1 – What is the character literally doing: What is the doable action?
2 – What is the essential action behind the literal action aka the OBJECTIVE?
3 – What is the nature of the relationship between the characters?
4 – Forget what the character is feeling and focus on what she is trying to accomplish.
The scene then becomes about the degree to which she succeeds or fails and the reaction of the other person while she’s trying to fulfill her action. And the beats that make up that scene are the tools with which the character tries to fulfill her objective.
Do not confuse the objective of the character with the result.
Do not show the idiosyncrasies of a character (their wacky habits/their odd knowledge) show the STRUGGLE of the character.
The Bothersome Man (2006) Norway – bright lighting and dull color palette converge to represent a world of emptiness.
Wristcutters: A Love Story (2006)
Dreams (Kurosawa 1990) – A memorable anthology of human failure to realize the importance of our connection to nature.
The City of Lost Children (Jenet 1995) – Bad guy kidnaps children to steal their dreams
Waking Life (Linklater 2001)
The Woman in the Window (Fritz Lang 1944)
Spellbound (Hitchcock 45)
Paprika (Satoshi Kon 2006) – Dream world and reality begin to intertwine
Mullholland Drive (Lynch)
The Good Night (2007)
Took photos of deserted Paris streets. Photos look like crime scenes. The purpose of them is to establish evidence. They demand a specific kind of reception. Free-floating contemplation is not appropriate. They unsettle the viewer, she feels challenged to find a particular way to approach them.
Arendt’s account of the human condition reminds us that human beings are creatures who act in the sense of starting things and setting off trains of events. This is something we go on doing whether we understand the implications or not, with the result that both the human world and the earth itself have been devastated by our self-inflicted catastrophes
Arendt argues that faith and hope in human affairs come from the fact that new people are continually coming into the world, each of them unique, each capable of new initiatives that may interrupt or divert the chains of events set in motion by previous actions. She speaks of action as “the one miracle-working faculty of man” (p. 246), pointing out that in human affairs it is actually quite reasonable to expect the unexpected, and that new beginnings cannot be ruled out even when society seems locked in stagnation or set on an inexorable course.
For the other side of that miraculous unpredictability of action is lack of control over its effects. Action sets things in motion, and one cannot foresee even the effects of one’s own initiatives, let alone control what happens when they are entangled with other people’s initiatives in the public arena.
Action is therefore deeply frustrating, for its results can turn out to be quite different from what the actor intended.
Many stories in the Histories are case studies in the nature of power. The reasons are always similar: power leads to excess. Blindness to the limitations of human action incurs the downfall of mighty kings like Croesus, Cambyses and Xerxes. The condition they suffer from – the Greek word is hubris – is depressingly modern and familiar.
In the world of Herodotus, any excess is ultimately corrected: what goes up must come down. This applies to individuals, to empires and to peoples.
The traditional gods of the ancient Greek pantheon are still very much alive in the Histories. Yet in contrast to Homeric poetry, they no longer intervene directly in the world. They have receded to a transcendental distance from which they oversee and steer the workings of the world.
The Persian Wars nearly ended the Greek experiment. Divided among themselves, not really prepared for a large war, and with many Greeks siding with the enemy, the eventual defeat of the Persian invaders by a handful of scrappy city states was one of the great victories in military history. It would define how the Greeks, particularly Athens and Sparta, saw each other and the outside world. The “histories”of Herodotus give a good sense of how they saw both the Persians and war itself.
The Persians saw tyranny as the natural state of things and underestimated the cohesion that could come from democracy.
Xerxes dithers on responding to the humiliating defeat. Herodotus, characteristically, attributes his decision to attack the Greeks to goading by lousy subalterns and a series of prophetic dreams, misinterpreted. It is interesting that one of his best warriors and smartest advisors is a woman, and Herodotus lacks the misogyny or patronizing attitude we might expect.
Suzanne Valadon wore a corsage of carrots and fed her Catholic cats caviar on Fridays.