The screen writer (Apr-Oct 1948)

Plots and Characters By JAY RICHARD KENNEDY THE 20th century gave rise to one new constructive art and one new constructive science. I am referring neither to the art of misleading propaganda, nor the extension of science in the field of nuclear-physics. As yet, neither has proven itself to be constructive and both began their dubious careers before our century. The art I refer to has the singular quality of reaching — without malicious intent in the main — the largest number of people. The science, that of concerning itself affirmatively with the whole human being rather than with specialized aspects of him, as has been science's habit heretofore. This new science attempts to synthesize other related special disciplines, such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, neurology, general medicine and history — it is called psychodynamics. The new art attempts to synthesize the novel, the play, sculpture, still photography, architecture, choreography and music. Motion pictures is the name of this art, though Hollywood has re-named it Industry and outsiders have called it uncomplimentary names too numerous to mention. I draw a parallel between the two, not as some may suspect, because both this art and this science are the most lucrative in their separate domains, but because both potentially can serve the maximum function of revealing man to himself, under our the most trying conditions of man's trying history. Also, it is a singular coincidence that the controversy among practitioners in each is identical. Psychodynamics, with the language of science, states the controversy as one between the school of thought which contends that the inner dynamics with which a human being is born are primary and environment incidental, and another which argues that the impact upon those inherent dynamics of the individual by environment, causing vital change in the person or his social group, is primary and entirely shapes and even reshapes the individual. The language of art states this same controversy in terms of plot, versus primacy of characterization. Hollywood, in the main, by its product, has demonstrated a conviction that plot — deeds and action — are primary, while foreign films generally have tended to assert that characterization, not plot, is the primary concern of a film. Extremism is sometimes a characteristic of youth, and youth is the outstanding quality of motion pictures as an art form. ' I "HE true relationship between plot -* and characterization is not one of conflicting elements, but rather of umbilically connected ones with inexorable interdependence. The proof of this can be arrived at, I believe, by understanding the varying traditions which lead to these opposite extremist outlooks and a true understanding of the ways in which the film art differs from the other art forms. This latter might disclose that the film art is more limited than other art forms, it likewise can reach new and unexplored heights. As there is a great deal of art to science, and as much of science to art, let us examine the creative problem of film making under discussion today in this scientific spirit. CONSIDER the question of tradition first. The United States was the first country to enter motion picture making as a serious enterprise. It is a paradox that this serious undertaking brought forth what to-day seem trivial results: slapstick farce, wild Westerns, one and two reelers, the action thriller serial. Nevertheless, through these primitive products, film pioneers were discovering that the essential characteristic of motion picture, the one shared by no other art form, was its endless capacity for motion. To this must be added the cultural reality that America itself is young and is still a nation given to spontaneity of action, to the tendency of judging people by their deeds, rather than by the motivation for these deeds. The foreign film, came out of a different culture. In addition, it came later and was based on the tradition of the theatre, a tradition in which inner character conflicts, not deeds, are the source of drama. This would explain why Hollywood and foreign film makers approach the values of plot and characterization from opposite directions. But it does not explain why, when either is in error, both run afoul of the same set of problems. This can be explained not by tradition, but by the very nature of the motion picture art form itself, but the fact that the film, as I said before, synthesizes other art forms, and in doing so, finds that it has different limitations and different possibilities. TAKE the novel. Examine Goethe, Tolstoy, Balzac, Zola, Dostoevski, Mark Twain. In all of them, there is a common denominator re The Screen Writer, May, 194