Why I like Protagonists who get Their Teeth Kicked In (AKA - Why Old Boy is a great movie) [NARRATIVE CONVENTION]

"Pull the switch you fucking pansy"

I have been made more and more aware as of late by the rather fatalistic preferences I have in storytelling.

Maybe it is from reading too much H.P. Lovecraft or Machiavelli, or maybe it’s a natural inclination that is without a cause. Regardless of the reasons, I don’t think it’s a bad thing. I don’t see it as fatalistic or sadistic to see characters in stories fail or suffer. I am of the opinion that that is what helps make a story good.

Or maybe I’m a closet Catholic (I already don’t believe in God and am a slave to several mindless routines, so I’m not ruling it out).

The way I see it is that a story is supposed to be about events traveling from one point to another and the characters involved changing as the story progresses. For good or ill they have to change, along with the world around them.

Just like in life, people change over time, and the characters should do the same. Otherwise, there just isn’t really any point in the story. Otherwise, it is just another ‘day in the life’ and the story holds little significance. The characters can be realizing a love interest, discovering something about themselves, or losing/regaining faith in something, all are valid. The more drastic and stressful the events, the more drastic and dynamic the change can be.

To the example I listed earlier – H.P. Lovecraft. The father of modern horror’s story almost has EVERYONE start off as fairly mundane (vaguely anti-Semitic) people who get driven inextricably insane by the horrors they witness. Most have their infectious insanity taken to such a degree that recovery of the old self is impossible. Along the way they seem to all discover something about themselves and realize with horrible consequence the truth in their own desperately bleak place in the universe in the face of eldritch horrors.

To a more common example: One anyone who has been in a high-school lit class can relate to. Anyone out there remember ‘One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest’? (If not, it’s nothing to be embarrassed about, if you don’t have time to read go Netflix the Jack Nicholson movie adaptation. It’s great!) Murphy’s whole story was about his struggle to change his surroundings and break from the suffocating numbness Nurse Ratchet’s regime held the ward in. While he failed, eventually breaking himself on the oppressive surroundings, his actions sparked changes in the surrounding characters. The Chief is a perfect example, eventually being spurred by Murphy’s actions to take action rather than mutely holding up a mop.
That is another thing: the change doesn’t have to be an obvious one. In the ‘One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest’ example, Murphy didn’t change as much as he changed others. It was also a subtle, slow change in the people around him. It doesn’t appear that there is any direct character development. Brave heart was all about the change that William Wallace affected on others through the story through his efforts and sacrifice.

So while a character’s development help makes a story compelling, it isn’t all that interesting unless there is a good story to move them along. No one would have given a shit who Kaiser Soze was if he hadn’t killed Dean Keaton (and if Verbal hadn’t done so well to vilify himself- I mean Soze…er…). I think it is better illustrated in movies where it ISN’T done well. Shitty chick flicks or artsy movies that struggle to be feel-good movies or tear-jerkers can often fit this billet.

I am ashamed to say that I watched ‘Elizabethtown’ on a long flight once. Believe me, it is the last thing I ever want to confess to. It was an AWFUL fucking movie, worse even than the Keanu Reeves remake of ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still’ (I do stupid things on long flights…like watch the movies). The story revolved around Legolas trying to discover that his daddy loved him and that he can move on in life or some such nonsense. The change over the course of the story was drastic, but none of the events in the story seemed compelling enough to have warranted the change. Legolas just went from ‘boohoo I didn’t know my dad’ to ‘Hey, I think I might have known my dad! Let’s make out Kristen Dunst!’

If events don’t warrant change then it’s all pointless. Maybe that’s a better way of saying it.

So: By setting characters in a very grim circumstance and run them pretty much to death and back is a pretty good excuse for having a lot of shit happen to a person that evokes change. People always seem the most changed by the big (almost traumatic moments) in life. Brushes with Death or Life both seem to be the kicks in the teeth people need to change who they are. Wars haunt veterans for the rest of their lives, the birth of someone’s child is the wake up call to shape up and be more adult, having to declare bankruptcy will make someone skittish about money the rest of their lives.

This is why I like the grimmer stuff. It seems to have more potential. When the main character gets the crap kicked out of him, does he give up or keep going? Does he keep going it alone or seek help? Does the character’s cause inspire or deter others? How WILL he react to the mind-flaying horror waiting in the sleep New England town?

As for seeing characters getting killed, well…that might just be my fatalistic streak. It is too easy to have a hunky-doory happy ending where everyone wins, so I really like and admire stories and writers who aren’t afraid of putting a bullet in the head of the main character. (Case in point, Layer Cake, which is a BADASS movie…, or if I keep going for the classics: anything Shakespeare)