Mythic Structures and Narrative Film

[steve hyde]

I've been revisiting Joseph Cambell's "The Hero With a Thousand Faces", Princeton University Press, 1949 as a key reference for thinking-through some of my narrative film ideas. Campbell argues that virtually all mytholoogies trace the story of a "hero's" journey and a hero's transformation. His book is a compilation of evidence that supports this idea. (I won't try to unpack the ideas up front)

His 1949 book went mostly unnoticed outside of the academy for decades until the 1980s and 1990s when Campbell's work became popularized. First - when filmmakers like Lucus, Speilberg and Coppala referenced Campbell as a central influence to their story work and then later in the early 1990s when Bill Moyers produced a documentary film colored with lively interviews with Joseph Cambell called "The Power of Myth".

More recently, a book called "The Writer's Journey: mythic structures for writers", by Christopher Vogel, 1998 has appeared on the scene and this book finds focus on filmmaking. It is basically Joseph Cambell interpreted for screenwriters. I have just started reading this and have found it to be pretty damn interesting.

Are there others onboard this forum that are using Campbell's mythic structures to inform your writing?

Reading these books has been interesting because they have changed my mind about so-called "formulaic scripts" I used to think awful high-concept and high-dollar films were often problematic because they used a "formulaic script". These books have changed my mind. I don't think there is any such thing as a formulaic script anymore...It's a myth.

comments, experiences, ideas, arguments and questions are all welcome.
And if you are unfamiliar with these titles, pick up copies and join the conversation. ( I hope this is a coversation starter)



Steve

[mattias]

yes, i use it all the time and i've even developed my own, simplified yet extended version that focuses on the worlds the hero's in rather than the steps he's going through. it's a great metaphore for character driven drama too, not just explicit hero films. a fun exercise is to apply the hero's journey to the first rocky movie. it's so obvious it hurts. the "challenge from god" in the theory even comes from the "apollo" character in the movie. ;-)

/matt

[steve hyde]

yes, i use it all the time and i've even developed my own, simplified yet extended version that focuses on the worlds the hero's in rather than the steps he's going through. it's a great metaphore for character driven drama too, not just explicit hero films. a fun exercise is to apply the hero's journey to the first rocky movie. it's so obvious it hurts. the "challenge from god" in the theory even comes from the "apollo" character in the movie. ;-)

/matt

.....Yeah, it would be fun to *map* the movie "Rocky". I have been *mapping* other films recently, but more from a film treatment perspective. I have been making a project out of tracing the need-to-know questions of act 1, the choice to action of act 2, the course of action in the second half of act 2 and the outcomes and resolutions of act 3. Now with the help of Joseph Campbell, I'm starting to dig deeper into the ways that characters do their work by taking on archetypal roles that make sense and make a story convincing. It's sort of like watching a film with x-ray vision...My girlfriend hates it.

I recently made a project out of doing this with the film "Fight Club" since I think the film is really innovative on one hand, and follows classic *form* on the other. The story is really strong and has so much great subtext. The film also has a strong commitment to truth and fairly complicates the truth that the film presents. I think I'm going to expand on this exercise by teasing out the archetypes of "Fight Club" too. That will probably happen when I get back from a four day trip into the San Juan Islands. I'll post my work so that we can discuss it.

Cheers,

Steve

[tlatosmd]

Oh yes, what would Sophocles or Aristotle say about Fight Club...?

A mentor that turns out to be the hero's worst enemy, yes, but a mentor and enemy that only exists in the hero's mind while being a part of him? What ancient greek archetype is that? A daimon or deity? The hero bordering madness? A desire or lack of virtue (as one might argue that the lack of mental sanity can portray an ancient archetype of either lacking virtue or evil malevolence sensible as a mad or irrational desire or vice) that must be overcome?

We've had mythological archetypes in script writing class in college, but we didn't specifically speak of Campbell. However, we were introduced time and again to a book entitled Aristotle in Hollywood, I don't remember who wrote it, though.

[steve hyde]

Oh yes, what would Sophocles or Aristotle say about Fight Club...?

A mentor that turns out to be the hero's worst enemy, yes, but a mentor and enemy that only exists in the hero's mind while being a part of him? What ancient greek archetype is that? A daimon or deity? The hero bordering madness? A desire or lack of virtue (as one might argue that the lack of mental sanity can portray an ancient archetype of either lacking virtue or evil malevolence sensible as a mad or irrational desire or vice) that must be overcome?

We've had mythological archetypes in script writing class in college, but we didn't specifically speak of Campbell. However, we were introduced time and again to a book entitled Aristotle in Hollywood, I don't remember who wrote it, though.

Good questions! I have to say I'm not an expert on greek mythology or any mythologies for that matter. In some ways I'm only begining to open this door into myths and the architecture of story. Campbell just happens to be the guy who opened the door for me and invited me to have a look through his optical lenses onto the world - Bill Moyers too - when I was a kid I became absorbed in "The Power of Myth" television series that aired - then just recently I began to realize I probably missed the most important points - so now I'm reading the stuff again.

One of the things that Vogel points out in his text is that achetypes can be fluid and they can move from character to character. e.g. a mentor does not have to be a mentor only. An antagonist might simul-serve as a "Mentor", a "Threshold Guardian" a "Herald" etc etc.

So I think you are right - we can't really pin-down each of these archetypes in an absolute sense, but we can tease out strands of these archetypes if we really analyse the architecture of the story.

I haven't begun to do much thinking on the archtypes in "Fight Club", but initially I see Jack as an "Anti-hero" a man who is deeply flawed and cannot (and does not) overcome his inner demons. Instead he is destroyed by them. The film is a treatise to self-destruction.

Wish I had more time to get into this discussion now. I'm off-line for four or five days.

Cheers,

Steve


By the way, here is a link to the script for anyone interested in joining the conversation: http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/fightclub_2_98.html

[tlatosmd]

Well, I didn't really mean that we can't solve it. My above post started with mocking the fact the ancient Greeks certainly didn't know about Freud's theories of suppression, projection, sublimation etc.

However, I think I'm on to something if I equate Brad Pitt's character with that of a suppressed vice or deficiency of Norton's character, or an artificially created figment by Norton's mind to project on all those things he'd like to be, the opposite of his deficiencies. That is, Norton *is* basically fighting himself, his own deficiencies in the end (just as in a classical story, a hero's quest might be to overcome his fear or his vice, it's basically the same thing as in the film). Still, that's craftfully intertwined with a story about a mentor that turns out to be his enemy. Since it works on both levels, it appeals both to intellectuals and to a superficial majority.

Then we have the rebel thing. It's all a rebellation against society, yet intended only to make everything better. It's partly a hero on a biblical level as being a saviour to society, partly it refers to ideals of the Woodstock generation, values of breaking up dead and deadly structures to prevent people from further alienating from each other and themselves, a need for prevention of alienation that was born partly from Enlightenment reason and partly from naturalism and despair of civilization (though no reasonable, scientific motives are to be found in the film itself).

[Evan Kubota]

I can't help but consider Campbell's codified theory regarding the hero and myth. As mattias pointed out, look at something like 'Rocky' and every plot point is wrapped around the mythic form. Most other Hollywood movies are the same way.

I try to avoid tapping into the pattern that Campbell wrote about for the simple reason that I feel deceived when I recognize the pattern. You can feel the director at work, consciously making choices. When the audience knows it, the illusion doesn't hold. Obviously deception is the modus operandi for cinema, but recently I've tried to avoid consciously following any system (which is a system in and of itself, but that's anothe issue).

[tlatosmd]

I guess that's how my mother feels about it. As she knows I'm constantly judging photography, editing, sound, and plot, she thinks I can't enjoy a film anymore.

However, I think I can enjoy a *good* film now even more, appreciating it more.

[steve hyde]

I can't help but consider Campbell's codified theory regarding the hero and myth. As mattias pointed out, look at something like 'Rocky' and every plot point is wrapped around the mythic form. Most other Hollywood movies are the same way.

I try to avoid tapping into the pattern that Campbell wrote about for the simple reason that I feel deceived when I recognize the pattern. You can feel the director at work, consciously making choices. When the audience knows it, the illusion doesn't hold. Obviously deception is the modus operandi for cinema, but recently I've tried to avoid consciously following any system (which is a system in and of itself, but that's anothe issue).

....well Campbell's project was to tease out the similarities of myths from diferent cultures worldwide. He showed how cultures with no contact with one another were creating and propogating stories that followed the same structural patterns. I will argue that we can't escape those patterns. They are still with us. The hero's journey defines what we call *story* Every story can be viewed as a hero's journey and Campbell's archetypes are there waiting to be revealed in every story. Campbell just gives us a way to talk about the work that the archetypes do.

The archetypes are useful tools for writers of drama because once we have a deeper understanding of the work that the archtypes do, we can use the archetypal characteristics as a form of language. I really think learning the archtypes is like learning a language. Knowing the archetypes makes it easier. Without them it is like making a film with only a phrase book of a foreign language. If we have the archetypes we can start forming phrases more easily and fluently......

Steve

[Evan Kubota]

"Without them it is like making a film with only a phrase book of a foreign language. If we have the archetypes we can start forming phrases more easily and fluently......"

I would flip that. Using Campbell's archetypes is fine, but it's more like using a phrase book - you tend to fall into using common expressions. Being *aware* of the archetypes without consciously using their vocabulary is more transparent and less obviously constructed, IMO. Even if you can't escape them, I would still try not to hang each plot point around the journey of the classic hero.

I recently saw 'Hustle and Flow'. This movie has an extremely conventional structure, with the possible exception of a few plot points near the end. However, the director is adept enough to slightly alter the way in which the story fits over the structure, and this is sufficient to prevent the film from falling into the point-by-point monotony that characterizes most modern work. Ideally the traditional structure can serve as an organizational scheme that is mostly disguised or not as simple to pick out; in that case it would help clarify and condense the narrative without imparting an undesirable flavor of conventionality or triteness.

[steve hyde]

"Without them it is like making a film with only a phrase book of a foreign language. If we have the archetypes we can start forming phrases more easily and fluently......"

I would flip that. Using Campbell's archetypes is fine, but it's more like using a phrase book - you tend to fall into using common expressions. Being *aware* of the archetypes without consciously using their vocabulary is more transparent and less obviously constructed, IMO. Even if you can't escape them, I would still try not to hang each plot point around the journey of the classic hero.

This is what I meant by the non-existance of formulaic scripts. There are cliche scripts, there are predictable scripts, there are scripts that present false ideas etc. etc...., but not formulaic.

Archetypes are antithetical to stereotypes. Who strives to create stereotypical characters? Stereotypical characters are not believable - archetypal characters are believable. In otherwords archetypes connect with film audiences because archetypal characters present psychological truths that *appear* to be true in all times and in all places. Stereotypical characters are boring - they are insufficiently developed, oversimplified and therefore are not psychologically true at any time or any place since the character of human beings is always deeply complex. If a filmmaker, or any dramatist, presents stereotypical characters the audience will feel like their intelligence has been insulted and they will walk away saying "wow, that really sucked".

While I agree that any writer has to navigate through a story in a way that shows new ways of seeing the human condition, we have to keep in mind that the human condition really hasn't changed all that much for thousands of years. This is central to Joseph Campbell's thesis.

Before my post here begins to sprawl - I should try to focus it more specifically on what you said above. I'm not suggesting that a storyteller should try to hang each plotpoint on "the hero's journey", but what I am saying is that the best stories - the ones that *connect* are the ones that are built, consciously or sub-consciously, on some form of what Campbell called "the hero's journey".

I recently saw 'Hustle and Flow'. This movie has an extremely conventional structure, with the possible exception of a few plot points near the end. However, the director is adept enough to slightly alter the way in which the story fits over the structure, and this is sufficient to prevent the film from falling into the point-by-point monotony that characterizes most modern work. Ideally the traditional structure can serve as an organizational scheme that is mostly disguised or not as simple to pick out; in that case it would help clarify and condense the narrative without imparting an undesirable flavor of conventionality or triteness.

...I haven't seen this picture, but you seem to be negating what you said above. It sounds like the director made use of archetypes, but crafted his story and characters in a way that worked for you. Point-by-point monotony is a product of stereotypes and cliche writing that lacks imagination, not archetypal story structure.

Evan, even Tarkovsky's "Mirror" is the story of a hero's journey. I bet if you sit down and think about the films, and stories in general, that have made an impression on you - you will find that all of those stories have strong archetypal characters and classical mythic structure. If you know of one that does not - what is it?

Steve

[Evan Kubota]

Maybe I phrased my post wrong. I probably shouldn't have mentioned 'Hustle and Flow,' since it weakens my argument. Re: who strives to create stereotypical characters - my guess would be quite a few screenwriters. It's an easy solution to draw on existing types rather than attempting to create characters that are believable. An archetypical character does not preclude a stereotypical one, IMO. Look at 'Chinatown' - Gittes is built on the Marlowe character who is surely an archetype in the genre but has become something of a stereotype. Thirty years later Nicholson and Polanski were able to revitalize the character and avoid stereotypes, but in less skilled hands the same character would become stale.

"While I agree that any writer has to navigate through a story in a way that shows new ways of seeing the human condition"

Not new ways, just ways that seem new ;) My thesis is that consciously placing emphasis on Campbell's theories when you're formulating a plot or script results in something which adheres so closely to Campbell that the audience can't perceive it as 'original' or 'fresh'. There are many ways of making a character or story 'connect' with the audience, but I think you'd agree that not all of them are artistically valid or creatively valid. You see this all the time in family films or Disney films - yes, there's a hero with a journey which is classic Campbell, and yes, it does connect with more naive audiences on a basic level, but it lacks the sort of complexity or ambiguity that better films (maybe not 'better,' but more interesting to me) strive for. All I'm saying is that I find Campbell's ideas are better left as subtext when you're writing, rather than a guide. When you look back on the finished work, of course the hero's journey emerges to some degree. It shouldn't consciously direct your writing.

"Evan, even Tarkovsky's "Mirror" is the story of a hero's journey. I bet if you sit down and think about the films, and stories in general, that have made an impression on you - you will find that all of those stories have strong archetypal characters and classical mythic structure. If you know of one that does not - what is it?"

Interesting question. I agree that it's present to some degree in nearly all stories, but something like 'The Brown Bunny' manages to conceal the structure quite effectively. The 'structure without structure' presented in that film gives a startling effect that's more like a documentary than a feature.

Actually, Kieslowski's 'Personnel' contains very little of the Campbellian archetypes or plot movements. Again, that film is at least half-documentary, which gives it a looser and more realistic feel.

[Alex_W]

Interesting discussion. I haven't read campbell's book myself, but i'm sure he owes a lot to the research Russian Formalist Vladimir Propp did on mythical structures in Russian folkstories. He was able to make a typology of 31 narratemes, that is, 31 smallest meaningful elements of stories, which could be found in any of the stories.
This was of great influance to the work of structural anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, who examined similarities in structure between folkstories all over the world.

I agree with Evan that every filmmaker can hardly avoid to use these archetypes, and has to find ways to blow new life into them.

But i think there's a danger in Campbell's approach, in that it functions as a sort of grid to view every story with, therefore stripping stories of their context in time and space. It will make you look at history through structuralist glasses, which aren't really sensible to local (in time and space) differences and idiosyncracies. In my opinion, the differences between story structures are of equal importance as the similarities. Also, the context in which stories were made should never be left out of the discussion when speaking of a stories meaning.

How about a surrealist movie like 'La coquille et le clergyman' by Germaine Dulac or 'Un chien andalou' by Luis Bunuel and Salvadore Dali. How do they fit into this scheme? By the way, this is not meant retorical, i'm really curious if someone here can show me where the archetypes are in these films.

Here's Propps wikipedia site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Propp

And a cool fairytale generator based on his work:
http://www.brown.edu/Courses/FR0133/Fai ... /home.html

[steve hyde]

Maybe I phrased my post wrong. I probably shouldn't have mentioned 'Hustle and Flow,' since it weakens my argument. Re: who strives to create stereotypical characters - my guess would be quite a few screenwriters. It's an easy solution to draw on existing types rather than attempting to create characters that are believable. An archetypical character does not preclude a stereotypical one, IMO. Look at 'Chinatown' - Gittes is built on the Marlowe character who is surely an archetype in the genre but has become something of a stereotype. Thirty years later Nicholson and Polanski were able to revitalize the character and avoid stereotypes, but in less skilled hands the same character would become stale.

"While I agree that any writer has to navigate through a story in a way that shows new ways of seeing the human condition"

Not new ways, just ways that seem new ;) My thesis is that consciously placing emphasis on Campbell's theories when you're formulating a plot or script results in something which adheres so closely to Campbell that the audience can't perceive it as 'original' or 'fresh'. There are many ways of making a character or story 'connect' with the audience, but I think you'd agree that not all of them are artistically valid or creatively valid. You see this all the time in family films or Disney films - yes, there's a hero with a journey which is classic Campbell, and yes, it does connect with more naive audiences on a basic level, but it lacks the sort of complexity or ambiguity that better films (maybe not 'better,' but more interesting to me) strive for. All I'm saying is that I find Campbell's ideas are better left as subtext when you're writing, rather than a guide. When you look back on the finished work, of course the hero's journey emerges to some degree. It shouldn't consciously direct your writing.


"Evan, even Tarkovsky's "Mirror" is the story of a hero's journey. I bet if you sit down and think about the films, and stories in general, that have made an impression on you - you will find that all of those stories have strong archetypal characters and classical mythic structure. If you know of one that does not - what is it?"

Interesting question. I agree that it's present to some degree in nearly all stories, but something like 'The Brown Bunny' manages to conceal the structure quite effectively. The 'structure without structure' presented in that film gives a startling effect that's more like a documentary than a feature.

Actually, Kieslowski's 'Personnel' contains very little of the Campbellian archetypes or plot movements. Again, that film is at least half-documentary, which gives it a looser and more realistic feel.

I don't think we are disagreeing about much of anything here, which is cool because I'm most interested, and I think you and others will be too, in discussing "mythic structures" in terms of reading rather than writing. This is my fault for starting the discussion with a question about *writing* I think in-depth readings can lead to better writing. After all Campbell's project was *reading*. He was interested in reading the myths of the world and then teasing out the similarities. I think there is a lot to learn from reading through different theoretical lenses. I'm certainly not saying we should uncritically adopt archetypes and expect to produce a worthy story.

Furthermore, I'm not trying to lionize Campbell. It just seems like any discussion on mythic structure and story needs to start somewhere. I chose to start with Campbell. Cambell created his own language for talking about archetypes as they tie into what he call's "hero's journey". It's just a framework and we should assume it is a flawed framework. I suppose this conversation can go roughly two ways. On one hand we can pick out the flaws in Campbell's work or on the other hand we can discuss the virtues of it. Personally, I 'm most interested in discussing the virtues.

Interesting discussion. I haven't read campbell's book myself, but i'm sure he owes a lot to the research Russian Formalist Vladimir Propp did on mythical structures in Russian folkstories. He was able to make a typology of 31 narratemes, that is, 31 smallest meaningful elements of stories, which could be found in any of the stories. This was of great influance to the work of structural anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, who examined similarities in structure between folkstories all over the world.

I agree with Evan that every filmmaker can hardly avoid to use these archetypes, and has to find ways to blow new life into them.

Alex, welcome to the conversation. I don't disagree either and it is important to keep in mind that archetypes can be fluid and can flexibly move between characters. e.g. a "Mentor" can also be a "Shapeshifter" and so on. I'm not familiar with Vladimir Propp's work and as I glance into the back pages of my copy of Campbell's book, I see there is no bibliography!! I'll check out the links you referenced below.
This sounds really interesting.

But i think there's a danger in Campbell's approach, in that it functions as a sort of grid to view every story with, therefore stripping stories of their context in time and space. It will make you look at history through structuralist glasses, which aren't really sensible to local (in time and space) differences and idiosyncracies. In my opinion, the differences between story structures are of equal importance as the similarities. Also, the context in which stories were made should never be left out of the discussion when speaking of a stories meaning.

I agree with your post-structuralist views very strongly. But I think you will agree that structures do exist - they just can't be used to explain everything. There will always be differences and idiosyncracies in time and space that can't be explained "through structuralist glasses". Although we should not throw away the structuralist glasses anymore than we should through away a wide angle camera lens because it distorts reality. Both optics distort reality, but both optics also allow us to see reality in a unique way.

How about a surrealist movie like 'La coquille et le clergyman' by Germaine Dulac or 'Un chien andalou' by Luis Bunuel and Salvadore Dali. How do they fit into this scheme? By the way, this is not meant retorical, i'm really curious if someone here can show me where the archetypes are in these films.

You make an excellent point. I will argue that the Bunuel film (since I've not seen the other), are not stories. What makes "Un Chien Andalou" compelling is its anti-rational perspective. The film defies archetypal structures intentionally in an effort to communicate the perspective that reality cannot be fully reasoned. I have never heard anyone argue that "Un Chien Andalou" is a great story. It isn't. It isn't a story at all.
So to rephrase my statement in the above post, I'm not saying that the best films (or poems) can be read as "hero's journey" I'm saying the best *stories* - the ones that connect broadly with wide audiences - can be read as "hero's journey". For the purposes of this conversation, let's think of story-cinema as a distinct form.

Steve

Note to Evan: It would be helpful if you used the HTML method for quoting. Just type

pastequotehere

[Alex_W]

Thank you for that reply Steve.
I totally agree with you that if we're talking about stories that a wide audience can relate to, we're most likely going to find similar structures and archetypes. The hero's journey to find truth, become a member of society, punish evil etc. is more or less the underlying structure of the classical Hollywood film, which has ofcourse also influenced the movies the movies talked about earlier, Rocky and Fight Club.
I think the typical structure of the hero's journey story would be of the order-disorder-order kind. What typifies this, and also Hollywood cinema, is narrative closure. In the end, the truth is unfolded, the villains die or go to prison, the hero gets married etc. What i don't think is that this closure has to be a necessary characteristic of every story. So i wouldn't go as far as saying 'Un chien andalou' or other extremely poetic films aren't stories. They do tell a story, but one which communicates, like you said, on a different level. They ask for a more active attidude of the viewer in making sense of them. The fact that most of them make no sense at all, is also a statement which can only be made after some sort of interpretive action.

It is nevertheless very interesting to wonder about where these structures come from. Are they a necessary product of human nature or are they just derived from older stories like the Homer's Odyssey or Sophocles' Oedipus or Beowulf? Or maybe it's something in our nature that makes us adhere to these stories more.