seeing the vision

1. The best central organizing principle that I can come up with is still "Nostalgia becomes reality". 2. The idea of doing a documentary about something historical is blinding to the point where it destroys any objectivity a film-maker might have. We will never approach the truth of the matter, and in point of fact may only hope to achieve a consensus of opinion about in event in question. My father and I find ourselves in a world, where it is impossible to know the truth of his experiences through anything other than the words of his friends. Their nostalgia becomes the only reality I know, making it a version of the truth in some way. Similarly, for my dad the only truth can be what he remembers, as the physical places are no longer a burden of proof or his memories. 3. My characters do make their own decisions, but the very real dilemma of my story is that the human brain is a fragile thing. My father's memories are becoming increasingly fleeting, since he had brain surgery ten years ago. This is couple with the fact that there are signs of Alzheimer's disease or micro-strokes from the coiling they inserted into his brain during his last procedure. 4. Its a doc, so I probably won't know for sure until its done being edited, but yes, I believe this is what the movie I will make is about.

PERMA

While I whole-heartedly agree with the arguments made by the proponents of PERMA, this ideology assumes that the film-makers are aspiring to at least manipulate the audience into an altered mood. And while that is often the case as the desired outcome of a film going experience, there are exceptions to that rule. This where a microbudgeted movie has the room to be different that its big budgeted cousins. Since the amount of money spent on small scaled movies is so much easier to return to investors there is a freedom to strive for a goal other than escapism or emotional manipulation. This does not apply to all films though and the question I am concerned with is whether microbudget filmmakers should be concerned with Lindsay Doran's advice about following the PERMA model. The answer to this is of course the should be. Any and every rule of screenwriting or principle of artistic design should be studied and and thoroughly understood by aspiring filmmaker. Many rules will be abandoned by the filmmaker, but those departures should be intentional and working towards a larger goal. The commercialization of a movie's ending or even the whole story as Doran's model seems to provide a rough blue print for, should at least in a microbudget paradigm not be the filmmaker's primary intent. In a world of opportunity, it seems silly to handcuff the dramatic decisions of a writer, and the characters in their screenplay by only allowing for stories that arrive at positive (or positive adjacent) outcome. Ultimately, its only the "P" that causes me to shy away from more strongly endorsing PERMA for every movie. I think all movies have a responsibility to engage their audience. I think drama centers around meaningful relationships whether they are positive or negative. All art should aspire to have meaning. Movies shouldn't leave you exactly where they found you, like the expression about never being able to cross the same river twice. However, "For us to experience well-being, we need positive emotion in our lives. Any positive emotion like peace, gratitude, satisfaction, pleasure, inspiration, hope, curiosity, or love falls into this category – and the message is that it's really important to enjoy yourself in the here and now, just as long as the other elements of PERMA are in place." This is where the wheels come off the wagon for me. Firstly, plenty of people revel in other people's misfortune. Secondly, many of the best characters in movie history wouldn't fit that rubric. Orson Welles's Charles Foster Kane in "Citizen Kane" would not. Neither would Robert Deniro's Jake Lamotta in "Raging Bull" or Travis Bickle in "Taxi Driver". Nor would Jean-Paul Belmondo's Michael Poiccard in "Breathless". On the other hand, most of Frank Capra's heros would, similarly as would Steven Spielberg's. Possibly unfairly, this why I shy away from a more universal acceptance of PERMA it narrows the constraints of acceptable character behavior to a point of over-simplification. The most abundant criticism of Capra and Spielberg focus on their limited perspective about the human condition. Movies aren't lithium.

Character Traits

Charles Sutter Physiology 1. Male 2. 31 3. 6'2" 200lbs 4. Brown Hair, Blue eyes, caucasian. 5. Bad posture. 6. usually unkempt. 7. none 8. Italian and Polish Sociology 1. lower middle class 2. academic/artsy 3. post graduate work in progress at public universities. Strong with communication class, terrible with sciences. 4. retired parents, married, no kids 5. agnostic 6. white American 7. in a community for sure. 8. Die-hard Democrat. 9. watches too many movies, doesn't read too much. Psychology 1. Married (insert joke here), strong morals 2. Highly ambitious 3. not having done more with himself yet. 4. alittle too easy going 5. resigned 6. afraid of onions (seriously) 7. extrovert 8. took a couple years of Latin, but that's about it 9. sound judgement, fairly poised in the face of adversity. 10. Smarter than he lets on. Edward Sutter Physiology 1. Male 2. 67 3. 5'10" 225lbs 4. Greying Hair, Blue-green eyes, caucasian 5. Broad shoulders. 6. unusually good spirits 7. too many to list, but most notably a pronounced limp and memory loss. Sociology 1. Working class 2. policeman 3. took five years to get his associates degree in criminal justice. 4. both parents are no longer alive. 5. lapsed something. 6. white American 7. well known and respected amongst neighbors 8. Reagan Republican 9. read all of the Joseph Wambaugh books Psychology 1. See above 2. to enjoy retirement 3. not having been able to follow through on some of his policework. 4. very optimistic 5. not sure 6. hypochondriac. 7. extreme extrovert 8. very persuasive 9. 10. Smarter than he lets on.

vision, scope and financing post 1

Pascal's wager attempts to cuts past through a superficial issue in order to get a more practical one. To an atheist, God's existence is a wholly unknowable proposition. Whether or not that atheist is right or not does not matter because there is no amount of proof that will meet their standard, but Judeo-Christian (as well as every other religion's) beliefs have value removed from what they see as their ultimate reward for their faith. Living a pious life, a truly pious life, would be a rewarding one as you would "treat other's as you wish to be treated yourself" or more bluntly "depart from evil, and do good; seek peace and pursue it." The outcome of such a life (in terms of heaven or hell as an eternal resting spot) is secondary to the acts that such a life would left in its wake, those of charity and kindness.
What this means in terms of using a central organizing principle to defend and explain my film is that the ability to boil down the movie to a single line is only as important as the process of figuring out what movie it is I intend to make. The correctness of my central organizing principle as an explanation of my movie matters less than my having spent a significant amount of time thinking about what the I need to say.
In this way, Pascal can not be wrong. Either their is a God and you should act accordingly, and if not acting like there is a God is more preferable than someone not acting like there is a God. Even if someone were not to believe in the validity of the central organizing principle as the most important tool in a film-maker's bag of tricks, they would still benefit from analyzing their story in a high minded way.

COP: Nostalgia becomes reality.