Now Playing

The "A" Story and the "B" Story, one "outer" story told through the action of the cast and one "inner" story which is the character arc, the change a character makes. (Consider this fine distinction--the protagonist's character IS the story, after all, for character is repeated action, and everyone else in a story is essentially RE-acting to the the protagonist--the difference between line and shading in a nude drawing: they are utterly dependent upon the other, they must coordinate, you can infer much the same information about planes and volumes, but they are different in essence. One is linear melody, one is simultaneous harmony.)

For instance, in "Die Hard," the inner story is about reconciliation with the protagonist's wife, overcoming those fears that kept him as a beat cop in Detroit (his fear of flying, for instance; by the end, he's leaping from the building), and transcending just being a cop into an avenger of sorts. Again, like shading in a classic nude or several instruments playing closely together (the harmony) under the highest notes of an independent, melodic voice, we have many coordinate values describing the character's inner state, his fearful grip on his old identity, that must change as he assumes his new identity.

It's important to separate out these linear threads--the spine from the dependent arcs--in order to speak cogently on this topic. To continue the metaphor about drawing a nude, in the human body, the orientation of the spine is a controlling factor in the orientation of the parts of the body at rest. The freedom of the arm is constrained by the shoulder, the leg by the hips, and so forth. And all the little changes, those almost imperceptible ones, depend likewise on the nature of the spine's initial to final states.

I'm reading Book II of Plato's Republic and found something that chilled me to the bone when I read it. If this isn't what McKee's talking about when he says the negation of the negation, I don't know what is:

"The highest reach of injustice is to be deemed just when you are not." --Plato

I agree wholeheartedly with the assessment on DIE HARD and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. In fact, in DIE HARD, they go to the negation of the negation "Evil masquerading as Good" a second time: the protocols and attempts of the FBI to rescue the hostages (good) is precisely what Gruber needs to break the safe (evil). They're part of his plan.

But I'm not sure I buy BACK TO THE FUTURE. I don't see how Marty wanting to get back to 1985 is analogous to "going out of existence" when it feels more like he's just trying to get home. When he goes back to 1955, he accidentally creates an environment that will erase him from existence, but he's trying to avoid that and get home. So... I'm not sure. I'll have to think on it a great deal.

But the other two examples make perfect sense to me.

Marty wanted so badly to go back to the future because that was where his beautiful girlfriend Jennifer was.