The Theology of Screenwriting: Temptation - Film Crush Collective at 2014-01-08 14:47:30:
[…] Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us …read more […]
matthewjschelle at 2014-01-08 17:22:28:
To borrow from others - "Character is that which reveals moral purpose, exposing the class of things a man chooses and avoids." Aristotle "Character is what you are in the dark." — Attr. to Dwight L. Moody (American Evangelist, 1837-1899)
Alejandro at 2014-01-08 18:59:15:
Hi Scott. Just curious. Given your academic background on the subject, I was wondering if you could tell us what other people have thought about why put that tree there? why put the temptation? I mean, the serpent is the one that we usually associate with a tempter, but if that tree were not there... no temptation, right? P.S. I hope I don't offend anyone. Screenwriting: I can see how a temptation brings drama to a story. The character tempted to do (or refrain from doing) something that could bring him/her a reward/joy but that also has the potential to bring him/her more problems than it's worth it. Do you think we could consider Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark and James Bond in most (all?) of his movies as characters that in fact, are trying to prevent that temptation from being accomplished? The Nazis tempted to use the power of the Ark for their own good. (Insert Bond villain name here) tempted to (insert Bond villain's plan) to his advantage. I remember listening the writer's commentary on the Die Hard DVD and he said he considered Hans Gruber, not John McClane the Protagonist. What do you think about it? Right now I'm writing a screenplay and I really have doubts about who is the protagonist: the villain who comes up with the evil plan or the hero who tries to prevent it from happening. Thanks.
pgronk at 2014-01-08 19:49:24:
Because of the moral baggage that the word "temptation" carries, I prefer to use the term "test" or "trial" when there is not a moral issue at stake. So while a lot of lives and the future of the galaxy hanging on how young Luke decides to attack the Death Star on his final approach, it's not a matter of choosing between right and wrong. It's a matter of a weak choice (trust the computer) versus a strong choice (trust the Force). In that episode of the franchise, it's the supreme test where he proves to himself -- and everyone else -- that he's got the right stuff to become a Jedi knight.
Jonathon Sendall at 2014-01-09 14:02:42:
The Eden story is very interesting and was once explained to me in Buddhist terms (though I'm not a Buddhist). The tree of knowledge does not obviously represent information but represents the awakening of self awareness, therefore knowledge of good and evil, therefore embarrassment at being naked. Awareness of self leads to the cycle of cause and effect. Things "become" personal and we see through the filter of self. Something falls down in the Eden story of temptation though. If there was no self knowledge how can one become tempted? A rule has come down from above "Do not eat the from the tree of knowledge" but as innocents temptation means nothing since the rule is a given and not justified or explained why knowledge is so dangerous. It wouldn't have mattered to Adam and Eve anyway since they were not aware of themselves in a state of good and bad. Temptation means you know something might be bad for you. There are some characters in fiction that also represent this dilemma in some way. For instance Spock from Star Trek is such. He is logical, one might say pathological, in his insistence on logic being the surest divining rod to what must be done to achieve a goal, regardless of morals. In some odd way he exists in that innocent state of "process" rather that emotional (self) judgement. Frankensteins monster, the Jewish myth of the Golem, and many other cultural fictional characters explore this innocent yet dangerous state. The psychopath also has these almost amoral undertones. So for me a character is tempted only by those elements within themselves that truly stand for doubt. It's never a choice between good and evil since the answer to that is easy and inherently not dramatic. It's the choice of two evils, both of which can excite strong fears/desires within a character. Example, an corrupt ambitious politician trying to go straight is caught being corrupt from an incident two years previously . His family, already unstable, will be destroyed by the incident being revealed to the media. Options for escape become narrow and the only way for him to save his family is get deeper inside corruption but he knows it will make him die inside even though it will make him more powerful and keep his family together. The desire is to be straight but the temptation is to use his corrupt self to keep it all together, even though deep down he knows it is wrong. What this also does is force to the surface a reckoning the central character has avoided all along and provides the writer with an ideal situation for a climax. The nature of the temptation becomes a template for the forces at play for final conflict, both internally and externally, for the character.