d call it “Hypnosis Makes You More Creative.” But that’s not the narrative the researchers, medical news organization, or journalist wanted to push.

Notice, the original study used the phrase “False-Memory Susceptibility,” but the article says it’s “linked to false memory recall.” The journalist wanted to paint the image that people are creating entire false scenarios and stories (which again, hypnosis can be used to cause), rather then making up answers on a test they crammed for. It’s a game of telephone, where the target is meditation.

Now, why would the medical industry want to slander something that’s free, can’t be owned or bought, and has been shown to have numerous health and psychological benefits?

If you drew any conclusion from that last sentence beyond that I was asking a question, congrats – reading my blog leads to “false memory recall.”

Once you can spot this kind of bad science and worse journalism, you’ll see it EVERYWHERE. No one will ever be able to tell you “studies show” or  “I read the other day” again.

—-

Where have I heard another story about a headline getting literally everything wrong? Oh yeah, I made a documentary about that, and explored how the news really works through the personal experience of a family member. You can watch that here.

—

P.S. Donate to Angel City Zen Center! Help us spread the practice of meditation, which scientific studies have shown will make you more creative and better able to see patterns in the world. Donate here.

—

Watch More: Angel City Zen Center