BSA 104 (Scriptwriting) Week 5 : The Dead Lands
This week in class we watched the film The Dead Lands, it's a New Zealand film directed and written by Kiwis. The relevance of this one is that we might be potentially meeting with the writer (Glenn Stranding), who's made quite a name for himself in the NZ film industry while also finding success abroad.
As per usual we went over the normal review structure in class, here are the conclusions I came to:
The Dead Lands is set in Pre-Pakeha New Zealand and follows the exploits of the son of a tribe's chief. His life is turned upside down when an enemy tribe destroys their village and kills his family. He sets out for revenge and on his journey is accompanied by an old warrior who's own tribe was destroyed, a warrior known as a taniwha due to his proficiency in battle.
I enjoyed the film, but not for positive reasons. If I had viewed the movie by myself I am sure that boredom would have driven me to a point where I would turn it off or walk out of the theater. Luckily watching it in class allowed for a more communal experience, in which talking and joking about the film made it a very enjoyable experience.
The lead character is the young chief who has to set out for revenge and unfortunately he is a very weak character. There were two big reasons for why I, and most of the class, felt this way.
1) His motivation, while clear, was weak. Revenge is usually a powerful motivator in stories, one that everyone understands and one that is easy to support. However in this movie the character had nothing to lose and no reason to take revenge other than the simple act of carrying out justice.
Him having nothing to lose is a big problem that I didn't notice during my viewing of the film, I made the observation that the character was bland and his motivation shallow, but not until the group discussion did I realist that this is because he starts from a low point.
The darkest hour is usually saved for the end of the second act, but this movie uses it as an inciting incident. This means that the audience feels no attachment to the hero's home, which in turn means there is no reason for the threat to be neutralized. Revenge itself is not enough of a motivator. I thought about this and realized that the greatest revenge stories rely on more than just the act of revenge, there is usually a promise of more destruction if the villain is not stopped.
We saw this in action throughout Gladiator, in which the villain would bring down the entirety of Rome if his scheming was not brought to an end. Another good example is Django Unchained, in which the hero's motivation is based more in saving his wife than simple revenge.
Having something to save is important to a revenge story. An improvement on The Dead Lands would be to write that the bad guys take the village's women and children as captives, then the hero would have had a secondary motivation. I imagine this would also have made the entry into the titular dead lands and fight scenes more interesting/tense as the village women would look on as things go awry.
2) The character has little to no personality and because of this is heavily overshadowed by the supporting character, who should fulfill the mentor role but for most of the movie becomes the main focus.
The parts that I found most uninteresting were after the village is ransacked and before the Taniwha character is introduced, during this time we only have the villains and main character, both of whom are underdeveloped and uninteresting to watch.
The Taniwha character is more interesting because of how dull the lead is. Some people in the class hinted that this might be because of a dull performance from the main actor (James Rolleston), but I believe it is because of the material he was given along with the fact that the film sidelines him for most of the running time. It's the same actor as in Boy (2010) and I remember him showing a much greater range and more emotion in that film, and that was when he was a younger, more inexperienced actor.
This brings me to my next point, the consensus in class was that the best character was the Taniwha:
Everyone's favourite character from The Dead Lands was what is supposed to be a supporting character - The Taniwha. The reason I, and most of the class, felt this way was because he had more development and a more interesting backstory. It seems the writer knew this, as the entire story starts shifting away from the main character and more towards the Taniwha. I clearly remember thinking that the movie's protagonist had changed somewhere around the middle of the film.
In my opinion the Taniwha should have just been a helping hand and a vital part of the hero's journey. Him dying was something that I anticipated and spent most of the film waiting for, this plot point is generic but important in making the hero independent. At the end of this film the hero still feels like a child.
The story shifting towards the Taniwha is more interesting but a mistake. If it wanted to focus on him the movie should have started off with him.
NOTE:
The protag, main character and hero could potentially be three different characters as they fulfill different roles.
PROTAGONIST (Who we follow), MAIN CHARACTER (The one with the most change) AND THE HERO
The protagonist doesn't always have to be the one with the most change.
As per usual we went over the normal review structure in class, here are the conclusions I came to:
The Dead Lands is set in Pre-Pakeha New Zealand and follows the exploits of the son of a tribe's chief. His life is turned upside down when an enemy tribe destroys their village and kills his family. He sets out for revenge and on his journey is accompanied by an old warrior who's own tribe was destroyed, a warrior known as a taniwha due to his proficiency in battle.
I enjoyed the film, but not for positive reasons. If I had viewed the movie by myself I am sure that boredom would have driven me to a point where I would turn it off or walk out of the theater. Luckily watching it in class allowed for a more communal experience, in which talking and joking about the film made it a very enjoyable experience.
The lead character is the young chief who has to set out for revenge and unfortunately he is a very weak character. There were two big reasons for why I, and most of the class, felt this way.
1) His motivation, while clear, was weak. Revenge is usually a powerful motivator in stories, one that everyone understands and one that is easy to support. However in this movie the character had nothing to lose and no reason to take revenge other than the simple act of carrying out justice.
Him having nothing to lose is a big problem that I didn't notice during my viewing of the film, I made the observation that the character was bland and his motivation shallow, but not until the group discussion did I realist that this is because he starts from a low point.
The darkest hour is usually saved for the end of the second act, but this movie uses it as an inciting incident. This means that the audience feels no attachment to the hero's home, which in turn means there is no reason for the threat to be neutralized. Revenge itself is not enough of a motivator. I thought about this and realized that the greatest revenge stories rely on more than just the act of revenge, there is usually a promise of more destruction if the villain is not stopped.
We saw this in action throughout Gladiator, in which the villain would bring down the entirety of Rome if his scheming was not brought to an end. Another good example is Django Unchained, in which the hero's motivation is based more in saving his wife than simple revenge.
Having something to save is important to a revenge story. An improvement on The Dead Lands would be to write that the bad guys take the village's women and children as captives, then the hero would have had a secondary motivation. I imagine this would also have made the entry into the titular dead lands and fight scenes more interesting/tense as the village women would look on as things go awry.
2) The character has little to no personality and because of this is heavily overshadowed by the supporting character, who should fulfill the mentor role but for most of the movie becomes the main focus.
The parts that I found most uninteresting were after the village is ransacked and before the Taniwha character is introduced, during this time we only have the villains and main character, both of whom are underdeveloped and uninteresting to watch.
The Taniwha character is more interesting because of how dull the lead is. Some people in the class hinted that this might be because of a dull performance from the main actor (James Rolleston), but I believe it is because of the material he was given along with the fact that the film sidelines him for most of the running time. It's the same actor as in Boy (2010) and I remember him showing a much greater range and more emotion in that film, and that was when he was a younger, more inexperienced actor.
This brings me to my next point, the consensus in class was that the best character was the Taniwha:
Everyone's favourite character from The Dead Lands was what is supposed to be a supporting character - The Taniwha. The reason I, and most of the class, felt this way was because he had more development and a more interesting backstory. It seems the writer knew this, as the entire story starts shifting away from the main character and more towards the Taniwha. I clearly remember thinking that the movie's protagonist had changed somewhere around the middle of the film.
In my opinion the Taniwha should have just been a helping hand and a vital part of the hero's journey. Him dying was something that I anticipated and spent most of the film waiting for, this plot point is generic but important in making the hero independent. At the end of this film the hero still feels like a child.
The story shifting towards the Taniwha is more interesting but a mistake. If it wanted to focus on him the movie should have started off with him.
NOTE:
The protag, main character and hero could potentially be three different characters as they fulfill different roles.
PROTAGONIST (Who we follow), MAIN CHARACTER (The one with the most change) AND THE HERO
The protagonist doesn't always have to be the one with the most change.
Bo: just to clarity -- the Hero is who we want to win/save the day, the main character is who we follow the most, and the Protag is the one who undergoes the most change. As you say, these can be all rolled into one, but not necessarily. Thanks!
ReplyDelete