14. How Writing with an Agenda Undermines the Credibility of Your Story

EPISODE DESCRIPTION:      

In story, it's essential that characters come across as credible and believable. A story must ring true in order for the audience to care and stay invested in the main character's journey. 

As discussed in episode 13, one way storytellers inadvertently violate the credibility of their story is when they approach the work with a prior philosophical commitment that precludes them from honestly engaging the true depths of their characters. 

This week, we explore how writers violate the credibility of their story when they approach the work with a prior philosophical agenda or message, which ultimately turns the characters into tools to be used. 

QUESTIONS OR TOPIC REQUESTS? 

If you have a question or a specific writing related topic that you would like Zena to consider addressing in a future podcast, click on the link below to leave a voicemail recording for Zena.

https://www.speakpipe.com/ZenaDellLowe

DOWNLOAD TRANSCRIPTS?

Zena is currently working on making the transcripts for these podcast episodes available for download on the Mission Ranch Films website. If you would like to be notified when this option is available, click here to join our email list. https://missionranchfilms.com

SPECIAL THANKS

The Mission with Zena Dell Lowe would like to thank composer Carla Patullo for the original music she graciously permits us to use in the intro and outro of this podcast. To find out more about this amazing talent, go to  www.carlapatullo.com

Transcript

Ep 14 Transcript_Writing with an Agenda

Tue, 10/13 9:19PM • 15:22

SUMMARY KEYWORDS

character, filmmaker, people, true, wife, writer, story, agenda, religious, mother, problem, explore, construct, doll, religious oppression, promote, religion, component parts, daughter, community

SPEAKERS

Zena Dell Lowe

Zena Dell Lowe  00:04

INTRO: Hello, and welcome to the Mission with Zena Dell Lowe, a podcast for artists and storytellers about changing the world for the better through story. 

Zena Dell Lowe  00:15

TOPIC INTRODUCTION: In episode four of this podcast, I mentioned the two-pronged approach that we generally use to evaluate the quality of one's art. We start by evaluating technique, and then we move on to an analysis of content. But in many ways, this is an arbitrary construct since content impacts technique, and vice versa. So, it's nearly impossible to separate the two, especially when they work together to make up the whole. It's sort of like opening a Russian doll. Inside the first doll is a second doll and so on and so forth, until you finally arrive at that last tiny doll, the prize at the center of the whole thing. And each doll is its own separate entity. And yet, each is a part of the whole. One doll cannot be separated from its fellows without the whole thing falling apart. And all the dolls belong together collectively, because they make up a single entity, which is the final product we've come to know as a Russian doll. Well, what does the Russian doll have to do with what we're talking about? Well, the same principle applies to story. Each story is the culmination of a lot of different component parts that all have to add up together to make a solid, unified whole. If one of the component parts is missing, it affects the entire thing, which ultimately means that the entire story doesn't work. And this is why it becomes so overwhelming for us to identify and fix the root problems in our stories. How do you isolate just one strand in a sea of overlapping and interconnected parts? It just feels so big, so hopelessly impossible, that it's tempting to just throw in the towel and give up altogether. However, this would be a mistake, because more often than not, the writer is just on the cusp of that breakthrough. That "aha" moment is just around the corner and it's going to make all the difference to their work. So, instead of giving up, I suggest we dig deeper. I suggest we do the hard work of self-evaluation, using this two-pronged approach, and then that we ruthlessly evaluate whether or not we're guilty of committing any of the mistakes that we're going to talk about today. And if we are, that's good news, because these things can be rectified, so long as we're willing to engage in honest self-appraisal and revise our tactics. 

Zena Dell Lowe  02:44

PRESENTATION: So, this leads me, then, to where we left off in the last episode. We were exploring a major, common mistake that writers make in undermining the credibility of their work, and that is that they approach the work with a prior commitment to a certain philosophy that limits the writer's willingness to explore the true depths of that character. And today, I want to talk about another common problem that is similar and yet it is different, and that is when a writer approaches the work with a prior commitment to promote some kind of message or agenda. The first thing that we need to understand when we talk about message-driven content is why it's a problem. Why is it a problem? Well, the primary issue is simply that it means that the characters just become tools. They're only there to promote the writer's agenda. What an ugly way to use your characters. You're not really interested in them. It's sort of like using people in real life. Like, if you're part of a business community where you have to go to an event and schmooze with other people and rub shoulders with the others in your particular industry, you can always tell those people that have a genuine interest in the other person or the people that are just there to use you and exploit you to promote their own purpose. It's gross. It's ugly. We don't like people who do that, and we particularly don't like it when they're trying to do it to us. It feels dirty. It feels like you need to get out of a shower. You just feel icky, like you've been slimed. Well, it's the same thing. When you use your characters as tools to promote your agenda, it's sort of blaspheming the storytelling process. It's just a really ugly way to use it. 

Zena Dell Lowe  04:40

Stories are meant to start from the top down, with our characters occupying the uppermost seats in the house. Stories that start with message are propaganda. They're not even stories. They're twisted tales meant to emotionally manipulate those on the receiving end. The entire construct becomes false, because once again, the characters aren't real. This makes them props, tools to be used, furniture to be moved according to the writers needs, not according to the character's inner emotional transformation or the characters needs. Consequently, the audience doesn't connect with the character, because he or she rings false. In fact, the world itself rings false, because, guess what? It is. When I'm critiquing work that has been executed by a writer who has an agenda, I often find that the capacity, the honesty, the willingness to do the work, to look deeply into the character's soul, is lacking. It simply isn't there, and that can have devastating consequences for your work. It can keep your writing superficial, and therefore, the audience doesn't connect to it, because it simply has no depth to offer them. 

Zena Dell Lowe  05:59

So, last time, we explored why it's a problem to have a prior commitment to a certain philosophy that limits the writer's willingness to explore the true depths of that character, but this time we're talking about a prior commitment to promote some kind of message or agenda that limits the writer's ability to create a world that is true. So, by way of example, as promised, I want to look at the film Farewell Amore. I was able to attend Sundance for the first time this year, and I saw a total of ten films. And of those ten, there were two that I loved, that I thought were excellent in every way. There were five that were, "Meh, I could take them or leave them." And there were three that I absolutely hated. So, one of those films was something called Farewell Amore. Now, Farewell Amore promised to explore the complex dynamics of an immigrant family, who had been separated for twenty years and are finally able to be reunited when the wife and the daughter have a chance to join the husband in America. Now, this premise intrigued me. I thought it sounded fascinating. What would that be like? That would be so weird. Unfortunately, in spite of what it promised to deliver, it is not at all what it does deliver. The real story, as it turns out, is that the wife has become a religious fanatic during her twenty years of separation from her husband. And now, her new fanaticism threatens the family's ability to come back together. Not only does it cause a rift between the husband and wife, because the wife's religiosity makes it impossible for the two of them to connect, but it's also causing great harm to their teenage daughter, who really, she just wants to dance. Yes, you heard me correctly, this really is part of the conflict in the story. And you guessed it, the religious mother forbids the daughter from dancing, and not just from dancing, but from having any kind of social life whatsoever, just in case those new potential friends might lead the daughter astray. So, the mom forces the daughter to come straight home from school every day and live like a prisoner, because the mom is so afraid of being tainted by the world, which is the filmmaker's view of religious oppression. People that are religious are fearful. They're afraid. No mystery, then, what the filmmaker's solution to the family struggle should be. The mom needs to throw off the shackles of her oppressive religious beliefs, embrace her true femininity, which she has denied, have a sexual reawakening, and then everything will be fine. 

Zena Dell Lowe  08:38

Now, this is a clear-cut example of a filmmaker who approached a story, not only with a preconceived bias, which inhibited her ability to explore the true depths of character, but also, who has created a story in order to promote some kind of message or agenda. The upshot is that instead of giving us some new insight, which is worthy of our time, she ends up creating conflict that is so contrived, so falsely constructed, as to be ridiculous. There is no genuine understanding or attempt to understand the religious community in any way. In fact, the filmmaker here didn't even bother to do her research. She lumps all of the various denominations of Christianity under one heading. She doesn't even bother to differentiate between Catholic and Protestant. In one scene, she has the family attending a black Charismatic church, and then in another, the wife/mother is holding a rosary and calling back home to speak to a sister, and she's asking for advice. When the mother does get on the phone with this nun, who is back in her own country, the nun then delivers the most banal advice that could ever possibly be derived, and then that nun adds by rote, "Don't forget to send your check, so that you can receive the spiritual blessings." So, is this woman Catholic or Protestant? Charismatic? Evangelical? This filmmaker probably doesn't even know there's a difference, because she simply did not do her research. She didn't try to understand what religious community options would be available to the mother/wife in her home country. She never tried to understand what kind of solace the mother might have gotten or be trying to get from that religious community. Instead, the filmmaker just makes up what she already believes to be the case, and she ends up portraying a horrible cliche that is not grounded in any kind of reality. The whole "send your check to receive your spiritual blessings" thing? That is not a Catholic thing. That's more akin to the prosperity gospel. But this filmmaker has no idea what the different nuances would be between different religious communities, because to her, they are all one in the same. They are all false and damaging. And by God, she has set out to prove it. Now, here's the thing. It's true that religion has been used to exploit, control, manipulate, and oppress other people. I myself am a victim of gross spiritual abuse. Therefore, I have no problem with these types of spiritual abuses being exposed. I want them exposed, because while all exploitation and manipulation are horrible, it's particularly heinous in a spiritual setting, when it's being done by leaders of a religious community and used against people who genuinely have good intentions. 

Zena Dell Lowe  11:35

Here's a freebie for you. Beware of any organization, especially a religious one, who silences a person who asks questions. If something is true, it can withstand interrogation. It can withstand inquiry. There is no need to fear people asking questions about it. My point is that at the end of the day, I'm actually on the filmmaker's side. Like her, I possess a deep desire to expose false religion. I too want people to be freed from religious oppression. The problem is, this passionate desire in her has clouded her ability to genuinely and honestly explore the topic she's passionate about. She has already made up her mind in advance that all religion is harmful or wrong, so she doesn't even bother trying to understand what might be motivating a character to pursue it, or what might be driving this particular mother character personally to engage in that community, or to determine what constitutes spiritual abuse from true spirituality. Mind you, from the filmmaker's POV, it's not the character who's bad, it is the religious organization. But don't worry, the filmmaker will liberate this poor, misled, misguided woman by introducing that woman to the free-spirited, pot-smoking, sex-loving next door neighbor, who will teach the wife that her femininity is good and to be embraced. And once the wife reconnects with her forgotten sexuality, which the religious leaders taught her to suppress, she will finally be able to see the truth, extricate herself from all religion, and be reconnected with her family. Oh, and she'll let her daughter dance. 

Zena Dell Lowe  13:28

Now, what this really means, at the end of the day, is that this movie is just a great example of what happens when you approach story with a preconceived bias that precludes you from being able, or even willing, to explore the true depths of the character's inner workings. It is also a great example of what happens when you're trying to promote an agenda. Whether we agree with this filmmaker that religion is a tool to oppress people or not, it's still bad storytelling. To not give the character true depth or true reasons for why she has gone that way is to violate the overarching principle of believability and credibility. Characters must ring true. They must make sense. They must be comprehensible to us. Even if we don't agree with them, we have to understand why they would do those things. People are not arbitrary. They always have reasons for why they do what they do. Our job is to try to understand those reasons and to present them convincingly, even if we disagree with their reasoning process. But when you start with a message or agenda, you don't see them as true people. You see them as constructs to be used to promote your agenda, to try to convince people of a message, a point of view. You are using your characters as tools. The solution and story are the same as in real life, and that is to love them. Love your characters. Care about them. Find out what makes them tick. 

Zena Dell Lowe  15:07

OUTRO: You have been listening to the Mission with Zena Dell Lowe. May you go forth inspired to change the world for the better through story.