9
Future, Present, Past
Grammatically, every verb can be conjugated in the fundamental tenses: past, present, future. I killed, I kill, I shall kill. A noun, however, is not bound to time. “House” or “dog” or “anger” cannot be conjugated.
A verb represents action. Therefore action can be conjugated in the three time dimensions.
Dramatically speaking, past, present and future exist together in the motion picture story.
This is a fundamental realization. It would seem that because the happenings are shown in actual execution we are only concerned with the present. This is a false impression. Past and future form a very important part of the story.
A person can say in the picture: “I committed a murder.” Or he can be shown in the process of committing a murder, or he can say: “I shall kill him.” Consequently, we are in a position to represent not only the present, but also the past and the future.
These different times have different effects upon us and arouse different emotions: the anticipation of a horrible event arouses fear in us; when we actually see it, it fills us with terror; and when it has happened, our only emotion is sorrow. Similarly, a good thing which is expected fills us with hope; when it actually happens it gives us joy and afterwards satisfaction. It is not possible to experience fear or hope with regard to something which is happening or has happened, but only if it is about to happen or going to happen. Nor can we experience terror or pleasure because of something that will happen in the future, nor can we feel sorrow or satisfaction before something has actually taken place. Therefore the past, present, and future of the story are most important.
Time progresses from the future into the present and thence into the past. Therefore, all action progresses from the future into the present and into the past. I shall kill him, I kill him, I killed him.
Such being the case, it is not possible for us to consider only one of these stages. The three are linked together: before doing something, I must have the intention of doing it, an intention desires its execution — that is, an action — and after an action has taken place, it exists as a result. From the result we can conclude that an action was necessary to achieve it, and from an action we can conclude that an intention to do so must have preceded it.
For this reason, different actions may exist in different stages of time at one moment of the motion picture story.
A hears that B has killed C. The murder is an action in the past. A takes a revolver from a drawer. This is an action in the present. A has the intention to kill B. This is the intention to do an action in the future. Consequently, all three times exist at one moment in the same scene.
It is necessary to recognize certain factors in the nature of these three times. An action which is planned for the future registers in our mind as an impending event. Knowing the progress of time from future into the present, we expect that this impending event will, at a certain moment, come into the present, that is, into actual execution. But there is a two-fold uncertainty connected with this transition from future into present. For one thing, the extent of the future is limitless, we do not know at what time the event which is planned will move into the present. It can happen within a split second if we decide to slap somebody’s face. Or it can take two years until we get a chance to do it. But even the split second represents a plan for the future, that is, an intention to do it preceded the action. The second uncertainty is the fact that an intention to do something can be frustrated. Even though we may have the intention of slapping somebody, we may never have a chance to do it.
The present dissolves both uncertainties. If we see the actual happening, that is, the execution of the intention, we know automatically at what moment the future moved into the present. Furthermore, our doubt of the fulfillment of the intention is removed because we see the actual happening. The present does not represent an actual stage of being; it is only the line where the future moves into the past. While the extent of the future is limitless, the present is not even the fragment of a second. If we drop a hammer, we have had an intention to drop it which inch by inch moved into the result, that is, from the future through the present into the past. Generally speaking, the present is so quickly gone that we do not have time to conceive or understand an action in its actual execution. We must have previous information of what people want to do in order to understand what they are doing. The knowledge of the future must precede the event so as to make it intelligible.
Just as the future, the past is limitless. An event moves further and further into the past, and consequently further and further away from us who are always staying in the present. Therefore it becomes less and less interesting. The fundamental difference between past and future lies in the fact that an event, once it is removed to the past, can never again reach the present whereas an impending event can move into the present.
For these reasons, the past of the motion picture story is fairly uninteresting to us. It is valuable only as motivation for future intentions. The present is so short that it does not give us a chance to conceive or understand a happening. Consequently, the future in the motion picture story remains as the fundamentally important time.
The general belief that the present is the essential time stems from a misconception: we are interested in the future with regard to its moving into the present. Nevertheless, our interest remains in the future. And the two uncertainties connected with the future jif it will move into the present and at what time) are not a disadvantage, but to the contrary, an incentive to our interest.
The foregoing investigations about past, present, future, are difficult to understand, but they are absolutely necessary. Not only did we find that the future is the most important time, but we shall see later that the future in the motion picture is more important than in any other form of storytelling. This is a new knowledge, but without it no good motion picture writing is possible.
Director Robert Zemekis deals interestingly with past, present, and future considerations in his time-travel trilogy Back to the Future (1985; Part II, 1989; Part III, 1990), wherein the hero travels back in time in an effort to change history, which begins in the present and becomes the future.
Motive, Intention, Goal
Having understood the relation between past, present, and future, we need the knowledge of further facts in regard to action.
Let us, for example, imagine that a man is killed. It is logical that there must have been a reason for this action.
A motive for the action will result in an intention to act. Before we do something, we must have the intention of doing it.
An intention always desires the attainment of a goal. In the above example, the goal would be the death of the other person. Every action has a result, therefore every intention must have a goal. It is not possible for an intention to exist without a goal.
The motive invariably comes before the intention and the intention before the goal. We shall investigate them in the order of their appearance.
The Motive
No action is possible without a cause. There are actions of objects and actions of human beings. A stone falling down from the mountain is the action of an object. But if a man kills another one, we have an action of a human being. The actions of objects are caused by physical laws while the actions of men are caused by the human will. We speak of the cause for the action of an object, and of the motive for the action of a human being.
The connection between cause and effect is direct. But the motive as the cause for a human action is less obvious. It took human psychology to show that any action — even the most accidental and unimportant doings — have their motives, which may be found in the distant past or in the subconscious mind. Without a motive no human being will do anything.
Now, we must ask, what constitutes a motive? What makes a human being act?
A human being will act to remove pain. If he feels no pain, he will be satisfied to remain in the painless state — he will not act. Therefore the motive is pain.
The human being feels pain when he wants something and does not have it or when he does not want something and has it. These two different types of motives might be called affinity and repulsion. Affinity is the desire to be united with something, and repulsion is the desire to be separated from something. Affinity means that the human being wants something, and repulsion means that the human being does not want something. Affinity could be described as “love,” and repulsion as “hatred.”
The lack of something wanted as well as the presence of something unwanted is reflected by pain. The human being acts to acquire something which it wants or to eliminate something which it does not want.
If it acquires the thing it lacks, the pain ceases to exist, and consequently the motive for action is destroyed. If it repels the thing which it does not want, the pain ceases and consequently the motive for action.
If a man is hungry, he feels pain because he lacks food. Hunger is pain caused by a lack. From it results the intention to eat. If a man is tired, it is because he lacks sleep. Fatigue is pain caused by a lack. From it results the intention to sleep or rest. One might say that the man “loves” food or that he “loves” sleep.
But if a man is freezing, he feels pain because of the presence of cold. Freezing is pain caused by the presence of something unwanted. From it results the intention to get warm. If a man is hot, it is because of the presence of heat. To feel hot is pain caused by the presence of something unwanted. From it results the intention to cool off. You might say that the man “hates” cold, or that he “hates” heat.
We must not believe that pain has to be inflicted before constituting a motive. We may be afraid that we shall be hungry and so we work to avoid being hungry. The motive for our action is not pain which has already been inflicted, but the fear of pain. Our action will try to prevent the pain which may be caused to us in the future. We might say that the fear of pain is already felt as pain.
The principal affinity in our lives is love between two people, and the principal repulsion is the hatred between enemies. Love must be understood as the desire to be united with somebody we lack. Plato in his Symposium tells the following story about the creation of men: man and woman were once one human being with four feet and four arms. Later, a god cut them into halves, one part being man and the other part woman. Since that time each half has been searching for the one from which it was cut. This tale is interesting to us because it conceives man as lacking the woman and vice versa. The intention to overcome this lack is felt as love. It is the desire to eliminate a pain which is caused by the separation of man and woman. Love is not a state of being, but an unceasing struggle to eliminate pain. When the lovers are united, the lack and consequently the pain-motive ceases to exist. Since this is never fully possible for any length of time, the tie between love and pain, constantly deplored in poetry, is thus explained.
Enemies, however, want to repel each other. In this case the pain is not felt because of the lack of something, but because of the presence of something unwanted. Therefore the motive comes into existence by bringing the enemies together.
Pain caused by the forces of affinity originates from separation of the parts which “love” each other, while pain through the forces of repulsion comes into existence by bringing together the parts which “hate” each other.
The Intention
In order to understand the full meaning of the intention, we must give a very comprehensive definition.
If we put a pot with water on the stove, we might say that the fire has the intention to boil the water. If we drop a stone from a mountain, the stone has the intention to fall. If a train moves at a speed of 100 miles an hour, it has the intention to continue at this speed while the law of friction has the intention to slow it down.
With respect to human intentions, we find a great variety: there are conscious and unconscious intentions, there are intentions to act or intentions to react, there are voluntary or involuntary intentions. They can be direct or indirect, obvious or subtle. We must discard the belief that the only type of intention is the conscious and voluntary intention, the volition where a man wants something and knows that he wants it.
Here are some examples for the latter type: Someone wants to go to New York, or a woman may want a divorce. A banker may want to make a million dollars, or a thief may want to steal cattle. A girl may want to have her back scratched, and a boy may want to play football. Although the exertion of the human will, the conscious intention, is the most valuable dramatic intention, we cannot limit ourselves to it.
If a man is cut, he has the intention to bleed. A man in a burning house has the intention to run away. It must be understood that in bleeding we do not have the intention to act, but the intention to react. The man who runs from the burning house does not voluntarily do so but is forced to do it.
Although the amount of possible intentions is as inexhaustible as life itself, and although these intentions widely differ from one another, there are certain principles which hold true for all of them.
An intention always leads into the future. Everything that leads into the future is an intention. No event can take place in the future unless somebody or something intends it to happen.
An intention comes into existence through a motive. The intention always wants to attain a goal. The goal is always identical with the elimination of the motive. Therefore, the intention becomes extinct as soon as the goal is attained.
But there is nothing in the nature of the intention which guarantees its success. A motive invariably results in an intention; the intention invariably sets a goal; but this goal may or may not be attained. The intention may be fulfilled or frustrated. If a man wants to go to New York, the goal is set. But it is not certain whether he will get to New York or not.
Of course, an intention which is not opposed must necessarily reach the goal which it set out to attain. If the man wants to go to New York, he will get there, unless he is prevented. It is possible, however, that the path of the intention is obstructed by difficulties; then the intention can be frustrated.
In any event, the intention must be completed. Completion is not identical with the attainment of the goal; it merely means that the intention is brought to an end, by fulfillment or frustration, by success or failure.
The clash of the intention with the difficulty results in a struggle. This is the most important function of the intention. It must be understood that human beings can stand in contrast, but conflict can only result from their intentions. As long as two people are merely together, no matter how great their contrast, no conflict can result. Only when their intentions clash does a conflict arise.
Thus we have found the two reasons which give the intention paramount importance over all other dramatic elements: It is the only means of creating conflict, and it is the only element which leads into the future.
The Goal
We prefer to use the term goal instead of objective. The latter implies a conscious, voluntary intention whereas the goal is set by any kind of intention.
The goal is a result in the future. The intention desires to achieve this result. The goal exists whether it is attained or not. However, a goal cannot exist without an intention. If we intend to go to Wilmington, this city is our goal. But Wilmington is not a goal by itself, it is not a goal through any specific qualities of its own, but solely through our intention to go there. If we do not want to go there, it loses its qualities as a goal.
Cause and effect are directly and immediately connected. But between motive and goal may or may not be a distance. This distance is the length of the intention. If a man gets slapped and hits right back, the length of the intention is very short. But if he plans to puncture the aggressor’s tires instead of hitting back, the distance between motive and goal is longer. A day or a week may pass before he can fulfill his intention. In both cases, the intention is revenge, but the direction which the intention takes to attain the goal is different. The two components of goal are distance and direction.
If we go on an excursion, we must know two things: either we know the goal and the direction in which it can be found, in which case the distance is a result of the two known factors; or we must know the direction and the distance and through these two known factors, we find the goal.
In other words, if we know that our goal is Wilmington, and if we know the direction in which to go, we know the distance after we have arrived in Wilmington. Or if we know that we have to go ten miles in a certain direction, we know that we have arrived at the goal after traveling ten miles.
The most important factor concerning the goal is that two or more intentions may have the same goal. Several people may want to go to Wilmington. Several men may want to marry the same woman. The same goal may be identical for different intentions.
First, let us assume that a gangster intends to rob a bank. The police want to prevent it. They have the same goal. But the gangster’s goal is positive, while the goal of the police is negative.
Or let us imagine that a man desires to marry a girl, while her father wants to prevent him from doing that. Again, we have a negative and a positive goal. But if two men want to marry the same woman, we have opposing intentions. Still the goal is identical.
It is obvious that the identity of the goal will bring the different people in relation to each other. It is obvious that the two rivals for the love of the same woman will fight with each other. Now consider the other possibility: Each of them loves a different woman. Each of them has a separate goal. Their actions can hardly be related to each other, because their intentions are not focused upon the same goal. Since their intentions are parallel, the story falls apart in two separate halves. Connection between them becomes difficult and painful, almost impossible.
Therefore the focusing of the intentions upon the same goal is of vital importance to the dramatic story. From it results contention, conflict, action. Very often, the goal is diffuse. Then the writer wonders why he cannot lead his characters into any dramatic situations.
Despite the dangers which two different goals contain, it is very often necessary to use them, mostly in pictures that have an action story but require at the same time a love story. One intention is victory over the adversary; the other must be boy wants to get girl. To avoid the splitting of the story into two separate parts by these two parallel intentions, the author must try and bring them into as close a connection as possible. He will be successful if he is able to unite them in this way: Boy can only get girl if he wins victory over his adversaries. Or he can only win victory over his enemies if he gets girl. Thereby the second goal is eliminated. In the first case the only goal is to get the girl, while the victory over his adversaries is reduced to a necessary condition to attain the goal. In the second case it is reversed.
The same goal may be desired by a large group of people. In that case they are all held together by the identity of the goal. For instance, a football team trains to win an important game. The common goal is to win that game. Or all the members of an underground movement have a desire to defeat the government. But people living in an apartment house form no basis for successful construction just because they live in the same building. But if the street in front of their house is torn up, and their common goal is to have it repaired quickly, they become united from the point of view of dramatic structure. Or an endangered airplane may join not only the passengers and the crew, but also various people on the ground, in a common effort to save the passengers and crew.