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.