Up - The Genius of Pixar

I'm off to David Freeman's lecture on the Genius of Pixar. Jane Goldman, of Kick Ass writing fame, has taken his weekend course and recommends it, and so I am looking forward to it.

I had a big eureka moment the first time I saw "UP". I realised that the books I've read (thank you Blake Snyder) and courses I've done (thank you Soho Screenwriters), have worked, because here the structure was so easy to see. This excited me because it meant thought I had a chance of improving my own scripts, structurally, or at least, making them more commercial. These are the thunderbolts that hit me.

Up is a film about obsession.

Carl Frederickson can't let go of the memory of his dead wife. He holds onto her by holding onto the house they renovated together. The cause of this flaw is the guilt he feels at not taking his wife on their life long mission - to go to the falls. He puts the house first and people second.

This misplaced loyalty is the flaw that creates his initial problem: a worker damages his mailbox and the fight he gets into as a result leads to a court order which threatens to put Carl into a retirement home. This will mean losing the house completely. He's finally pushed into making a decision, to go on an adventure with Elle's house, and take it to the falls.

Carl and his wife Ellie wanted to be explorers, because they wanted to emulate the real explorer Muntz. As a younger man Muntz had found the remains of a new species of bird, but was accused of faking the find and disappeared into the wilderness in search of proof. Just like Carl is obsessed in getting his house across the falls, Muntz is obsessed with proving this bird exists and will do whatever it takes to clear his name. Even murder.

Muntz is what is known as a shadow figure, he has the same obsessive flaw as our hero in waiting Carl but worse. He is what Carl is heading towards becoming some would argue, unless he changes, and is a mirror to Carl, to test him. How far will Carl go to complete his mission?

The Mentor in this film is Russell, a little boy who likes exploring - just as Carl did. His job is to show Carl the an alternative way of behaving (if Muntz is Darth Vader, Russell is Obi-won Kenobi).

Carl's flaw of hanging onto the house, and putting it before people (and animals), is tested throughout the film. But by the time of the final showdown, Carl has learnt his lessons. He defeats Muntz by letting go of the house physically. He wins because he puts the tribe first.

Carl changes for many reasons: the light thrown up by Russell, and the darkness cast by Muntz and the consequences of this flaw. Importantly the script addresses the cause of his flaw too. This is the thing that has transformed my writing: screenplays are about being tough on a characters flaw, but also are about dealing with the cause of that flaw.

To see the mentors point of view, we need first to bond with them. Carl initially is stuck with Russell, then is helped by him, bonds with him by seeing they share an emotional connection (they both have a similar pain, Russell is acting for his Dad, Carl for his lost wife). Russell also gives, a lot: he solves problems for Carl when they get stuck on a mountain, suggesting they walk it across the falls, he saves his life by grabbing and holding onto him as Carl, holding on to his house is about to fall over the cliff.

Carl's paternal instinct kicks in when he sees possible danger from the big bird, and for the first time makes physical contact with Russell. In many films we see this moment: first physical contact by protagonist is often forged under a time of threat, but once that bond has been struck, it sticks.

The biggest bonding moment, as with all films, has to be forged by the threat of a joint aggressor. This is where allegiances are really forged.

The bonding raises the stakes of decisions which are consequences of the flaw. Carl putting the house before people is fine if you don't care about the people, but what if you do? What if you've bonded with that person and made promises to them. Emotional stakes are raised.

The important thing is that Carl has a flaw, and that there are consequences to this flaw and that he sees a different way of looking at things through the actions of his mentor.

But what about the cause of the flaw? The cause is the guilt he feels at not going on an exploration with Ellie. This is neutralized, when he finds out she was happy with a life with him, that this was her adventure with him. The effect neutralized. In most films the cause of a flaw isn't always that easy to fix.

Muntz himself was another cause of the flaw. Carl idolised him as a child. This is who he wanted to become. The mere fact that his idol is false, again takes a lynchpin out of his beliefs.

In short, I learnt one big thing when watching "Up": that films are tough on a characters flaw, but also tough on the cause of their flaw.

I felt good about myself. Yeah, I can do this I think. My writing even improves. Then I look at the script again, and see more brilliant skill and talent. I looked deeper and deeper. And realised how good these hollywood writers are. How good you have to be to make it. The mountain gets bigger the closer I get, and the skills that are required, and the knowledge and natural ability needed to write this stuff increases. Why the heck did I start climbing this mountain in the first place I think? I was happy, on the ground, making my own little rock garden, now it's raining and I'm cold, and I don't know if I have all the equipment for a trip to the summit. And if I get stuck there's a chance I'll freeze to death. Must remember to make a packed lunch next time.