In the demented way my brain computes, it drew a number of connections between today's topic of the psychological journey in "American Hustle" and an earlier posting on "Writing and the Creative Life: Why Your Brain Loves Good Storytelling (Part 3)". Here's why my brain loves this movie: Empathy [Oxytocin]: Establish a point of emotional resonance with characters. Cinema seems to have a fondness for con artists, hustlers. Which I do not share. But I emphasize with the protagonist, Irving Rosenfeld. Why? Because the victims of his cons are no saints themselves. He is not victimizing the innocent. And his motive is survival, not the joy of exploiting others. He's a survivalist, not a heartless sadist. I may not agree with his survivalist m.o. but in a dog-eat-dog world of competition and exploitation, I can certainly identify with the motive. And he loves his adopted son. How can anyone who loves his kid be totally undeserving of some empathy? Tension [Cortisol]: Create a dilemma that arouses disunity. Irving is pulled in all directions on the torture rack of multiple dilemmas: He loves Sydney, BUT he won't flee with her to Romania after they are busted by the IRS because he loves his adopted son whom he will not abandon, whom Rosalyn will never surrender in a divorce settlement. AND she refuses to divorce him. (p26:"She was the Picasso of passive-aggressive karate.") Richie compels him to be the key player in the sting game to catch Carmine Polito. BUT there's no love lost for Richie. On the contrary, Irving comes to like Carmine. What starts out as a fake friendship becomes a real one for Irving. (p143: "I never had a friend like you before.") As the jeopardy and stakes escalate, Irving wants to bail out of the sting. BUT Richie tells him he can't: When --not if- the vicious mobster Tellegio finds out, he'll kill Irving AND his son. Where ever Irving turns, he seems to be damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Release [Dopamine]: Resolve the dilemma that brings about unity. In Freytag's Pyramid in part 2 of "Writing and the Creative Life: Why Your Brain Loves Good Storytelling", the trangulation of drama ends with the Denouement. That is about closure, of course, tying up loose ends, answering remaining questions, the final pay off and consequences. But notice also it is a "Moment of release" -- release of what? Well, how about emotion? One might think that the go-to moment of emotional release for Irving would be the scene of sweet, sweet revenge where Richie is hoisted by his own petard, realizes he's fallen for Irving's masterpiece con. And no doubt that is an emotional subtext of the scene. But Irving plays the scene without any emotional outburst, any explosive release of pent up feelings. Irving's emotional release takes place earlier when he tries to explain and apologize to Carmine Polito and his family. It's no con act, Irving sincerely feels sorry for bringing down Carmine. He sheds tears, honest tears of remorse. Carmine won't accept his apology, tells him to get out of the house. Irving (p 144) "staggers out of the house in an emotional daze, one hand to his heart, falls to sidewalk with bloody nose and broken glasses." This is the terrible emotional price Irving pays -- must pay -- for his mistakes. Consequently, it seems to me Irving's decision to go legit is motivated not only by logical necessity (He knows the IRS will have their audit eyes fixated on his tax returns for the rest of his life). It is also motivated by the emotional journey he has completed -- catharsis. There is no end of debate and speculation as to exactly what Aristotle meant when he used that term in his "Poetics". And Greek philosophy is all Greek to me. But I've read enough to conclude that Aristotle believed that under the right conditions, specifically by means of a well-constructed plot, emotions could be induced as a wellspring of wisdom and insight. (For the audience, at least, even when, as was usually the case in Greek tragedy, it was too late for a character to learn -- and live.) That out of suffering could emerge psychological growth, and perchance, a new unity.

Great remarks about some subplots have been made on day two, which is also tied to the character arcs. IRVING – In the beginning, Irving justifies his con business as a mean to survive in the crazy world where some people deserve to be deceived. When his love Sydney gets caught, he justifies the sting operation as an act of force, he has no way out. His perception starts to crackle when he gets to know Carmine personally (first diner with the wifes) and Carmine gives him a microwave as token of their new friendship. Carmine is really a family men and has a good intention for the community. We see a very good sign of his hesitation to continue the con during a meeting with the people of Camden, where Irving says to Carmine, 'What if it doesn't work out?” Carmine is positive and says that guys like Irving and him will do whatever it takes to make it work. The body language of Carmine shows he's feeling terrible. Irving resistance builds and it peaks during the mob meeting at the casino. In the end, Irving chooses not only honesty and legal business but also revenge by conning Richie and the FBI. He confessess to Carmine what he has done and that he knows a way out to help him. He chooses Sydney in the end. I believe he would also have chosen her if Roslyn hadn't opted for divorce herself. And, Irving and Sydney start a legal art gallery. Irving says goodbye to his con life and makes new choices. ROSLYN – She is cooped up in her own world in which change is difficult, she denies reality and uses her son to pressure Irving to stay married to her. She shows passive agressive behavior by putting metal in the microwave while Irving had instructed her not to do that, and by telling Pete about some IRS guy Irving is working for. She causes twice fire in the movie. Some say that fire is a metaphor for inner transformation. I think her transformation is big as she starts accepting that she doesn't like change but yet she choses change. In the end, she chooses herself and asks for divorce. The confrontation with Sydney in the casino and the meeting with Pete has contributed to her end decision. She knows Irving loves Sydney and her marriage is a a lie and in Pete she has found an ally, someone who appreciates her like as she is. SYDNEY – She finds in Irving a good partner, in business and in bed. Irving praises her being so skillfull and business like. On the surface she's happy and having a good time with Irving but deep down she knows Irving isn't hers and will probably never be thanks to his crazy wife. This lead her to flirt with Richie when he approaches her as a customer and when they are forced to work for him, she seduces him and let him seduce her. When Carmine takes his wife to dinner with Carmine, Sydney sets up boundaries for Irving, scene where they take up the sheikh at the airport, and for Richie, don't fuck till it's real. Sydney had to protect herself from being used any further. She had most to loose because she wasn't sure if Irving would ever choose her and if Richie wasn't only playing with her. By setting boundaries and reversing the con trick on the FBI, Sydney chooses a new direction in life. We know she won't return to her con life and won't settle for less with Irving.

Rosalyn struck me as a Trickster character, a source of comic relief and a walking/talking accident waiting and willing to happen -- and make things happen. She triggers Irving's ultimate crisis by revealing to her new mob love interest that Irving is mixed up with the IRS. That almost costs Irving his life, forces him to come up a way to save himself and get revenge on Richie.

Wow, Paul, this is an eloquent take on Irv's psychological journey. And I love that you used this new version of Three Act Structure (we need a name for it, something riffing off chemistry perhaps?) But seriously, I was all set to come here and provide my take on Irv, but you basically dropped the mic with this post. So I'll drop down after reading the other posts and talk about another psychological journey: Richie. Good work, Paul!

Thanks for this, Shari. Your analysis made me think of two things. First, I had always seen Rosalyn as a change agent, a Trickster, as Paul noted. She instigates stuff, creates flammable situations (literally!), yet I hadn't really considered her arc. But she does one: At first, she refuses to get a divorce; eventually she chooses to get one. Second, it's interesting to think that both Sydney and Rosalyn have a choice of two guys: Rosalyn: Irv / Pete Sydney: Irv / Richie So for both, their choice - basically answering the same question for each: Who am I? - is physicalized in the form of these guys. It's not a conceptual thing, but rather a tangible reality in the form of these men. Terrific analysis, Shari. Highlights how metamorphosis is at work with multiple characters. Thanks!

Let's talk about Richie. For he has quite a psychological journey of his own. His story reminds me of Icarus. Richie flies too close to the sun... crashes and burns... or rather burns and crashes. That's Richie's arc. We've talked about him being seduced by the lure of power and playing with the Big Boys. He actually achieves this goal and thinks he wins. And it's during this phase where we see him get in touch with and embrace his hubris which is that part of his psyche which has been relegated to relative dormancy. Why does he keep pressing his bosses to go bigger in terms of their goals? Why isn't he satisfied with just busting Irv and Sydney? Because he lusts for more. The FBI sting operation allows that aspect of his psyche to emerge, then become full-blown. Check out this scene. Richie excuses his violent behavior because of his passion. "I'm a passionate person." The nature of that passion transforms in Act Two, bypassing rationality. In the end, after flying high, he is grounded. His participation in the sting operations unknown to the public, reduced to being just another FBI bureaucrat. Final point: Every single main character in this script is touched by the lure of the hustle, the con. They all con. They all get conned. Both in the physical world and the psychological world. As per Richie, he cons himself into believing he can play with the Big Boys. In the end, he gets conned.

Scott, I also think Roslyn is a trickster but one with her one arc and agenda.

Do you think the ice fishing story serves as an omen for the fall of Richie? I'm curious how it ends.

In an appearance last year on The Tonight Show, Louis CK told not only the ending of the ice fishing joke, but also its origination. You can learn about that here. Frankly I'm happy the joke never got resolve, especially with the ending as explained in the video. It's better as a runner that does NOT get resolved. My take: It's a metaphor for Richie skating on 'thin ice' in terms of pushing to play with the Big Boys. Interesting how it is one of the more memorable bits in the movie.

:) So glad, they didn't finish this little story in the movie.

Absolutely. One thing about Richie is that he has a sense of entitlement. He is relentless. He deserves to win the jackpot. In this way he is like the typical gangster who will fight to the death to get the riches deserved. There is no stopping this train wreck. And we see this personified when he attacks Stoddard. Richie is the quintessential Republican extremist. Give him enough rope and he'll hang himself. All the while he is convinced he is right. He is saving the country. And I think all of this is the external side of him. Internally, he wants fame fortune and success. He wants a name for himself. It's all about number one. That is his self-realization. Also in this way he relates and identities with Amado. The two of them instantly connect beyond all reason and convention.

You nailed Richie, Jon. That sense of entitlement, strong ego-need. It reminds me of that scene where his hair is in curlers and he's with his mother? That one scene is telling, isn't it, about the REAL Richie relative to his Inner World. Poser, Mama's boy, insecure. Probably fuels his desire to play with the Big Boys as if that would prove he was more than a little man. He got the rope. And he hung himself. Meanwhile Irv got the rope. And used it as a lifeline to climb out of his pit.

That's quite an interesting clinical analysis, and eloquent as Scott says. It brings up a few thoughts. First and foremost, if Fretag's Pyramid is the structure of story telling over thousands of years, that alone would indicate through sheer repetition and conditioning (and probably genetic heredity as well) why we like and relate to this kind of story telling, and why we (which 'we' are we talking about here?) might find David Lynch, Fincher, almost any successful cable series writer (The Sopranos, Banshee, The Nick, Breaking Bad), or a 60s French film, for example, that has no three act structure or climax and simply stops with "fin" - why we would 'we' find those unusual and less appealing (unless you're a thinking person who welcomes challenge to norm). I mean the protagonist in Breaking Bad arcs ever downward until he apparently meets his doom, and that is probably one of the most successful story endeavors of all time. The protagonist in the Sopranos is a killer and yet a family man we relate to. Does he go straight? In fact, we (the proverbial we as in wee (sic) the people) are conditioned like Pavlov's dogs. Press the button, get your three act structure and arcing protagonist with an upbeat ending. This amounts to an addiction like any other. Could the film be just as wonderful if Irving and Sydney fell back into their con artist ways? Shit yeah. And more real. First of all they don't go straight until the last few minutes. Those minutes hardly negate the great story that precedes. Secondly, cons don't go straight. They're cons. It's what they do. It's what they're good at. Otherwise, it's a fairy tale. And we're conditioned to like fairly tales. We don't like to face reality. We need a beautiful sexy woman to tell us every night that yeah there are some bad things in the world, but at last she's doing great. So don't worry about anything. Stick your head back in the sand. Hollywood is here to give you your fix. Now being that I feel this way about such conventional traditional structure storytelling, why would I love this movie? It can't be due to Fretag or Brain Picking explanations, now can it?

Jon, you're right: Hollywood likes happy endings because they believe this is what audiences want. Conditioned by repetition or not, that generally seems to be the case. Of course, there are movies in which the Protagonist descends into dissolution like Citizen Kane, Scarface, Raging Bull, and they can serve as morality tales, which also has its place in the pantheon of Hollywood storytelling. However Hollywood is hooked on happy endings. Now there are movies with authentic happy endings... and movies with happy endings that feel forced, oftentimes pushed by the studios that way, regardless of the characters or not, in an attempt to give the audience what Hollywood thinks they want. But that's bad storytelling. Re American Hustle, could Irv and Sydney gone right back into a life of running cons? We know practically speaking because the feds have their number now, they can't. Everything they do has to pass a kind of legal sniff test. But that's just surface. I think that Irv's metamorphosis - and to a degree Sydney's as well - is such that the honest life feels authentic. I don't get that Irv LOVES being a con man. What I get is that this is what he learned and that's his way of making of living. In a way, his relationship with Rosalyn is a metaphor: He's trapped. Not only in a loveless marriage, but also with his line of work. He doesn't know any other way - at least he thinks - how to survive. This is one of the reasons why I think Russell includes that bit of business about Irv being a jazz lover. In one respect, it suggests he knows how to improvise, like all great jazz musicians. But more specifically, it shows this is a guy who has soul. There's something THERE inside this dude. He's not JUST a con artist, there is something of substance to him. That needs to come out. And we see that as he works through all of the shit that happens along the way. So when he comes out the other end, I don't feel like he's running away from a life he constitutionally HAD to live - a con man - but rather TOWARD a life he has the potential to create, a new Irv: an honest man. Richie? Complete opposite. He's into disco, glitter and flash. His story is a pretty simple one, as discussed elsewhere. One thing we haven't discussed too much is Sydney's dalliance with him and I think she has to veer away from Irv and toward Richie's orbit in order to test out for herself: Is she fundamentally a con artists herself or does she have something authentic within to which she can go? Clearly she opts for the latter which brings her back around to Irv. So again, it feels to me at the end like a genuine act / decision on her part to live an honest life. And by the way, there is that whole bit of business between Richie and Sydney about being 'true'. When she lets down her mask and reveals her true identity to Richie, that is parallel in a way to when Irv confesses to Carmine. So to me, the ending of American Hustle feels like the only authentic one it could have been. Plus it has the advantage of leaving me in a happy emotional place. Yes, a happy ending. But I found myself connecting with Irv. He knew he was headed into a shitstorm, yet there was no way out. My stomach was in knots for the entirety of Act Two and into Act Three. Talk about tension! Their successful sting? Talk about release! But that's just me. If someone feels like Irv and Sydney could have just as easily slid back into a life of crime, it's open to that type of interpretation.

That's a nice character analysis of Irv and Sydney. It works. But by giving up the con life, I don't see them becoming goodness and light. I would imagine they get into "legitimate" business as Irv says. But on the other hand, there's that very grey area on what's legitimate and what's not. I would have felt better about the ending if we see them go off into their legitimate world and come up new and better scams, like say the very legitimate world of derivative loans, or health insurance that never pays out, forced onto people by the government. For example, after ObamaCare became mandatory, a multitude of health insurance companies cropped up. Legitimate is not how I would describe them. My point is that it makes more sense and is more satisfying to see them get into a new legal scam. Otherwise they deny who they are. They aren't suckers who get a nice day job. If there's a con to pull sanctioned by the IRS, yeah, they'd go that way. It's not black and white. Extremely gray. And though I take issue with some of these analyses, they do get me to thinking about these things and I appreciate them for that reason.

Richie is afflicted with the quintessential character flaw: hubris. One of the ironical contrasts in the movie is that while Richie bullies his boss, he is in turn henpecked by his mother. And both Irving and Richie have hair issues: Irving is fastidious about his combover; Richie puts his hair in curlers.

The hair thing for the guys is emblematic of them trying to con others - and themselves!

Jon, You raise an interesting point. Is it credible that Irving and Sydney could permanently turn over new leaves, walk the strait and narrow for the rest of their lvies, stay respectable and legitimate? In real life, I doubt it for all the reasons you give. But reel life -- movies -- are not real life . "I don’t want to film a 'slice of life' because people can get that at home", said Alfred Hitchcock. And they can get it free, too! They don't have to shell out $10+ a ticket or subscribe to a streaming video service. Freud said a dream is the fulfillment of a wish. So, imho, are popular movies: they fulfill wishes for a mass audience. Wishes for what? What they don't have enough of in their own waking lives, adventure, romance, happy-ever-after endings. (And other things.) They don't call Hollywood a dream factory for nothing. It's not a coincidence that a major production company is called "DreamWorks".

This is an example of how these characters are so well written. They have the qualities of real people. They aren't glamorized for the movies.