Looking for help with a good visual example

ace: take 1

EXT. FARM - DAY

the BROTHER runs in the field.

FATHER
(o.s)
come back to me you bastards.

SISTER joins brother in the flelds.

brother and sister , safe in the hiding, as they are covered in the crops in the farm.

SISTER
I think you should apologize to dad.

BROTHER
you don't like me?

SISTER
Dad is a drunkard, but he's been one since the death of mom.

BROTHER
I don't know what love is?

SISTER
it is always better than death?

BROTHER
if dad wants to kill me then he can, after all I'm his flesh.

SISTER
Don't wanna think of me.

BROTHER
life is full of obligations, isn't it?

SISTER
promise me, I'll never see you dead or meet you in jail getting your bail.

beat.

brother hugs sister.

BROTHER
I'm sorry, I never thought what'd happen to you if I'm gone.

CUT TO:

carry on from here.

regards,
ace.inc1

Maybe they watch a man start a fight and beat up another guy. Then, when your protags are done shopping (or whatever they're doing in town), they see the guy who was beaten up sneak up on his attacker in a lone alley. He hits him from behind with an empty bottle.
And then your sister might say something like: violence only results in more violence, and that's why you can never resolve a situation with your fists. (not word for word, obviously it'd be crappy dialogue, but I'm sure you'll find a good way to put the image into a metaphor).

She could use the saying "an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind?"

If you don't believe that violence is never the solution, you can't prove it.

How about he tries to open something (a door, a can, a locked trunk) but it's stuck, so he starts to bang it and kick it, and he winds up damaging it to a small degree. Whatever degree of damage that results, make it so that he is remorseful that he did it.





On a related note, I learned a very valuable lesson about temper tantrums when I was about five or six.

My family and I had gone to the ocean and I brought back a handful of very pretty sea shells (small things, the size of bits of popcorn). I was in my bedroom, carrying my prize posessions in my hands as I walked from one end of the hardwood floor to the other, and I dropped one of them. It hit the floor and shattered. I was so distressed that I started screaming right there on the spot in a full blown tantrum, waving my arms, jumping up and down--and then in all this fuss I dropped ANOTHER one! It ALSO shattered! And then I gasped and realized what I had just done. I realized it was all my fault. I realized that the tantrum itself was why the second one was now broken. I stood in dumbfounded silence as my six year old mind soaked in all of this reality.

I'd like to say I never had another tantrum again, but that would be a lie. I will instead say I reigned my temper in a great deal from that day onward.

Nice story. How did you remember it?

I think you've got an enormous challenge in that scene. You've set your teenaged girl a goal that most spiritual leaders - Jesus, Ghandi, Dalai Lama - spend their lifetimes trying to impart.

The problem is, that violence usually results in short term success. It tends to be very gratifying and rewarding in the immediate sense. The negative effects for the successfull aggressor are not usually experienced right away - and often the long term affects are not directly associated to the violent act - so the lesson is never learned.

If it were, then violence would have been abandoned as a strategy for fulfilment.

So basically you have a couple of choices.

You can show that a violent act, results in IMMEDIATE negative affects for the aggressor. IE: He got what he wanted, but got caught/arrested immediately - Actions have costs - His violence cost him the loss of freedom. Or his violence only caused MORE violence - his victim's brother shows up and beats the crap out of the AGGRESSOR - (Problem there is that more violence will be seen as succesfull - hence the lesson is not learned.

OR

You can show that pacifism - turning the other cheek - or giving empathy - results in disarming the violent person. Which the younger brother might interpret as a sign of weakness - hence the lesson is not learned.


Possible sub-plot; The 'protective use of force' is NOT the same thing as 'violence' - teaching the young boy the difference. But I don't know what your story arc is, or what your personal beliefs are in this area. So you might not agree.



Last year, I had the opportunity to shoot an interview with the Dalai Lama. (An amazing experience) One of the questions he was asked was how a culture of violence arises... and how it can be changed.

To paraphrase his words - He pointed out that the culture arises over a long term, with simple acts of violence becoming more an more acceptable. And that it will only be stopped over a long course of time, by each of us doing small things to change it.

In a new documentary that came out this past year "Ten Questions for the Dalai Lama" - he points out that if you have to use force to save your own life - so that you can continue to teach non-violence, then its the thing to do.

Most people have a hard time understanding that the protective use of force (the mind set behin AIKIDO) comes from a mind-set of loving empathy, whereas violence comes from the negative , destructive emotions of anger, vengeance or hatred.

Tough topic. Remember you're in good company trying to teach this lesson.

Mac H. said:

Hi everyone,

I have a scene where a teenage girl is teaching her little brother that 'violence is never the solution'. (Don't worry - he'll learn that the real world is more complicated later on!)

I'd like to have a nice visual way for her to demonstrate the point (such as observing a scene that demonstrates it) rather than just a verbal explanation.

What I want this scene to do:
1. Demonstrate that the girl is a committed pacifist.
2. Demonstrate that that she has an intelligent REASON for this ... it isn't just a 'Pollyanna' attitude.

I'd rather not have this scene involving the little brother being picked on by bullies ... that scene is going to be later - this lesson we are seeing is going to determine how he acts.

I've been racking my brain to try and think of how to communicate this info in a nice visual way, but am totally stuck.

The scene is on a farm in the pre-electronic era - so no myspace/mobile phones, etc !

Thanks !

Mac

Click to expand...

I think that, maybe, what you really need here is a "failed lesson" -- not a successful one.

That is, if she really successfully conveys her message -- then shouldn't he "get it" here, and thus not need further lessons later on?

I mean we all understand -- or should, that violence sometimes *is* the solution, in some sense, to some kinds of problems -- like if somebody is trying to kill you or rape you, then, let's face it, you're not always going to be able to reason yourself out of that situation. Sometimes a well-placed brick to the head is the solution -- unless you consider an appropriate solution is to allow yourself to be raped or killed.

So maybe what you need is one of those scenes where the younger brother reacts to something in a violent way -- but one in which the audience is calculated to approve. Maybe somebody is picking on his sister in a really nasty sort of way -- and he intervenes and knocks the kid down -- and the other kids are cheering.

But the sister isn't one of them -- and she helps the other kid up and tries to apologize. But the other kid isn't having any of it, shoves her down, runs away. He's been humiliated.

The brother doesn't understand. Everybody else thought it was great. The audience thought it was great. Only the sister was disappointed in him.

And she tries to explain. She didn't ask him to do it. He doesn't understand. He's only made things worse.

And that's the point. He thinks he's done something good. And so did we.

But over the course of the movie -- both he -- and we -- come to understand that he didn't. That as the story unfolds, he really did make things worse. That violence solves short terms problems (and maybe sometimes you have to use it that way) -- but it only plants seeds for more violence and greater violence later on.

NMS

Ditto, what nmstevens said. I like the idea of where you're going with the story, but stevens is right, if it was a successful lesson now, there would be nothing to learn of it later.

You've got some tough themes going on, and part of the reason is that we often deal with 'counterfit' emotions and judge them (or misjudge them) as true.

Lust is the counterfit of love.

Sympathy is the counterfit of empathy.

It's easy to see the protective use of force as 'violence', or to see violence as having a 'noble purpose' - because they appear to the casual observer as being the same thing. Hitting someone over the head SEEMS to be the same thing, whether you are robbing them, or stopping them from shooting someone. What changes is the motivation behind the actions. THIS is what seperates Violence from the protective use of force (Which by its nature, should always be the last/only choice in a given moment).

Compound that with the difficulty of maintaining empathy while employing force - it s a corrosive environment - ask any cop.

The submissive nature of the dog example - "Go along to get along" is a sort of counterfit example of 'turning the other cheek'. It's not what I would call a true 'non-violent' or 'pacifists' philosopy.

It is possible to appear submissive/non-violent while simultaneously FIGHTING against the evil that lies behind the violent faction - IE: Ghandi was fighting the establishment with active non-violence. It takes enormous courage sometimes NOT to be violent.

Again- depending on where your character's journey is starting and ending, these are some of the themes it sounds like you are trying to incorporate.

WriteKnight said:

You've got some tough themes going on, and part of the reason is that we often deal with 'counterfit' emotions and judge them (or misjudge them) as true.

Lust is the counterfit of love.

Sympathy is the counterfit of empathy.

It's easy to see the protective use of force as 'violence', or to see violence as having a 'noble purpose' - because they appear to the casual observer as being the same thing. Hitting someone over the head SEEMS to be the same thing, whether you are robbing them, or stopping them from shooting someone. What changes is the motivation behind the actions. THIS is what seperates Violence from the protective use of force (Which by its nature, should always be the last/only choice in a given moment).

Compound that with the difficulty of maintaining empathy while employing force - it s a corrosive environment - ask any cop.

The submissive nature of the dog example - "Go along to get along" is a sort of counterfit example of 'turning the other cheek'. It's not what I would call a true 'non-violent' or 'pacifists' philosopy.

It is possible to appear submissive/non-violent while simultaneously FIGHTING against the evil that lies behind the violent faction - IE: Ghandi was fighting the establishment with active non-violence. It takes enormous courage sometimes NOT to be violent.

Again- depending on where your character's journey is starting and ending, these are some of the themes it sounds like you are trying to incorporate.

Click to expand...

Expanding on the subject of what Ghandi said on the subject of resistance. A lot of people used the term "Passive Resistance" -- but it was a term that Ghandi came to strongly dislike, because it was always his position that resistance to injustice should always be active. He did not believe in simply passively sitting around and being a victim.

In fact he made the point that if the only available alternative to injustice was to respond with violence -- then you should choose violence rather than accept injustice. He simply believed that there were alternatives to violence and those alternatives were always to be prefered.

But one must never prefer doing nothing in the face of injustice.

NMS

That is why the aim of the scene is to demonstrate HER being a pacifist, rather than being about her brother learning.

It is really her journey that the film is about - into destructive vengence and hatred until she chooses to go back to how she started .. possibly kinda like what the Dalai Lama was talking about - the loving empathy.

Click to expand...

i always think about overly aggressive pro-lifers having this problem. they use violence (ie - bombing clinics) to protect unborn babies. in the process they may harm or kill doctors and nurses and somehow they think this is okay... or do they feel remorse? i think you can come up with something like this but more practical and relative to your story.

I'd rather not have this scene involving the little brother being picked on by bullies ... that scene is going to be later - this lesson we are seeing is going to determine how he acts.

Click to expand...

like the boy gets picked on by bullies and finds out or knows that the bullies are bullies b/c they have been or are currently being bullied and abused by their parents at home... which is what turned them into bullies.

You can do either:

SHe is being pushed to fight but refuses to. So her younger brother jumps in to fight and protect her, which is futile because the bullies are older and stronger.

OR

Her younger brother is being picked on. She steps in to protect her brother, not by way of fighting, but by placing herself as interference. She refuses to fight but constantly stands her ground, keeping herself between the bully and her brother and absorbing all of the punishment the bully can muster. She has to be tough to do this. The bully can hurt her, but her wounds must fall short of his efforts.

Her brother would feel anger and shame that he can't protect his sister and he would not understand why she does not fight back.

The first solution offered to you is a classic example of EXPOSITION.

Here is a little story for you guys:

A man is standing by the banks of a river in India and it starts to rain. He seeks the shelter of a large tree and waits for the rain to let up. Just near the river he sees a scorpion on a little mound surrounded by water. As it continues to rain, the water level slowly begins to rise and the man knows that it is a matter of time before the scorpion is drowned, (scorpions cannot swim!)

As the drama continues to unfold, a Yogi comes strolling by and seeks the shelter of the tree and observes the scorpion’s dilemma. The man watches both the scorpion and the Yogi wondering how the yogi is going to react. Yogis generally are endowed with great intellect and immense spiritual wisdom.

Unexpectedly the Yogi walks straight up to the scorpion, catches it and tries to remove it to another place, whereupon the scorpion reacts with a deadly sting and the Yogi drops the scorpion back.
Seeing this, the man rushes forward to the Yogi.

Man;

“How stupid can a Yogi get? Don’t you know that scorpions sting?”

The Yogi oblivious to the man, attempts to rescue the scorpion again and needless to say, gets stung once more.

Man;
“Enough of this! Do you want to get yourself killed?”

Yogi;
“I can’t help myself”

Man;
“Why not?

Yogi;
“Because it is the scorpion’s nature to sting and it is my nature to save. The scorpion is not going to change its nature and nor will I change mine.”

I hope this story illustrates the behavior of pacifists in a visual way.

Raghu.

One of my favourite quotes concerning pacifism.


"It is almost never branded as flagrantly immoral, which I believe it is. While it can seem noble enough when the stakes are low, pacifism is ultimately nothing more than a willingness to die, and to let others die, at the pleasure of the world's thugs. It should be enough to note that a single sociopath, armed with nothing more than a knife, could exterminate a city full of pacifists."

Sam Harris

Sam Harris 'understanding' of pacifism is ludicrous.

In your opinion, of course. Although you don't explain why.

Whereas Sam Harris' 'The End of Faith' eloquently and intelligently lays the foundations for his views.

Sam Harris foundation (as stated) assumes that pacifists do not believe in the protective use of force, that pacifists do not believe in law and order, that pacificsts do not believe in a police force.

Sam Harris 'understanding' of pacificsm is overly simplistic - childish - and reduces an entire philosophy to a single example - in a word 'ludicrous'.

WriteKnight said:

Sam Harris foundation (as stated) assumes that pacifists do not believe in the protective use of force, that pacifists do not believe in law and order, that pacificsts do not believe in a police force.

Sam Harris 'understanding' of pacificsm is overly simplistic - childish - and reduces an entire philosophy to a single example - in a word 'ludicrous'.

Click to expand...

Your failure to understand that Harris was being hypothetical, and your ongoing failure to acknowledge (even after it was pointed out to you), that to understand this 'quote' in its context it is adviseable to be aware of the work from which it came, is, in two words - ludicrously pathetic.

But I'll concede that there is the other alternative of simply continuing to jump in with the same old mantra like a first class fucking numpty.

I think I've figured something out - her real objection is that she is afraid of becoming just like the bad guys when she fights back.

Click to expand...

awww, the karate kid idea - ralphie was being taught defense karate techniques. he was upset because he wanted to learn how to punch. but his instructor would not teach him how to punch because that would be fighting just like the bullies fight. it's also a saying that coaches use, "your best offense is having a great defense." if they can't score then they can't win.

ie - put your girl on a streetball basketball team that plays a rough bully team and they're getting pummeled because they don't know how to play rough. have them turn the tables on the team by playing super defense and frustrating the bully team to the point that they can't win. something like that, maybe.