Those who make regular visits to
this blog should already be familiar with my concept of the 16 Common Plot Types. In my studies of narrative, I have discovered
that nearly every well-made traditional Western-style film for the
past fifty years or more (which for brevity we may call “Hollywood
film,” though that label can be too limiting) contains a plot that
fits with shocking consistency into one of sixteen patterns. The most
surprising thing about this discovery is how extremely different
films can share the exact same pattern, plot point for plot point,
even though they seem to have nothing else in common on their
surfaces.
In this article and the next, I
will explore another of these plot types. This time, it is #6 on my
list, which I have labeled The Unstoppable Beast.
As defined
in previous articles, The Unstoppable Beast contains a story in
which:
A innocent hero is targeted by some malevolent force, a force that
will not stop until the hero is destroyed. Plot develops as each
escalated attempt by the protagonist to escape the force is denied.
Finally, in the end, the hero chooses to fight back.
As
I have found in other plot types, the Unstoppable Beast can be broken
down further into two distinct subtypes. In the first subtype, the
malevolent force has the single-minded goal of killing, ruining, or
in some other sense destroying the protagonist, and will stop at
nothing until this is accomplished. I will call this the The
Destructive Beast.
In the second, the malevolent force does not wish to physically
destroy the protagonist, but rather to possess
the protagonist. The force's goal is to destroy the protagonist's
personal will so it may own, control, or even love the protagonist
against the protagonist's will. This will be called The
Covetous Beast. Though
these subtypes share the same general premise, they differ
significantly in their essential characters and major plot events.
For this reason, Part One of this article will focus on the
Destructive Beast while the Covetous Beast will be explored next
month.
THE DESTRUCTIVE BEAST
To
demonstrate both subtypes, I will make use of three study films. The
first will contain a simple storyline which is easy to recognize as a
member of this group. Here, the obvious choice is James Cameron's The
Terminator (1984).
The
second film must contain a more sophisticated story, yet one with
clear similarities to the first. Here we will use The
Bourne Identity
(2002).
Finally,
our third film will be an oddball, one that on its surface seems to
have nothing in common with the other two. Here I have chosen Paul
Thomas Anderson's 2002 misfit romance Punch-Drunk
Love.
(These are, of course, not the
only examples. I have found this subtype in thrillers (The
Marathon Man), comedies (Pineapple Express), comic-book
fantasy (The Incredible Hulk), even family films (Lemony
Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events)
All three of these films share
identical threads in terms of their main story conflict. A relatively
innocent protagonist is targeted by a vicious, single-minded
antagonist (“The Beast”) who pursues the protagonist with
escalating actions until one of them are destroyed. In The
Terminator, Sarah Connor is
pursued by a killer cyborg programmed to kill her at any cost.
Similarly, in The Bourne Identity,
Ted Conklin uses the CIA's god-like powers to find and kill Jason
Bourne. In Punch-Drunk Love,
the sweet and simple Barry Egan (Adam Sandler) is terrorized by a
sleazebag extortionist (Philip Seymour Hoffman) who seems hellbent on
ruining Barry's life.
What
first must be noted is what it means to call these protagonists
“innocent.” Put simply, this means, from an audience standpoint,
these characters do not deserve the persecution they receive from the
Beast. Sarah Connor wouldn't harm a fly and wants nothing more than
to live her simple life. Barry Egan is as meek as a sheep and simply
wishes the world to leave him be. When we first meet Jason Bourne,
his memory has been wiped as clean as a newborn's and merely wants
to learn who he is and how he fits into the world. Yet this is not to
say that the Beast targets the protagonist without reason. In every
case, the protagonist does something (or in the case of Terminator,
will do something) that, while
seemingly harmless, brings him or her to the Beast's attention and
leads the Beast to decide the protagonist deserves destruction. Sarah
Connor will give birth to the man who will someday be the Beast's
greatest threat. Therefore, she must be terminated. Jason Bourne
investigates his identity, leading Conklin to believe Bourne has gone
rogue and must be eliminated. Barry Egan calls a phone sex line out
of loneliness, causing his Beast to label him a lowlife pervert
who deserves exploitation.
A
second essential trait of these stories is the single-minded focus of
the antagonist. Once the Beast locks onto the protagonist, its
efforts never waiver. It will pursue, and continue to pursue, with no
change except for escalation. They are heat-seeking missiles. No
matter how the protagonist zigs or zags to escape, the Beast will
keep after the protagonist until he or she is utterly destroyed.
Terminator's killer
cyborg is Hollywood's prime example of such an antagonist, but even
the low-level sleazeball who terrorizes Barry Egan demonstrates this
same vicious obsession. He could at any moment decide enough is enough
and stop harassing Barry, yet seems to take it as a point of personal
pride to go after Barry harder and harder every time Barry makes any
attempt to stand up for himself.
It
should also be noted that, like most concepts in screencraft, the
concept of the Beast is flexible in terms of its execution. It may be
interpreted literally or figuratively. The Beast may be a single
character acting alone, or it may be a larger collective of which the
antagonist acts on behalf. It's not the killer cyborg's idea to kill
Sarah Connor. It is acting on the orders of the artificial
intelligences that rule the future. Ted Conklin does not pursue
Bourne out of a personal vendetta, but acts as a representative of
the entire CIA. The Beast may directly attack the Protagonist, or it
may act through proxies. Conklin's assassins and the goons that
harass Barry Egan act as extensions of the Beast. Depending on how
abstract your thinking, the Beast can even be a cosmic force. I have
even mused in the past that The Shawshank Redemption acts
as an Unstoppable Beast, where the Beast is the feeling of hopelessness
and despair that seeks to devour Andy Dufrene (albeit, this is a pretty big stretch).
Besides
the Protagonist and the Beast, the Destructive Beast subtype
typically contains a third major player. In his or her flight from
the Beast, the Protagonist attaches him or herself to a person who
will serve as a Sole Companion character. This character, often
doubling as a Love Interest, becomes the only person the Protagonist
can truly count on. We have Reese in Terminator,
Marie in Bourne, and
Lena in Punch-Drunk Love.
The Sole Companion not only assists the Protagonist in his or her
struggle, but more importantly provides the support, love, and
reassurance the Protagonist desperately needs to continue against
insurmountable odds. Though not absolutely essential for this subtype to function (for example, The Marathon Man
forces the Protagonist to fight the Beast all on his own, and stories
with group protagonists seem to have no need for the character), this
relationship usually serves a crucial narrative role. It not only
adds complexity to what might be an overly-simple plotline, but also
becomes a key factor in both the Protagonist's character
transformation and the ultimate expression of the story's theme (this
is discussed in greater detail later in this article).
I
have also noticed a repeating dichotomy between the Protagonist and
the Sole Companion. Typically, one of the pair is relatively unstable
(Reese, Marie, Barry), while the other is more psychologically
grounded. One is a far more capable (Reese, Bourne, Lena), while the
other, not so much. Which member of the pair has which trait depends on the story's premise, yet there is clear evidence that
these “odd couple” pairings are fairly common to this subtype.
The relationship need not necessarily be romantic either. It may be
“bro-mantic,” (like that between the two leads in Pineapple
Express), a paternal or maternal
bond, (like that which forms between John Connor and his cyborg
protector in Terminator 2),
or one based on trust and mutual
respect, (such as the friendship between Andy and Red in The
Shawshank Redemption.)
PLOT BREAKDOWN
ACT 1
Setup
Sequence
Structurally,
a Destructive Beast's setup sequence does not differ much from the
norm. The Protagonist may already be targeted by the Beast, giving
the setup an air of menace, or the targeting may not have yet
occurred. If the Protagonist has already been targeted, neither the
Protagonist nor the audience will know this. Instead, the Beast's
intentions are kept a mystery. In some cases, the Beast may not need
to appear in the setup at all. Likewise, the setup may or may not
introduce the Sole Companion character. If the character does appear,
no meaningful relationship yet exists between Sole Companion
and Protagonist.
Inciting
Incident
The
inciting incident occurs with an action through which the
audience becomes aware that the
Protagonist has been targeted by the Beast. With this event, the
Beast takes its first decisive action to ensnare the Protagonist. The
cyborg starts killing women named Sarah Connor. Conklin starts
tracking Bourne. The phone sex operator tries to coerce Barry into
giving her money. However, at this early point, the Protagonist
either remains largely unaware of the threat or does not yet realize
how serious this threat may be. Sarah Connor hears of the murders,
but could not yet possibly understand the full scope of the
situation. Jason Bourne suspects he may be in danger, but has no idea
why. Barry becomes agitated, but thinks can solve the problem by
simply canceling his credit card. The full threat does not become
apparent to the Protagonist - or the audience - until the End of
First Act Turning Point.
The End of
First Act Turning Point
Two important
events occur at the end of the first act, separately but typically in
succession (the order is unimportant). First, the Beast officially
begins the hunt by launching its first major “attack” on the
Protagonist. The cyborg makes its first attempt to kill Sarah Connor
at a nightclub. Conklin activates three assassins to put “Bourne
in a body bag.” Barry's Beast sends goons to beat and rob him.
The end of
the first act must also feature a moment where the relationship
between Protagonist and Sole Companion officially begins. This could
be something decisive (Reese's “Come with me if you want to live”),
something more unassuming (Bourne recruits Marie to drive him to
Paris), or the start of a personal relationship (Lena asks Barry out
to dinner and Barry accepts). Regardless of how it occurs, the
important thing is that these two characters have transitioned from
separate individuals into a pair.
ACT 2A
Part 1
The
Beast is still chasing the Protagonist, whether this be physically
occurring on screen like in Terminator,
or largely unseen in the background like in Bourne and
Punch-Drunk. However,
at this moment, this action is of secondary importance. More
importantly, the first sequence(s) of Act 2A is where the Protagonist
and Sole Companion must grow comfortable with each other and
reconcile the nature of their relationship. One or both characters
will have doubts or fears over whether this relationship should be
continued. Sarah fears that Reese is insane. Jason Bourne seems to be
more trouble than Marie wants to handle. Barry is scared of women.
However this dilemma must be solved quickly when the Beast attacks
again, creating the turning point that ends the sequence.
Part 2
The
Beast makes its second major attack. The cyborg invades the police
station. The first assassin attacks Bourne in his home. The goons
beat up and rob Barry. This stretch of the narrative becomes all
about escape. It may last for one sequence or two, but by the time
Act 2A ends, the Protagonist is forced to come to two strong
conclusions. First, the Protagonist becomes convinced that he/she and
the Sole Companion must stick together. This solidifies the
relationship between the two characters. (I find it inconsequential
that Lena is unaware of Barry's struggle with the Beast in
Punch-Drunk Love. She
fulfills the same function as Reese or Marie regardless. It is
impossible to think that Barry could overcome his fight with the
Beast had he not chosen to continue to receive Lena's love and
support.) Second, the Protagonist realizes that the Beast will never
stop attacking him or her. It will keep coming and coming.
Because of this, the Protagonist can see only one reasonable option
at the moment: tactical retreat.
ACT 2B
Part 1
The
Protagonist escapes to a safe location with the Sole Companion. Sarah
and Reese find haven, first under a highway overpass and then in a
cheap motel. Bourne and Marie also hole up in a hotel. Barry runs
further than everyone, fleeing all the way to Hawaii to find some
peace with Lena. Here, the Protagonist can regroup and come up with
some sort of plan. The Protagonist is able to do so only because
Beast has also found itself in a situation where it must regroup. The
Beast has momentarily lost the trail of its target and must take
action to once again pick up the scent.
Like Part 1
of Act 2A, this sequence is far more about the relationship between
Protagonist and Sole Companion than the Protagonist and the Beast. In
this brief respite, the pair transform into a domestic couple,
“playing house” even. In all three study films, this is the point when
Protagonist and Sole Companion consummate their romantic
relationship. Yet this sweet stability is broken by the next turning
point. The Beast learns of their location. It is coming for them yet
again.
Part 2
Though
some time may remain for the Protagonist to take actions and
implement his or her new plan before the Beast arrives, eventually
the Beast will come and launch a stronger and far more brutal assault
than ever before. The Terminator,
being the shortest and simplest of our study films, takes an
uncomplicated route by using this attack to transition into the long
battle that comprises Act 3. Bourne
and Punch-Drunk take
somewhat longer routes that mirror each other plot point for plot
point. Both Protagonists are attacked by the Beast's proxy. The
Protagonist defeats these proxies, but rather than be pleased with
the victory, the Protagonist is FURIOUS. This time, the Beast has not
only tried to harm him, but the innocent people he cares about. Both
Bourne and Barry are fed up. They want to end this. And they realize
only way to do so is to square off with the Beast face-to-face. In
both Bourne and
Punch-Drunk, the
Protagonist speaks directly to the Beast for the first time and
challenges it to a fight. This challenge sets up the battle that will
make up Act 3.
ACT 3
In
general, Act 3 develops as would be expected in a restorative
three-act narrative. There is an conflict-intensifying sequence that
leads to the final confrontation between Protagonist and Beast, a
turning point, and then the final confrontation itself. (I should
point out that the final action sequence found in The
Bourne Identity is much
different than the one originally written. The filmmakers decided to
change the ending in response to the events of 9/11. It was supposed
to be a more intense, explosion-filled ending, much like that seen in
The Terminator, as
opposed to the more subdued end seen in the final film.)
There
is one significant point that must be made about these final
sequences. Whether it happens midway through the act or very late, at
some point the relationship between predator and prey will reverse.
The Protagonist does this by entrapping
the Beast. Whether it be Sarah Connor encaging the cyborg inside the
mechanical press, Jason Bourne cornering Conklin in the safehouse, or
Barry staring down his tormentor in the back of the mattress store,
this act robs the Beast of its power and ability to intimidate. The
big, bad Beast has suddenly turned pathetic and weak. With this
reversal of power, the Protagonist can finally defeat the Beast,
either by destroying it or forcing it to back down.
…........
Despite
appearances, the Destructive Beast plot subtype is about far more
than predator and prey. Any good story is “about more than it is
about.” A story that lacks any meaning beyond the observable
actions of its plot is always a mediocre one. Hence, I have found two
surprising traits shared by every one of these stories.
THESE ARE STORIES ABOUT HUMANE RELATIONSHIPS
The battle
with the Beast may provide the action and conflict. It may provide
the excitement and commercial appeal. But the real meaning in these
films emerges from the warm, humane, multifaceted relationship
between Protagonist and Sole Companion set in contrast with the cold,
inhumane relationship between Protagonist and Beast.
Left to his
or her own devices, the Protagonist would in all inevitability
succumb to the force of the Beast. However, through the
relationship between Protagonist and Sole Companion, the
Protagonist's character gains something it did not have previously, which allows
him/her to defeat the Beast. To understand how and why, we must
ask two questions: “For what reason does the Beast target the
Protagonist?” and “For what reason does the Sole Companion remain
attached to the Protagonist despite reasons not to?”
As
I have mentioned, the Beast is a single-minded creature. It targets
the Protagonist for a singular quality which it believes warrants the
Protagonist's destruction. The machines of the future target Sarah
Connor because they see her as a weakling that can be easily
wiped out. The CIA's Treadstone sees Jason Bourne as nothing more
than a soulless killing machine that needs to be deactivated. Barry's
extortionists see him as a pathetic wimp with whom they
can do whatever they please. More importantly, the Protagonist begins
the story seeing him or herself
in the same way. Sarah believe she is a weak nothing. Bourne feels
that he has lost all humanity. Barry sees himself as a pathetic wimp.
It seems the Protagonists agrees with the Beast. If this is the
case, the Protagonist might eventually give in and let the Beast win.
But if these
Protagonists really are such undesirable monotypes, why do their Sole
Companions risk so much to stick by their sides? The Sole Companion
remains loyal to the Protagonist because he or she is the only person
in the whole wide world who sees MORE in the Protagonist. Through
their personal relationship, the Sole Companion realizes that the
Protagonist is far more than the trait for which he or she has been
targeted. Instead, the Sole Companion recognizes so many other
qualities that make the Protagonist a worthwhile human being. Reese sees
strength and courage in Sarah Connor that Sarah herself does not
admit. Marie knows that Jason Bourne is not just a killing machine,
but a good man with a good heart. Lena sees charm and beauty in Barry
where everyone else can only see the wimp. Through this relationship,
the Protagonist's sense of self transforms from the negative
monotypical view shared by the Beast, to the positive multifaceted
one of the Sole Companion. Strengthened by the Sole Companion's
support, the Protagonist is able to stand up and say, “I am a
worthwhile individual. I do not deserve this treatment. I am greater
than the Beast and can defeat it.”
Why is this
transformation so important? Aside from the pragmatic narrative
concerns of story structure and character arc, this relationship
provides the context through which the audience receives the story's
true meaning. By recognizing the value of an individual in the face
of overwhelming persecution, we learn this story subtype's subtextual
theme.
THESE STORIES ARE THEMATIC CONDEMNATIONS OF PERSECUTION
In every
historical case of persecution, whether it be against an entire race
or a single individual, the persecutor dehumanizes its victim by
degrading the whole of that person's identity to a single
undesirable trait. The persecutor does not see a unique individual
with many different qualities, but only a race, a religion, a
political view, or some type of behavior with negative associations. By defining its victim with one undesirable trait, the
victim is turned into something no better than an animal. A dog is
just a dog. A roach is like any other roach. A rat can be nothing
more than a rat. And like any bothersome animal, the persecutor feels
justified in exterminating the person for what it sees as the greater
good.
This is why
social persecution is morally wrong. It is based on a lie. No
person's existence is defined by a single trait by which he or she
should be accepted or condemned. We are all unique individuals,
possessing hundreds of personal qualities, each with its own
potential to add worth and value to the world. As unique individuals,
each one of us has the right to prove our value on our own terms –
not by one or two isolated behaviors, but through all of them as a
whole. If an individual's worth is to be judged, it should not be donw by
some mechanical-minded aggressor with no regard for the individual's
humanity, but by the people who know and understand them.
Stories of
the Destructive Beast subtype exist as lessons on social persecution.
They show us the value of an individual's humanity by pitting it
against an unthinking, uncaring force that chooses to ignore its
victim's basic right to exist – the right to live, to love, and to
bring value to their world in their own way. The Beast then not
only represents evil as it exists in the narrative, but the social
evils that continue to persecute innocent victims in our own world.
