by Christina Kallas

So how does the language of our dreams look like? We have established that it is non-linear and that it is participatory. In fact these two things come from the same source. I will now add a third one: it is emotional. In dreams we leave our thoughts behind.

“Emotion is that movement which sets the soul in motion and spontaneously spreads from soul to soul,” says Michel Foucault in what is probably the most beautiful definition of something we are still trying to understand. Perhaps it would help if we were to try to understand what it is not. It is not thought.

Thought is the very essence of security, says Jiddu Krishnamurti in his conversation with quantum physicist David Bohm about The Ending of Time, “and that is what the most bourgeois mind wants, security, security at every level! A radical change within myself as a human being cannot be brought about through thought, because thought can only function in relation to conflict. Thought can only breed conflict.”

As per Bohm (“Thought as a System”): “What is the source of all this trouble? I’m saying that the source is basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our problems. That’s part of our tradition. Yet it looks as if the thing we use to solve our problems is the source of our problems. (…) The general tacit assumption in thought is that it’s just telling you the way things are and that it’s not doing anything - that ‘you’ are inside there, deciding what to do with the info. But you don’t decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you.” Bohm introduced the term “sustained incoherence” - and it is an interesting term to use in storytelling, where we traditionally apply the principle of cause and effect to create coherence through thought.

But what about coherence through emotion? If we try to record the dominant emotion we wake up with, we will realize that in our dreams, emotions have a special clarity.

So they do in storytelling. (Film) narrative structures, which break our perception of the linear direction of time, create a world of quantum “strangeness“ where story time, story space, and the viewer’s consciousness (mirroring the writer’s consciousness) are intimately interrelated and inseparable - and there exists a higher dimension, in which everything is interconnected. This I call emotional structure, as it goes beyond the classic one-dimensional cognitive perception. It approaches structure from the perspective of a more comprehensive perception than rational thinking and going beyond Aristotle’s causality (or what may have been misinterpreted as such or as too important in what is written in his Poetics).

In non-linear storytelling, because there is not one character to follow, no main plot and no cause and effect, we as spectators are put at the center of the action. We stop being observers and become participants. Whatever is happening, it is happening to us. We make an emotional journey and that emotional journey, which is mirroring the emotional journey of the storyteller, is the only thing, which makes this a unity, a story. In fact the story becomes an experience - an immersive experience.

There is an idea that is connected with this and why I think that the term immersive storytelling – to which nonlinearity, participation and emotion are intrinsic elements - is a happy one. There is the idea of going deeper.

Perhaps our brains are gradually being wired towards going deeper. This, to say the least, is a compelling thought – and I am perfectly aware of the paradox in my concluding sentence.

TO BE CONTINUED

by Christina Kallas

Classic narratives are emotionally engaging but they involve us as observers. Whatever’s going on is not happening to us, it is happening to a character on the page or on the screen. As a result, we may feel superior to the character(s). But how can truth be conveyed if the corresponding parts are not equal on an emotional level, or is the human experience not to be conveyed in a true manner and if yes, how important are emotions in that equation?

The laconic sentence, “δι΄ελέουκαιφόβουπεραίνουσατηντωντοιούτωνπαθημάτωνκάθαρσιν” (through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions), has been interpreted manifold. The word pair “eleos and phobos” are reproduced in different languages and different times in different ways. For instance, in the German language they were reproduced since Lessing as “compassion and fear”. Manfred Fuhrmann discovered that this translation was in error and that the word “eleos” is best translated as “misery” or “emotion” while the word “phobos” is more appropriately translated as “shuddering” or “horror.” 

As a result the prevalent interpretation says that the audience sensed negative emotions, became afraid that the painful event could threaten them and had pity for the hero since he or she suffered unjustly. The audience, however, knew that what it experienced is not happening in reality. This safety zone put it in the position of being able to think about the human condition, to accept that pain and misfortune are inseparable components of human life and to reject every feeling of arrogance (Jakob, Ζητήματα Λογοτεχνικής Θεωρίας, p. 34 ff.). Brecht still opposed and mistrusted “this curious Aristotelian empathy.” The goal of the Brechtian Theater was for the audience to develop a greater emotional distance to the occurrences.

But as words change meaning, so do works of art. The impact of a work of art is dependant on who we are and what is our mindset when we perceive it. It would be unwise to assume that we can perceive Greek tragedies in the same way as an audience of their time. The most beautiful description of what they may have meant to that audience goes back to Nietzsche. He saw the tragedies of antiquity as a way to strengthening. According to him, the ancient Greeks, the artists, and the audience proved they were able to face up to the worst conditions of human existence, to accept them and by doing so change them.  Friedrich Nietzsche called this satisfaction “tragic joy” (Nietzsche, Geburt der Tragödie, chapters 16, 17, 21, 22), with which the post-creative audience became the “audience-artist”. The dramatic work permitted them to feel a joy that transcended the merely sensuous. It provided them with the joy of meaning, that is, the joy of finding out that everything in life makes sense, a joy that can sweep aside every pain from the outset. 

In suffering we are all rendered potentially asocial: isolated and alone. It is pity that brings us back into the community of others. And not the kind of pity where what we feel for others is ultimately self-pity. Greek tragedy is born when men and women begin to redefine nobility. It is not only about the shared suffering. It is the shared suffering. Tragedy is a celebration of the willingness and ability of the people to share each other’s pain. Pain sharing is transformed into an act of civic virtue. Such virtue is not tantamount to democracy - it is its very ground.

The moderns seem to have found another ground, that of shared interest. So how predictable was the current dead end when everybody was focused on his or her own interests and a culture of love and pity was absent? What if this were the foundation of civilization: not justice (so difficult to achieve as there are many perspectives and many truths), but the ability to stay connected to others, to share emotions with others and so ease their isolation, their alienation from humanity?

Something is happening. Something which for the last few decades is wiring us towards another mindset, and it is happening on all levels. The vital act is the act of participation. How relevant that participation is also the incontrovertible new concept given by quantum mechanics. It strikes down the term ‘observer’ of classical theory, the man who stands safely behind the thick glass wall and watches what goes on without taking part (Misner, Thorne & Wheeler,  Gravitation).

…..

In our world, in which so many human hopes have proven to be blind, something is happening. We are changing the way we are telling our stories and by doing that we are changing ourselves. Whatever’s going on, is now happening to us.

by Christina Kallas

Classic narrative solves a problem that exists in the present by uncovering its roots in the past. It is the principle of causal coherence, in this case the search for what can or is required to happen before an event, which can lead us from the ending to the beginning of a story. This is based on the Aristotelian “το εικός ή αναγκαίον,” that is, “the probable or the necessary,” a construct duality that is of great importance to the Aristotelian theory. The events must happen in such a way “so that what follows should be the necessary or probable result of the preceding action” (Aristoteles, Poetics 7/1451a), and “the structural union of the parts being such that, if any one of them is displaced or removed, the whole will be disjointed and disturbed. For a thing whose presence or absence makes no visible difference, is not an organic part of the whole” (Ibid., 8/1451a).

In classic, linear narrative the attention of the audience is drawn to the past and its consequences instead of the present. “King Oedipus” (Oedipus Tyrannos), Sophocle’s adaptation (436-433 B.C) of the Oedipus myth, the only version of it that has survived, is the original model of the closed form based on the causality principle - and the first whodunit ever written. If we began with its ending, logical consistency would lead us systematically back to its beginning.

Causal thinking - the kind that seeks reasons, consequences and that uses linear time, is incidentally the mindset we use most.

Sometimes we use another mindset: Dreams are emotionally charged, hardly literary, almost never linear & most definitely no friends to causal narrative. As is their nature, our usually non-linear dreams are in the rule illogical and extremely complex.

…

And then something happened. Something, which for the last few decades, is wiring us towards another mindset: that of our dreams.

TO BE CONTINUED

The following is the current program for DIY DAYS NYC 2012. We’re excited to team with the New School, the Parsons School of Design, the Makerbot Community, FreedomLab, Story Pirates, the Writers Improv Studio, Reboot Stories and the Buckminster Fuller Institute to bring you an action packed day of talks, workshops, networking and experiences.

How did you come to be involved with the FSE?

I was a member of the presiding board of the German Writers’ Guild for many years and one of my fields of action was international collaboration. As a Greek living in Germany and making films all over the world, being engaged in talks with writers from other countries felt like home. When I was asked to also be the FSE delegate for my guild, I said yes. A month later I visited my first FSE General Assembly.

Why do you believe that the work of the FSE is so important for writers?

Because we live in an international world. And it is becoming more and more international. If we think that national legislation is going to protect our rights, then we should think again. Nowadays I even doubt whether lobbying for good European legislation is even enough, which is why I am so passionately engaged in establishing close and continuous collaboration on a global level.

How similar are the concerns of professional writers across Europe?

Very. There are countries which have less problems on one level but more on another. Our biggest common problem is the buy-out contract which seems to have established itself permanently in most of the countries, as well as acceptable minimum conditions for fees and credits. There are other issues: the way state aid is being distributed and accounted for, the transparency and monopoly of collecting societies, the ignorance of festivals, critics and academics in relation to our profession. And now we have the internet - a new ecosystem which is still in evolution and which may soon be the most important market for us writers.

Could you outline the main work of the FSE?

Among other things: we engage in common campaigns, information exchange and we formulate goals for Europe’s writers and pursue them. We lobby at European Union level, we support national guilds where needed or when a problem arises, and we organise conferences to discuss our issues on an international level and decide on common actions.

You’ve written and produced films across Europe for a number of years - how have things changed for writers in that time?

Apart from the general industry changes affecting writers, I think that things have become much better. Our role is acknowledged, we are being heard and we are much more confident than when I started working or even when I started fighting for writers’ concerns ten years ago. And I was pretty aware of the work of my predecessors when I stepped in the ring - there was a desert once where we are now starting to see the first roses. If a previous board member of the WGGB or any other writers’ guild is reading this, I want to say, thank you. Volunteering so selflessly your creative time and energy was important and is held dear.

What direction are things moving in for writers, do you think?

This is a very interesting and challenging question. I think that media professions are changing. A writer will not and cannot be just a writer anymore. This is already so in television and a very clear development in the internet - there we have storytellers, filmmakers, creators, writer/producers. N oone is just a writer. This may be temporary but my gut feeling is that it will stay.

Do you think British writers tend to be less aware of opportunities in other countries than they should be?

I think that British and American writers have the most opportunities because of the English language, which is the lingua franca of our times. But I also think that being connected more and more because of the internet raises the opportunities for all writers. The world which is emerging may be ultimately a better world for writers. By the way, the FSE has just created a page (www.facebook.com/screenwriterseurope) and an open group (http://www.facebook.com/groups/268558639854974) with the exact intention of enabling better communication between all our writer members. I am confident that such communication may bear fruits in terms of working together, jumpstarting co-productions, creating transnational writers rooms… So anyone who is interested should join.

The FSE and the International Affiliation of Writers Guilds organised the first World Conference of Screenwriters (WCOS) in 2009; was it a success and will it happen again?

It was a huge success. The FSE put itself and its member guilds on the map in 2006 with the First European Conference and the Manifesto of the European Screenwriters. The First World Conference was only possible because of the attention that created. And it was amazing because for the first time we had writers from all over the world in one room - can you imagine the energy and the power? The Second World Conference is already in the works and this time it will involve writers from countries which were not present in the first one - like India - and it will have a much stronger participation from the Latin American guilds. The plan is for the WCOS II to take place in Madrid in November 2012. And of course the focus will be on the internet.

The European Screenwriters Manifesto was launched in 2006 - is it still important now?

Very much so. We have made progress on some of the points raised through the Manifesto, but there is still a lot to be done. The Manifesto was conceived as a very ambitious plan - and ambition means work. 

What plans does the FSE have for the future?

We will make waves with WCOS II. Stay tuned.

Professor Christina Kallas, author of five books, among them the acclaimed “Creative Screenwriting. Understanding Emotional Structure”, and president of the Federation of Screenwriters in Europe, has contributed to film and screenwriting theory with her emotional structure theory and the improv for writers method, and is credited with writing and/or producing a.o. four feature films, two TV series and a made-for-TV movie.

She has served the industry as the chair of the commission for the financing of script development and a member of the commission for the financing of film production at the German Federal Film Board in Berlin and as the artistic director of the Balkan Fund.

She has taught at the German Film and Television Academy in Berlin, the International Film School in Cologne, the Scuola Holden per le Techniche Narrative in Torino, the Film Studies Department of the Aristotle University in Thessaloniki and at the NYU. She is currently teaching at the Columbia University Film Program. She is the founder of the Writers Improv Studio in New York.

Interview by Tom Green for UK Writer, The Writers’ Guild of Great Britain Magazine

January 9, 2012

http://www.writersguild.org.uk/news-a-features/general/249-europa-

Amazon link to buy Christina’s book, filled with invaluable and illuminating information about getting to the emotional core of a story.