Screenwriting : Writing Social Commentary Into Screenplays by Rob Hardy

If you want to make people think you are going to have to get inside the heads of the banking executives and give them some plausible reasons for acting like they do. One character moralizing will come off heavy handed (as if it is an outlet for your own personal rant). I always approach my villains this way -- No one wakes up in the morning and says "Thank God I'm the bad guy". Everyone thinks they have a good reason for what they do.

Thanks Dave. I definitely agree that humanizing the bankers would be great way to go in terms of creating a sense of cognitive dissonance for the audience and getting them to see both sides of the story. But the problem is that I have my screenplay structured as a lifelong character study, told in flashbacks, of the person holding the bankers hostage. With that structure in mind, and considering the fact that being concise is key in the short film format, I don't think it would make much sense to humanize the bankers because they're all secondary characters. With all that in mind, do you think that there are other ways to avoid coming off as preachy? Or does the fact that the main character is a vehicle for conveying my beliefs sort of condemn me to that sort of territory?

Flashbacks are tough. We just incorporated three flashbacks into our latest script, "Bloodlines". They were parceled out, one in each act, to answer key questions of how the characters got to the point of acting like they are acting. The key to a flashback is that they must connect in some way to present day action and propel the present day story forward, they cannot be the story. If they are the story, you should just tell that story as it happens. In terms of the bankers all being secondary, that is tough. One main protagonist and a bunch of people we don't know, or care about because they are cardboard characters can lead to moralizing really quick. If you wanted to be concise, for a short film, you can always have one of the bankers be there for their first day. He didn't have anything to do with it, he wants to be just and he just got caught up in your protagonist's actions. That can lead you away from the "all these people are bad" broad judgement and lead people to think a little. Just a suggestion.

Preaching at people doesn't make them think - it annoys and bores them.

I would think that the way to do this is to follow one of the bankers and make HIM the main character... not the guy who is in the right philosophically... but to have the main character that WE follow then undergo first total denial of the antagonist, then self questioning ...,, (then maybe or maybe no a change of heart....) think of Thank you for smoking .....

Give both sides of the argument. After all, if you look at "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", the first impression - especially given Hunter Thompson's prolific drug use - is that this is going to be massively pro-drug use. And so it seems. But then you've got elements like the melancholy "wave speech", which is a soliloquy on the wasted opportunities of the late sixties counterculture movement, and then the closing lines of the film where Thompson's character Raoul Duke goes on about the futility of Dr Timothy Leary's consciousness expansion programme. Thus, with the right kind of eyes, you can process the film (not having read the book, I cannot comment, but I'm assuming it's roughly the same) as being not quite as drug-positive as you might at first think. True, people don't like being preached at. This is, essentially, laying down the law and it's your judgement over theirs. If you give them the facts, however, and subtly direct them in piecing the facts together to make a coherent picture, maybe you'lll win some people to your cause. I daresay many people will steer their own course, but at least you won't be pissing anyone off.

Exactly as Andrew Gruffudd says. It is also part of respecting your audience. They can evaluate the facts if you present them and will appreciate both sides of an issue. It will make the message more powerful if the audience has to evaluate both sides of an issue.

That is where good polished dialog is key. Expressing real human emotion and motivation of people on both sides of the issue. Nobody like a perfect hero taking out a cardboard bad guy. You are talking about the banksters. Even really really bad guys convince themselves they are doing "it" (whatever it is) for good reasons, may even see themselves as heroic for doing so. Certainly the corporate leaders to not sit in boardrooms saying " so folks, lets see what we can do to undermine the middle class today" they also don't say "let's make America stronger by doing our Ayn Randian duty to be the strong rich Makers, and carry out our nearly heroic duty of getting stinking wealthy" They might say " Johnson , you need to raise profits in your division - AT ANY COST - remember it is our patriotic duty to raise profits." if both antagonists and protagonists are not human , your message no matter how good and right , will never reach the audience.

"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

Also I've found if you can identify your core message of the film... the most important basic idea or concept that you most wish to communicate - focus on this, and the extraneous details and preachiness can all be let go. If you don't know what this is, your story is still not as focussed as it could be. Find that one message, clarify it and work it back into the story. Your whole script will suddenly get more power.

This touches on the very subject that has caused this, "economic downturn" we are all in. Banks were giving out loans to people that could not afford them which caused a chain reaction. The reasons behind the shotgun loan giving practice are unknown to me. I could speculate that if you give out thousands of loans, some of them will hit the target and it might work out in the end. Stuff like that would be a convincing motive for the whole story, and would be based on reality which will make help make the point believable and not too much of a preachers voice, because both sides will think they are doing the right thing.

I too have written a STORY with social commentary. Yours is much harder than mine. My story "The Right War" gives balance to my subject, does yours??? Very hard to have balance when you have a gun to your head.

I think it would be very advised to have balance when there is a gun to one's head.

Let your characters and their conversations drive the social commentary. You have a difficult task as "Two wrongs don't make a right." Anyone taking anyone hostage for no matter what the reason is breaking the law and creating lasting fear to the hostages. Banker or Bum no one wants to be a hostage.

Good luck with this, sounds like a really interesting piece. There's some great advice up here, I will add that it's important to make your hostages as memorable as the protagonist, make sure they each have their 'moment'. I would agree with the idea that the flashbacks might work better if you give each of the hostages a cut away or flash back showing how they lead their lives - the audience will have to ask themselves some interesting questions if they see, for example, a really vicious and nasty throat cutter in the office yet at home he is kind gentle and caring father just trying to provide for his family. etc. Godd luck, would love to read it!

Robert, if the bankers truly are just secondary characters, then your story is not really about socially irresponsible business practices. What is the story really about? If it's a life-long character study of the person holding the hostages, then it seems to me that it is about his journey to that point and also that there is going to be an epiphany moment during the hostage situation when the person holding the hostages realizes something about himself - or in other words that the true crisis in this film is internal. This suggests that it is not important whether the bankers are actually doing anything that is socially irresponsible or not, only that the character BELIEVES this to be the case and is angry or desperate enough (or both) to take the actions he is taking. If you keep the focus on this main character and on the journey he is taking during the crisis and use the flashback scenes to help the audience empathize with and follow his emotional/mental journey, I don't think the film will end up being heavy handed, because your main character is the one that is going to learn something, that is going to change through this experience, and THAT is what the story will be about.

Have you ever seen Dog Day Afternoon? The premise of your film sounds similar to that one. The character's motives are different, but the social message is the same. I'm not bringing this up to dissuade you though. Watch it as a frame of reference for your story. Everybody's offering pretty good suggestions, and I'd like to thank you all- I've enjoyed readin them. My personal take on it- I battle with myself a lot on how to insert a message to the viewer with the plot, and I have rewritten scripts several times and rarely shown anything for it. The fundamental rule of thumb with screenwriting is to tell a story. A story about a character. A character who is interesting and represents something. But only assholes preach. A character should INSPIRE. Lead by example. Remember, the social commentary could be your motive to write the story, but not your character's motive. ALTHOUGH, let's say that it is your character's motive to provide social commentary. Then it's your motive to prove him wrong. And then at the end, he proves you right. By that I mean- storytelling with a message is kind of like a control contest between the writer and his character. Both the writer and the character need to lay down both sides and refute them. If you find that you're not learning something about yourself or the world from your character, then you're not doing it right.

or you change it to a metaphor, and not take hostage of bankers but people that hold a similar role in the protagonists life. Have a read of the book Afluensa (this spelling is no doubt wrong).

I'll parrot Jamie about seeing 12 Angry Men...more recently, Margin Call hit on these themes quite well as an excellent moral play (stellar cast, too). If you're goal is to hit home, you want to make EVERY character worth caring about in some respect. For example, the Stanley Tucci character seemed flat until the end where Paul Bettany's character came to pick Tucci up at his house. Only then did we learn how terrifically smart that Tucci's character was, and how he really was a good guy.

I thought "Arbitrage" was quite good on some of these issues..."Margin Call" felt a bit cold to me, but that may just be because I've worked in trading rooms (although no where NEAR that level of income!!). I think 3 dimensional characters are essential - your leader banker may be consumed with greed, but give him some redeeming features/interests. Your hero might be a good guy, but maybe he's also a pain in the ass in some way - lousy husband/boyfriend? Not a great dad? Also - some humor is essential. Even Shakespeare's tragedies have some. Finally, make sure that the dialogue is realistic, reflects the way people really talk, and DO NOT preach...no matter how tempted you may be :) If you tell your story well, people will reach the conclusions that you're leading them to.

Its a great opportunity to smack people directly between the eyes with the truth....see Romeny's 47% commentary. This is the thinking...you can show the "human side" with their families & trusted friends...The cut-throat side in their actions.

Make sure you allow the audience to make up their own minds on any 'topical' matters. If your story is about 'whats wrong with the banking industry', then it's not a movie, it's a documentary. The story needs NEEDS to be about either the 'man' or one of the bankers, and their change within themselves over the course of the 'event/film'. Like Madonna says, Papa don't preach... the audience will fall asleep.

"12 Angry Men" was a good film and had balanced positions with 12 people in a room giving different "points of view"

good point J.Damian.

great Kelly .. of course , is the villain the guy taking people hostage and do we (reluctantly) follow one of the bankers ? do we bring the social message home by having it fulfilled (jailed bakers) ? or do the bankers walk away and the [criminal] crusader for the social correct get jailed or killed and the bankers walk away -- with all the dialog and motivations leading the audience frustrated .... but creatively and rewardingly frustrated .. the sort of frustrated that leaves them wanting to take action ... when a bad guys gets his comeuppance on screen, it is complete. no call to action. maybe folks should be walking out feeling they need to make it right in the real world..... no matter how you write this though... it is all about the careful interplay of motivation and dialog that does not tell what they AUTHOR wants to say , but rather informs us of the character motivations. If you use dialog to forward plot and tell your message ... itwill likely fall flat

First of all, I want to say thanks to everyone for taking time to share their thoughts on this subject. I really do appreciate it. I think that Thomas really hit the nail on the head as far as what I'm trying to do with this piece. It's meant to be an immersive character study that takes place within the context of the hostage situation, not a hostage situation with a cast of well-rounded characters. And that's absolutely how I want it to stay. For me the goal going into this was to show a flawed, but sympathetic character committing an act that under normal circumstances would be absolutely unspeakable. But, in order to make his actions as sympathetic as possible, I really need the bankers and their actions to be completely and utterly villainous. I'll attach a link to the half-written screenplay so folks can take a look if they want. It's still very much in its infancy, and most of the dialogue will be replaced. But I'd love to know what people think about the concept and the structure, and I'd love to hear suggestions and constructive criticism. I'd really appreciate it. http://www.stage32.com/profile/80358/screenplay/hostage