That was a cohesive, clear theory of storytelling, Scott. I'm inspired to write! "Jung said that our task as human beings is to be involved in the process of individuation. In one major respect, this involves each of us becoming aware of all the aspects of our psyche and eventually engaging and embracing them. If we do not do that, he asserted that the universe will create circumstances that force us to do so." Where can I read more about this specific idea?

That is a terrific way of phrasing, Atlanta: "shards of mirror dancing around the hero, reflecting full range of character aspects, facilitating our being witness to the protagonist's arc." Lovely. This all goes to the idea I'm developing for my screenwriting book -- story as psychological journey. If you take a meta view, why do writers tell stories? It's not to describe a character who does not evolve or change (unless the story is about how they act as a change agent to other characters). No, we are drawn to tell stories about characters who do change. And the best stories, I would argue, are not just about a generic change or a generic character flaw, but those that go directly at the essence of the character's disunity, how they have been living with a fractured psyche, whether they know it or not, and something happens that causes / forces them to confront the circumstances of that 'something happening' [Plotline], but also the underlying psychological, emotional, and spiritual dynamics in their own metamorphosis-journey. In most movies we see that reflected in the cast of characters surrounding the Protagonist, as I've outlined above. I find this whole area to be tremendously exciting because it represents a whole new way of looking at the story-crafting process, not just another structural template, but in my view a character-based approach to story, one in which that old axiom -- Character = Plot -- actually works. You start with the Protagonist and who they are as a character, then everything flows from there.

Crimson, it stands to reason there can be Dark Tricksters and Light Tricksters, just like there can be Dark Mentors and Light Mentors, Dark Attractors and Light Attractors, because character archetypes, are multifacted and multilayered just like any 'real' character, will have all sorts of shades in the spectrum of Black to White. For example, Han Solo in "Star Wars: Episode IV -- A New Hope" is a Trickster. He's an ally to Luke, he's an enemy to Luke, he is out for his own goals (money), then shows up at the very end to blast away the Bad Guys' spaceships enabling Luke to fire the bomb that destroys the Death Star. Well, in that respect, I would say because he provides a substantive benefit for Luke's goal, he's a Light Trickster. On the other hand, perhaps the most important Trickster figure of all is Judas Iscariot. By identifying Jesus to the Roman authorities (by kissing Jesus on the cheek), that leads to Jesus being crucified. Strictly in terms of Jesus as a Protagonist figure in that story, one could safely argue that Judas is a Dark Trickster.

Neil, my book when it comes out [I'm working up the proposal now]. In advance of that, do a Google search of this site with these key words: Jung individuation character archetypes metamorphosis psychological journey I have analyzed several movies using the five primary character archetypes including True Grit, The Town, Inception, The Apartment, The Shawshank Redemption, The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, The Silence of the Lambs, and others. You can Google search those individual titles, too.

I am sure that all of us could find hundreds if not thousands of stories that do follow these paradigms, and we could also find plenty of examples that do not. My point yesterday was not whether or not most stories have these archetypes or follow certain structures, because I think you're right, they do, especially in mainstream movies. The issue I have is when you go into an analysis expecting these archetypes to be there. If you conduct a science experiment you cannot have preconceived expectations of the result. It should be a blank slate. The results present themselves to you and then you draw conclusions based on those results. To me, the same goes for story analysis. You should not look for evidence to support your theory. That's what I don't like about presenting a list of common character types and then asking your readers to find them in the story. It's a bit like multiple choice questions. It posits that these elements are in there somewhere if you look hard enough, and that is evidenced by some of the comments in this thread. Scott, you know how much I respect you and enjoy this site so I don't want to sound like I'm picking a fight. I just think it's crucial to go into each analysis with a completely open mind. That includes not assuming that every story is about metamorphosis. This entire theory seems to be built on that premise. I do agree that most stories that we are drawn to are about change and we enjoy experiencing those character arcs, but still, story analysis has to be neutral no matter what the majority of movies are about.

Teddy, I have to run to a meeting and I know we're engaging in an important discussion, one in which there is no absolute 'right' or 'wrong.' Two quick things: (1) I guess there are times when a moviegoer enters a theater with a "neutral" perspective about a movie, however I figure in most cases -- because of marketing, their interest in the actors, the director, the story, genre, whatever -- when the lights dim and the film starts, we do have expectations. Moreover since by the time a student graduates from college, they will have heard, read, seen or experienced some 10,000 stories (I saw this figure somewhere), each of us has intuited certain elements about Story. And we bring that with us, conscious or subconscious, into the movie-watching experience. Finally we bring our own life-experience to a movie as well. So while there may be some value in attempting to be 'neutral' when going about the business of analyzing a movie, I'm not sure that is, in fact, possible. (2) Please give me an example of a movie that is not about metamorphosis. Either the Protagonist goes through a metamorphosis, or they act as a change agent to others, or they go through a negative metamorphosis, or they resist the call to change. I'm guessing there are some movies -- and I'm talking movies here, not books or plays or short stories -- but I think I am safe in saying that a vast majority of movies, and certainly Hollywood movies have at their core a metamorphosis dynamic. Joseph Campbell himself said that transformation -- his word -- is the central dynamic of The Hero's Journey: The Hero departs their Old World, enters a New World, goes through a series of incidents, each of which impacts the Hero at their core, then returns Home a transformed individual. Indeed Campbell wrote a book called "Transformation Myths Through Time" which gets very much into this idea. I don't think metamorphosis as the most universal narrative dynamic is an arbitrary phenomenon, rather I believe it speaks to our innate human experience. We witness change every moment of every day. We experience it over the course of our lives. And most importantly, we want to believe we can change, know how to change, to become that to which we aspire, to awaken our Inner Hero, and be transformed. It's at the core of that psychological magic where it's not Luke Skywalker or Clarice Starling or Annie in "Bridesmaids" on the screen, it's us, through our identification with that character, we experience something of what they experience. And to the degree we see through the magic of a 2-hour movie a character transform from Psyche State A (beginning) to Psyche State Z (ending), that reinforces our own hopes and dreams that we can change. That is one of the most fundamental powers of story -- to inspire us, to inform us, and do so in an entertaining fashion. Tell you what: Come up with a movie -- not some esoteric, experimental indie arthouse film, but a mainstream film -- that is not about metamorphosis as I detailed above, and let's analyze it. Let's see how and why it works. That could be an excellent learning experience. Finally this: The subtext of what I hear you saying is this: "Scott, let's not cheapen the storycrafting and filmmaking experience by reducing everything down to five character archetypes and one narrative dynamic (metamorphosis)." And I concur 100%. However let me say that is not my intention -- at all! -- nor do I think properly understood is it possible to do that with these core ideas. Rather they are about going into the story [shameless plug] to uncover its essence and the essence of each character, to understand them as deeply as we need to (depending upon genre) in order to craft a character-based story in which plot emerges from characters. So what I'm suggesting is this approach offers a way to do precisely the opposite of what you may be fearful of, reducing story to simplistic elements. The content requires a broader canvas. I can only get into it in dashes, bits and pieces on the blog. But fundamentally I think at the base, we are having an agreement. You love movies. I love movies. We both want to see great movies produced, not formulaic clattertrap. I'm hopeful that these ideas I'm working on can provide an alternative to all the various structural paradigm approaches and provide a way to craft stories through characters, thereby naturally giving the story a vitality and direction deriving from those characters. I'm not saying everyone will resonate with it. But I know already through my work as a teacher it has with many writers. Okay, I've gone on for far too long and really have to run. Look forward to your response. Let's keep the dialogue alive! [Forgive any typos. Did not have time to edit.]

Shards of mirror spinning around someone, image popped into my head years ago, watching someone be unkind to someone kind, not seeing the loving gesture, instead seeing attack. Occurred to me, we see what we want to see, will find reflections, however faulty or askew, that support our premise. More recently I've been mulling notion of reflection, as a locational device, a compass, for ourselves. I've lost two people I was closest to, unexpectedly, mix that in with being a parent (everyday seeing even more about life and people), I've realized even folks not reliant on reflections (extreme polar example, kardashians) use reflections to stay on course, to retain sense of who they are, seeing themselves, who they know themselves to be, reflected in their friends' eyes. And designing/reverse-engineering characters to serve as proxy for the full range of individual psychological aspects, brilliant. Lets us distill to a meager 90 pages or so a fulfilling and enriching and hopefully universal experience for audience.

Hey Teddy, love your posts, I had trouble with this one too, looking for fixed shapes in complex life-filled organically-shaped and infinitely different stories. I'm no expert on writing, as you and Scott are, and my first language is not english (feel like an idiot much of the time), but I know design, and I'm good at deconstructing, and I always got a metaphor, maybe of use. For stories, so few pages allowed, we pack weekend bags, not a lot of room, how to get the most complex life filled story into that tiny bag. And one that will serve as such a strong template that it won't get f*cked up by all the folks who come after (who will actually bring it to life). As few items as possible. And instead of intuiting it all the way through (totally doable, with talent and smart and savvy), why not use framework of psychological construct to ensure you've packed all the necessary items, and distilled them in such a way they're comprehensible to audience. In design, the rule is if something is kinda like something else, cut it, or make it more different. Did you know in navigation, 6-7 items is the max you want to use? All we can take in at one time, more than that slows down the audience, confuses, less engagement. Distilled to as few moving components as possible. Course the real magic is taking all those pieces, and then reinvigorating them with life through the words you put on the page. Alternate metaphor, the universe, serene nothingness de-evolves into infinite bits of chaos that reform, thanks to hydrogen's sexy pull, into planets and universes that we can comprehend. We're doing that in reverse with stories, creating those planets and universe that will have a universal experience/impact in the end user.

Great analysis guys! We are really learning a lot from these sessions. About these archetypes: I don’t think we should make a big deal of them. There are no rules to great stories, right. But, what we are doing here is not critiquing, but analyzing, simply to see what factors made these movies great or what made them flop. We might never know for sure, but we, aspiring screenwriters, try to understand these things so we can write movies that will make it and not break it. We’ve seen movies that lack structure, yet are top hits at the B.O., while other great stories scored disappointments. This year we had many such surprises: “The Help” (we should definitely analyze this) did extraordinary while “Super 8” didn’t. And what a flop was “Conan the Barbarian”. Why? Hopefully, analysis will help us understand some aspect of it, and as Scott said above: expectations do play a part; so do our life-experiences. Has anyone here ever seen a great movie where you could easily match the characters to an archetype? I don’t think so. Because a great movie or story (one with subplots, not just a tale) has complex characters. That’s what makes them well rounded and not cardboard. However, each character, as Scott suggests (as do many screenwriting gurus) has a main function in the overall story while he/she assumes various functions or roles in subplots. Some secondary characters adopt a different function per scene. We can sort characters in many categories: As simple as: Protagonist (drives the plot forward) vs. Antagonist (tries to stop him). Or as detailed as The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: The Duty Fulfiller or Detective - “I do everything right”, The Guardian or Overseer - “I am in control”, The Nurturer or Defender - “Nobody can get along without me”, The Caregiver or Loyalist - “Everyone likes me and wants to be like me”, The Mechanic or Artisan - “I can make anything work”, The Doer or Promoter - “I’m a stud and the world revolves around me”, The Performer or Entertainer - “I am the most glamorous”, The Artist or Composer - “Nobody has better taste than I do”, The Executive or Director - “I am all-powerful”, The Scientist or Wizard - “I am all-knowing”, The Visionary or Inventor - “I can come up with a solution for anything”, The Thinker or Architect - “I’m brilliant and you should bow to my genius”, The Giver or - “I can teach anyone anything”, The Protector or Mentor - “I have the best intentions”, The Inspirer or Motivator - “I have the most enthusiasm”, The Idealist or Actor - “I have the most sensitive conscience”. Here, we are using a middle solution: Protagonist: The lead character - Nemesis: Provides opposition to the Protagonist - Attractor: tied to the Protagonist’s emotional development, Heart – Mentor: tied to the Protagonist’s intellectual development, Head - Trickster: Characters who test the Protagonist. This approach is preferred when analyzing a story simply because it dresses the primary characters with the main functions that are present in any real, believable situation involving a need to be met by facing conflicts. This is what happens in real life. Ex. Situation: competition to win an internship. P: wants internship. N: either wants internship or doesn’t want P to get it. M: says go for it. A: I’m here for you T: routes for you while helping N cheat…. So, I agree with Scott, characters must have a function, a role in a successful story whether they are archetypes (Nemesis, Attractor,…) or complex characters (share characteristics of many archetypes). This isn’t a rule, but a fact that exists in real life. It all has to do with whose story it is and what’s the vantage point of the observer. I might be my sister’s mentor, she might be my trickster. However, my colleague might be my Nemesis and yet give me advice on how to be a successful saleswoman (mentor). Looking at the Bridesmaids script we read, Annie is the protagonist with the goal of doing a great job as Maid of Honor (better than Helen). Helen becomes her Nemesis because she tries to steal Annie’s role by helping Annie make a fool of herself. She’s a great Nemesis also because she embodies everything Annie yearns for in life. In this plot, the Attractor might be Lillian since both girls are fighting to become her best friend (Relationships among women) (re main plotline. In the themeline, the Attractors are Ted, Mike and Rhodes) [though none of the guys ever talks about love, hah!] @Scott: can we consider Lillian as an Attractor here or am I looking at it from a weak angle? In the script, we have many secondary characters adopting the function of the mentor in different situations throughout the themeline: Steve, Donna, Laurie, Judy, even Rhodes (in the Movie, Megan might be it). The trickster (in the movie) is Lillian again since she replaces Annie with Helen. (re protagonist’s goal).In the script, to be honest, I have no clue who plays this role. POINT TO PONDER: Since, only one bridesmaid is a primary character in this script (2 in the movie), I wonder why the movie is called Bridesmaids. In this movie, many pointed out that some subplots simply don’t connect with the main plot. I noticed that as well. However, I later realized that in this story, the main character, Annie, doesn’t simply step into the New World of Weddings and parties and forget about her ordinary world. In fact her shitty world haunts her even when she’s trying to concentrate on her Maid of Honor duties. She meets Rhodes because of her shitty car taillights, Steve reminds her of her shitty financial life… This makes the movie more realistic (it’s not just a “joke” movie, it has truth in its core) and at the same time funnier as it helps us understand why Annie acts the way she does in the bridal shop (dress price), in Vegas (ex. hotel)… I think I just blabbed up there. It’s just a freewriting of what I thought about the subject.

@Scott: Please could you install a "Subscribe to Comments" plugin to this blog (if it's possible). That way we could follow replies to our comments as well as the other comments following ours by mail. Thanks.

I think that's about right. I'm trying to remember from the film whether there's an actual line of dialogue between Annie and Lillian at the end that pays off with Annie and Rhodes, or if it's all just on the same trajectory of metamorphosis.

You're right about the “expectations”, we all have our own life experiences and views on stories so that will color our perceptions when we analyze not just stories but all aspects of our surroundings. It is near impossible to be neutral. And the way you're explaining metamorphosis is a much broader interpretation than I had. And needless to say, you have decades more experience than I do when it comes to analyzing movies so by all means, mop the floor with me ;) But the subtext, yeah, that's it. I don't want to jump the gun since we will read this in a couple of weeks, but you mentioned Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs, a movie I know you love and are very familiar with. What is the metamorphosis there? It seems to me that Clarice stays the same the entire film. Lecter stays the same. Buffalo Bill certainly doesn't change. Crawford? Chilton? Clarice confronts her past but does that count as transformation? The fact that she confronts her past does not impact her actions or anyone else in the story. She remains steadfast. Her fears of not being adequate as an FBI agent or feeling inferior because of her gender or whatever work-related issues she has are minor, really. I know she's portrayed as an underdog in the beginning of the film, but she's already among the top in her class and her superiors obviously believe in her enough to assign her the Lecter interview. There was never any doubt that she would graduate from the academy. Does the fact that Clarice confront her past transform her in any way? I would say it doesn't. It impacts the plot since Lecter gives her clues that will lead her to find Buffalo Bill, but that's it. In fact, when Lecter asks her at the end of the movie if the lambs are still screaming, she can't answer and we realize that she has not overcome her childhood trauma. The fear is still there. In the end she hasn't changed the way she sees the world and is the same as she was in the beginning of the film. Is there a metamorphosis here that I'm missing? School me, please.

Anna, at the bottom of the original post, click on the RSS 2.0 link. Then click Subscribe In Mail on the right side column.

The Attractor ties into the Emotional growth and the Mentor the intellectual growth.. would be the emotional and intellectual growth needed tie into the Protag's fatal flaw? Or would these be separate problems that need to be worked on? Or would the intellectual growth be more about learning a skill? Or maybe I need to be asking this: What do you guys think was Annie's emotional growth and what was her intellectual growth?

"School me, please." Oh boy. When we get to "The Silence of the Lambs," which in my view slots perfectly into everything I know and teach about metamorphosis, character archetypes, and psychological journey, I will be DELIGHTED to analyze / discuss the hell out of that script and movie. You may agree, you may disagree, but one thing's for sure: It's one of those stories that keeps revealing itself upon deeper analysis. But first next week: "Good Will Hunting."

Sorry about how you've lost two close people. Our family is going through something really challenging just now. I can't get into it, but my wife and youngest son are in CA with my sister-in-law and her family, something very sudden and scary from a medical standpoint, but hopefully will resolve well. All of which reminds us: Life is a thread. We think we walk on solid ground, but we're just dangling. When Jung talks about the process of individuation, he perceives nothing being more important than that. Campbell said much the same thing. I paraphrase: "Our task as human beings is not to save the world, but save our own souls." Stories speak to that, movies in a unique way. We enter into the lives of these characters and see them confront challenges, then react, over and over again, and in time they almost always change psychologically. This idea of Jung's -- that if we do not engage ALL aspects of our psyche, the universe will create circumstances to FORCE us to -- that's not just about events, that's also about the people who end up in our lives. We project something of our psyche-journey onto them, but we also attract them. And us to them on THEIR individuation process. Imagine a world where every person had the opportunity and support to get their soul-shit together. This is the way of Buddhism and psychoanalysis: Engaging the Self. And even in a lighthearted romp like "Bridesmaids," we see that dynamic at work: Annie forced to confront herself. The movie doesn't spin a particularly complex psychological web, but Annie goes on a psychological journey, yes? There is just enough emotional resonance there with her inner work to support the central story concept, the humor, the situations, the characters to give the movie that extra level of something special and transform it from a decent comedy to a really good comedy. So when you look at those one-sheets with all the characters: The Wild Card, The Innocent One, A Real Mother, Little Miss Perfect and so on, however the filmmakers got there, they created a tableau of characters that ultimately fueled Annie's metamorphosis journey. That may not have been top of mind. That may have been entirely unconscious or instinctual. But it's there.

Anna, I just had time to scan your post. Will definitely require another fuller read! But let me chime in with an agreement here in this way: Whatever 'tools' we use to write stories, they are ultimately metaphors. Archetypes? Metaphors. Metamorphosis? Metaphor. Three act structure, eight sequences, twelve or seventeen stages, twenty two steps, forty beats or whatever structural paradigm? Metaphor. When we embrace them as part of the organic nature of creativity, we are okay. If we choose to look at them as literal truth, that's when our writing becomes formulaic. And yet there IS something about these particular metaphors that seem to be connected to some universal dynamics. Jung asserted that by working with archetypes, we actually draw upon their power in the collective unconscious. So when we deal with a Protagonist, each of us can identify with that archetype because we see ourselves in that character. Much more to discuss and digest. Ah, I wish TIME was a metaphor, then I wouldn't have to deal with it in such a literal way!

Anna, I asked Dino about that. But I see where Teddy P says you can use the RSS feed to do that with any comment thread. Let me know if that works.

Works ok. thx

Works great. Thanks

"When we embrace them as part of the organic nature of creativity, we are okay. If we choose to look at them as literal truth, that’s when our writing becomes formulaic." Wow, nicely put. And METAPHOR (reminds me of Il Postino)! Exactly, I just couldn't find that word. Thanks Scott.