This is something I posted in Part 3 comments which I think helps to frame the discussion here re the psychological journey in Argo: There's that Nietzsche quote: "Become who you are." That sums up beautifully the essence of metamorphosis. Ovid wrote in "The Metamorphoses": "Every shape that's born, bears in its womb the seeds of change." The Core Essence of a character's Self Identity already lies within. It is the Call To Adventure to the specific journey upon which they embark that is the Universe's way of compelling the character to deconstruct the Old Way of Being and reconstruct into a New Way of Being, allowing those seeds of change to emerge into the light of day and blossom. So Maximus (Gladiator) gets in touch with his inner gladiator in order to exact revenge. Katniss Everdeen (The Hunger Games) gets in touch with her inner warrior in order to lead a rebellion. Those are all epic stories. The paradigm is scalable. In Juno, she gets in touch with her inner adolescence which she has skipped to become what she thinks is an adult. In (500) Days of Summer, Tom gets in touch with his inner adult after experiencing the failure of his flawed, infantile notion of romance. Similar dynamic with Annie in Bridesmaids. In each story at key points along the way, events happen (plot points) which create a physical and/or psychological threshold, in effect a choice: Go this way or that, forward or back? Those are all tied to the character's emotional growth, either impacting it or influencing it. Again Character = Plot. We cannot look at screenplay structure as merely Plot. Character and Plot are - or should be - fused together. We're seeing that already in the very first movie in this series: Argo. So where does metamorphosis occur in Argo?

I think it is fairly obvious that the character who undergoes the most dramatic metamorphosis is Joe Stafford. As one participant put it, he goes from "zero to hero", from the congenital worry-wart to the man of the moment at the airport. The plot forces out of the closet his character strength: Joe is the only one fluent in Farsi. For one brief but intense moment, that character strength makes him the indispensable character, the group's last hope of persuading the guards to believe the cover story. The final arc of his transformation was particularly emotionally satisfying to me because Joe gets in reel life what most of us "ordinary Joes" (and Jane's) don't get in real life: a chance to redeem himself for an earlier failing. And it seems to me that is a psychologically necessary compensation in the narrative because of the "failure" of the protagonist, Tony Mendez, to fail in any significant way that requires him to redeem himself. Joe is the go-to character for a cathartic redemption moment. And this is where my take on Mendez's character may diverge from yours, Scott. (To be continued -- parenthetical cliff hanger!)

As I was saying... I generally agree a character metamorphosis entails discovering and developing covert talents and abilities. Although that talent may not necessarily be positive. In the course of the "The Godfather", Michael Coreleone discovers his inner gangster! But I don't see Mendez as having to discover or develop an inner "exfil" -- CIA lingo for the job of extracting people from dangerous situations. I don't see him as afflicted with a character flaw that threatens the mission, that requires him to undergo a transformation in order to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. It seems to me that Mendez is ideally suited to the mission. He's cool-headed, competent, realistic. He's confident of his abilities, yes -- but not excessively so. Which is to say, he is not afflicted with hubris, too much confidence so that he overrates himself and underrates the risks. (For that's what hubris is: too much of a good thing. It's the signature character flaw in Greek tragedy whereby a character's virtue perversely leads to his ruin.) My take on the "Defy the Gods and the Odds" moment (p 95) is not that Mendez overcomes some blind spot or flaw. Or discovers some inner strength he was unaware of. My take is that he DARES TO TRUST himself. He dares to trust his own judgment in defiance of what everyone is telling him can't be done. He dares to TRUST his own skills, the inner strength he KNOWS he has, that he has ALWAYS KNOWN he has, that he has been exercising throughout the movie.

Paul, I would concur: The single individual who goes through the biggest metamorphosis is Joe. Literally from the most cynical about the prospects of the group to the one who embraces the ridiculous conceit and saves everyone's ass. There is a great takeaway from his character's arc. But we can take a wider view and look at the group of the six hostages, their metamorphosis as a group. And they do go through a change, from disparate individuals to a collective. Re Mendez: I would see him as more of a Change Agent. Yes, there is a tiny nod to how he comes back to the USA a slightly reformed individual, recognizing the value of life enough so that he can reconnect with his wife, but by and large, as you note in your next comment, Paul, and as we have batted about previously, he largely stays the same. That's another takeaway from people keeping track.

Two things. First, while most mainstream commercial Hollywood movies -- like a VAST majority of them -- feature a positive Protagonist transformation arc, some do not. There is no RULE which says a Protagonist MUST have an uplifting metamorphosis. Yes, most movies do as part of the proverbial Happy Ending, but that is not etched in stone. The end point is tethered to the psychological journey of the character. Charles Foster Kane, Travis Bickle, Norman Bates, these are all characters who have a 'downward' trajectory. And yet it is their narrative destiny, the only way their characters could go in terms of their psychological development. So Michael Coreleone? Nowhere to go but full on Mafia don. Please do not think I am asserting all Protagonist stories have to have a positive spin. Again let me say this: THERE ARE NO RULES!!! That said, I'd say 90% of mainstream movies DO offer a Protagonist who goes through a positive metamorphosis arc. Why? Audiences like happy endings. Re Mendez: I think you nailed him. He goes from total company man to a guy who is willing to take a risk as an individual. But basically he is a change agent.

>>their metamorphosis as a group Good point. In this regard, I would say that Joe is the character tasked to act out, through exaggeration, the group's anxiety and doubts. I also suggest that Joe is the designated dramatic foil. That is,through the dramatic contrast of his character weakness, he highlights, makes more prominent in the eyes of the audience, Mendez's character strength. Finally, I would observe that Joe's anxiety is dramatically "righteous" in at least 3 aspects: 1] He's not exaggerating, he's not paranoid. He's absolutely correct in pointing out all the things that could go wrong and the consequences. 2] And he's only doing his job of reminding the audience from time to time of the escalating jeopardy. (A thankless job, but somebody in the story has to do it.) 3] Finally, Joe has earned the right to worry because he's a primary stakeholder in the outcome. He's not complaining from the sidelines as a spectator. He has skin in the game; if Mendez fails, Joe dies. (As will all the others.) My take away about Joe in "Argo" is: whoever is the designated worry-wart in a story, the number one doubter, the nay-sayer, should also be a primary stakeholder.