Wild Cards

I started reading Wild Cards soon after it came out, in 1988, primarily because science fiction legend Roger Zelazny was one of the people involved with it. Under the guidance of George R.R. Martin, who has since become well known for another book series, Zelazny and others wrote stories of an alternate Earth that was infected by an alien virus, one that (sometimes) gives superpowers to ordinary people. And sometimes....not.

It's a very rich and interesting world where superheroes and supervillians and all sorts of people in between exist. I continued to read until the 6th book in the series a few years later. When I stopped, it probably was for no reason other than other things to take up my time while I was waiting for the 7th to come out.

When Martin announced earlier this week that the series would be adapted for television, the big surprise was that it took so long. It's superheroes, it's anti-heroes, it's Mr. Game of Thrones, who was saying "No"?

But I'm not here to talk about that. I'm here to clarify something that EVERY SINGLE SITE I've checked - none of whom include people who have read any of the books, clearly - is getting wrong.

That alien virus was developed by an alien race called the Takisians. Their home planet is Takis. They look human, can speak English, you wouldn't look twice at them except, perhaps, for the flamboyant fashions they prefer - at least if they are noble Takisians, not the serfs that make up most of the population.

These noble Takisians, many of them anyway, have psychic powers of various types and levels. One noble family develops a virus that enhances them - or should. They hadn't tested it yet.

And then they found Earth. In the year 1946, the virus is released, and it works. Using a broad definition of the word.

• Ninety percent of the time, infected humans die, often in messy ways, like dissolving away or bursting into flame. This is called "drawing a Black Queen." 
• Nine percent of the time, infected humans end up horribly deformed. These people are called Jokers. (Yes, it's rude to call them that - the civil rights of Jokers is a recurring plot point.)
• One percent of the time, infected humans gain extraordinary powers. These people are Aces.

Which you will get depends on...well, nobody is exactly sure, although the manifestation of the effects often depend on each individual's self-image. You can even get an Ace power, like flying, combined with a Joker deformation - like bat wings. Because it's so unpredictable, the virus is dubbed the Wild Card virus. And those are the cards that are dealt.

Let me take a moment here to say that the individual stories vary in terms of what generational story they represent. JetBoy, one of the first characters introduced, has a story that could be called a Heroic tragedy of failed sacrifice. The story of Croyd, the Sleeper, is definitely about the futility of effecting change, even as the virus changes him over and over. There is room for all of the generations and all the stories, throughout. Sometimes they bind together into larger narratives, which similarly may be stories of Redemption or Sacrifice or Self-Actualization or Futility.

But that's not my point here.

As mentioned, ninety percent of those infected draw the Black Queen. This has somehow been inferred, BY EVERY SITE I WENT TO, that most of the world is dead.

This is not the case.

The Wild Card virus is not that infectious. If you catch it, it gets to work altering your DNA, expanding your internal psychic potential, and letting the cards fall where they may. It doesn't make more copies of itself. It doesn't spread from person to person, at least not easily, and almost everyone who was ever infected caught the virus when it was first dispersed into Earth's atmosphere.

What this means is that there was a wave of deaths in Manhattan, where the virus was first released. Enough was blown into the atmosphere to spread around the world, leaving pockets of Jokers and Aces where it touched. Most people, though, never catch it. These remaining normal people, a population about the same size as we have today, have to figure how to live in a world with people who can increase gravity around them or teleport people by pointing their finger; where Mick Jagger is a werewolf and there really is a Lizard King; where the homeless encampment down the way includes a guy always covered in slimy mucus and another with tentacles growing out of his face.

That's all I want to say. Except that I am glad that more people will find out about Croyd and Dr. Tachyon (a Takisian who tries to stop the virus but...doesn't) and The Great and Powerful Turtle and Walrus and the Swarm and all the other fun characters to be found there.

Annie Hall

The title for Woody Allen's Best Picture-winning 1977 film was going to be Anhedonia.

That term means "inability to feel pleasure," and well describes the lead character of Alvy Singer, played by (and evidently based on) the writer and director. Supposedly that title was nixed by the studio, probably for making a romantic comedy seem like a weird foreign art film. Even though, when spoken, it's a nice double pun, as the first syllables sound like "Annie." It also makes a good fit with the writer, the setting, and the unapologetically Artist story of futility and inability to change.

If you haven't been here before, please take a look at the Introduction to Generations, the Generational Attributes and the Four Stories in order to get up to speed on how all this works, and the terms being used.

An internet search for the film indicates that Anhedonia was not only an earlier name but an earlier vision for the film.  It would have been a wide-ranging look at the life of Alvy Singer, of which the relationship with Annie was only one part. In a press conference many years later,  Woody Allen said that everyone focused on that relationship, and that's how the film ended up as it did.

 (His comments on Annie Hall are at about the 44 minutes point in that video.)

It's set in the mid-1970s, with topical references such as the near-bankruptcy of New York City, so Setting and Generations are simple. It's during the Consciousness Revolution, an Awakening period, and shows all the uncertainty and change happening around the characters. Since Alvy appears based on Woody Allen, using his 1935 birthdate seems reasonable, making him Silent generation, an Artist archetype. Diane Keaton is Boom generation, born 1946. Their on-screen disagreements appear generationally related, with Alvy dismissive of Annie's marijuana ("...will make a white woman more like Billie Holliday") and Annie not quite getting his interest in death and therapy. 

The Artist story being about the doomed and the damned, perpetrators and victims, the futility of change, this unexpectedly not only matches, but does so as a comedy. Told as a description of an already-ended relationship, Alvy appears doomed to a life alone, Annie damned to the sunny hell that is Los Angeles.

And, like life, it is "all over much too quickly."

This doesn't sound as if it should be funny, but there is still plenty of room for humor in such a tale. It might even be humor's natural place. Steve Kaplan does a course on comedy writing that says comedy requires a conflict where the tools required to succeed are not available, yet there is still the possibility of success. As an example of being able to win, Kaplan specifically uses the example of Alvy, in line at a movie theater, countering the claims of an overloud intellectual by literally pulling media philosopher Marshall McLuhan into the conversation. Alvy is similarly struggling to be in a relationship with Annie, without the tools needed to let others love him, but he is still  - in parts and places - able to succeed. Alvy even forces a win at the end, when he writes a play about their relationship, one where he gets the last word with Annie, and she still loves him. He seems a little sheepish at the "cheat," noting that an artist wants his art to work out, since life often doesn't. 

A Quick Note on Game of Thrones

It's no surprise that someone else has already attempted to do a generational analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire. This one was done a couple of years ago, when about three seasons of Game of Thrones were done. Nonetheless, it mostly uses what's in the books.

Because of that, and because of aging of the characters in the show (referenced there), it has slightly different results. The recent generation - Jon Snow and the other Stark children for example - are identified as Civics, still, and the Lannisters are Nomads in both. Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark, however, are also Nomads, rather than Prophets.

That analysis used birth years from the books, and identified some generations differently than my analysis, which infers birth years from the actors portraying them. In particular, Jaime and Cersei are portrayed by Gen X actors (Lena Headey b. 1973, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau b. 1970) while Sean Bean (b. 1959), more than ten years older, is a young Boomer. In the books, Ned Stark is only about three years older than the Lannister twins - still possible for them to be separate generations, if much less likely.

Considering their resolute adherence to principle, though, the idea of Ned Stark and others of a similar age - like Brother Ray and the Head Sparrow - being a Prophet generation is still compelling.

The Winds of Winter

The Game of Thrones Season 6 finale was shown on HBO last night. This is more about the finale, itself, although it will go into some of the generational observations made previously, and what we can tell about what is next. Mostly random observations, though - and spoilers abound, of course.

Members of the Prophet archetype generation don't fare well in Westeros, do they? First Ned, later Brother Ray, and now the High Sparrow have ended up dead when they wouldn't listen to warnings about over-reliance on their principles. 

Narratively speaking,  why is The Citadel a big deal? It is built up as a major location - perhaps the last new place to be seen.  In the longest episode to date of the series, several minutes were spent viewing it inside and out. All all that really happened, though, was that Sam had arrived, after a long journey. Why not simply have a scene where Jon Snow receives a note, saying he had arrived? There's probably a good reason for it...but what?

And a bit of research shows that the large tower is not the Citadel, and the location is actually called Oldtown. It was the center of the Faith of the Seven, until it was moved to... The Great Sept at Balor.

Who here thought the dark-haired serving girl at the Twins was from Dorne? A bit of a surprise, there.

A quick note to the Sand Snakes:  Their sire was killed in a legitimate trial by combat for which he volunteered and in which he was soundly defeated because he forgot to keep his distance from a man whose arms were as big as his head. Granted that he elicited a confession about a brutal war crime 20 years before - assuming they worry about war crimes in Westeros, which seems unlikely. 

The final episode of Season 1, Fire and Blood, was frequently referenced, for example:

• Petyr talks with Sansa about his dreams of sitting on the Iron Throne. Varys chatted with him about that subject previously. 
• The previous episode's title was said by Varys, in Dorne.
• Pycelle has a scene with a prostitute in both episodes.

Even though really melting down and reforging a blade wouldn't necessarily result in a new weapon with the exact properties of the original metal, it's implied that Oathkeeper is still Valyrian steel, with the ability to kill white walkers. When Sam retrieved the ancestral Valyrian steel blade from his home, he said there were very few such remaining. And where is there another source of such fine steel about? Fourth Turnings are about major changes to how the world works, in response to problems too long left alone. The next to sit upon the Iron Throne may consider its importance as a symbol less valuable than as a source of raw material. (Although it's also possible that no Valyrian blades were used in its creation.)

Tyrion's speech to Daenerys begins in a way that matches very precisely with how Strauss & Howe explained the Nomad/Reactive point of view:

For what it's worth, I've been a cynic for as long as I can remember. People ask me to believe in things — family, gods, kings, myself. It's often tempting, until I saw where belief gets people. So I said no thank you to belief, and yet here I am. I believe in you. It's embarrassing, really.

Consider this confirmation of him being a Nomad, along with his brother and sister. Note also that he is a valued councilor giving practical advice, as happens in such times. 

It looked like Walter Frey was served an otherwise traditional pork pie. Except to the extent that it wasn't.

Jon Snow is a Stark, it turns out, although not Ned's son. He's also a Targaryan. Wedding traditions probably don't preclude alliances between relatives, so it might work out for him and Danyrys. (Except that it seems likely one or the other will be sacrificed to let the world live. )

Lyanna was surprisingly protective of a child that was supposedly fathered forcibly after her abduction by Rhaegar. Which raises the possibility that she wasn't abducted nor raped, but eloped. 

Perhaps implicit but not brought up yet: a lot of troops have died in the last few years of war. The Battle of the Bastards was only a few thousand on each side to start, and most of those were dead by the end. There might not be more than a few tens of thousand troops left in all of Westeros, much less any as skillful as the Unsullied.

There are a couple of threads in the episode, so saying it's a single story mode may be over-simplifying. Still, it's one where change is possible, but redemption is unlikely - the Nomad version of tragedy, that is. Except for Daenerys, of the Hero generation, who makes a sacrifice that's required to win the prize she seeks.

Dearly departed Hodor and Lyanna were of the same (Prophet) generation as Ned Stark.  The ruthless Petyr Baelish, a suitor of Catelyn, likely is as well.  Perhaps it's a matter of not having principles...

Trainwreck

This should be quick, because the 2015 movie Trainwreck is quickly categorized in this generational framework. Even the title reveals where it is going.

If you haven't been here before, please take a look at the Introduction to Generations, the Generational Attributes and the Four Stories in order to get up to speed on how all this works, and the terms being used.

Trainwreck was directed by GenX filmmaker Judd Apatow (b. 1967) and written by comedian Amy Schumer, who also stars as the titular Younger Lady With Some Issues.  It's set in the current era, although without significant mentions of Crisis-related events such as terrorism or the Great Recession. For analysis purposes, the assumption here will be that characters are of the same generation as the actor they are portrayed by.

It's a Redemption Story, where the main character (based on Amy and named after her) is portrayed as flawed, in particular because of a bias against long-term relationships and toward one-night stands. Her attitudes were inculcated by her father, played by Boomer Colin Quinn (b. 1959). She eventually is redeemed by the love of a good man, played by Bill Hader (GenX, b. 1978).

Most of the characters, then, are Generation X, a Nomad archetype generation. Brought up in Awakening periods, these generations are never perceived as Good as the Prophet archetype that precedes them. Indeed, they are seen - even by their own members - as Bad (mal), at least to start. They tend to favor stories where these mal characters improve their lives and become better people.  Which may lessen any surprise from realizing that Amy Schumer (b. June 1, 1981) is Generation X as well.

Watchmen

Watchmen was on at the gym one day, and in hindsight it seems clearer why it might not have done so well.

There’s plenty to enjoy in it - the opening montage, with its pan across Dealy Plaza, showing the Comedian and his role in JFK’s death; the back story of Dr. Manhattan; Rorschach’s prison, uh, survival tactics. On the other hand, the blue guy is such a whiner, Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II have little in common besides being bundles of neuroses, and everything flows together into a depressing, hopeless, soulless mess.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, necessarily. And the movie is a faithful enough adaptation of the comic series, using the same character and story. Why are the comics considered a classic of literature, the film ... not so much?

If you haven't been here before, please take a look at the Introduction to Generations, the Generational Attributes and the Four Stories in order to get up to speed on how all this works, and the terms being used.

One might imagine an alternate world where the film would have done better. In 1972, it might have given The Godfather a run for its money: Of COURSE the world is corrupt, the politicians on the take, everything we knew about history subsumed under a veneer - no, a heavy coat - of Keep The People Down By Any Means Necessary. These heroes, previously held up as Guardians of The American Way, turn out to be venal, imperfect, often vicious, occasionally corrupt, sometimes flat evil. And while there might be the hope of redemption - for our heroes, for the world, for anything - it is ultimately dashed.

Even going back to The Godfather, at least Michael Corleone’s success - bloody and evil though it is - is still a success. He protects his family, saves the family business, keeps his father's legacy alive. Perhaps that's the problem with Watchmen: It's not that it's morally ambiguous, but narratively so. At the end, is the audience sure where they are, where they are going? Or is it all SO unsettled and uncertain that we can’t accept the New World that has been drawn for us?

It definitely fits in the Four Stories framework, but not as a movie that people would want to see in 2009, a few months after the financial meltdown made a movie about corruption redundant.  It’s so completely an Artist movie, with the final choices really a matter of being Doomed (like Rorshach) or Damned (like, well, everyone else). Redemption is out, and there isn’t anything that equates to a victory in the end state. Maybe the tiniest bit of hope, sure, that Truth Will Come Out. And Ozymandias’ success - victory not being an appropriate term -at least suggests the possibility of change, that the current state of the world isn’t how it will always be, that things might just get better. (Using a sufficiently broad definition of "better," anyway.) That’s all you get, though, for a nearly three-hour movie, which isn’t going to be an experience people clamor for in these years after 9/11. Once we are through this Crisis, perhaps towards the end of the High, after a decade or so of being told that We Are The Best, people might want to see some reminders that, No, We Aren’t, Always. Until then, though, it’s going to be of rare interest - and it still has to be good enough for someone to want to watch.

Worth noting, also, that the thought of Nixon in charge in 1980 is intended to be an indication that this is The Darkest Timeline, the Worst Of All Possible Worlds. Which seems like the authors’ hearts being out on their sleeves: Thirty years later, Nixon isn’t seen in the same light as he was when the comic came out -  a few years after Watergate and a decade after Vietnam. Relentless history can mess with your story structures if you put too much political capital in a load-bearing role.

Is there a fix for this? Consider some other movies, particularly Doomed/Damned ones like this. Rosemary is Doomed but by the end of the movie we know the situation she is in. Michael Corleone is Damned but he will survive and thrive for the foreseeable future. Leaving people with a world that hasn’t definitely changed, though, leaves the audience similarly in an uncertain state. We can solve that by giving one of the characters a very certain situation - but it would have to be a character the audience can identify with. Not dead, that is, or excessively rich and smart, nor a mystical being of pure force. Make the lovers break up and you have a more personal and more real tragedy that contrasts yet points up the much larger tragedy of death and destruction. Push them together and Love Conquers All. Either way, though, we have a better window into the effects the film's events have on everyone.

Perhaps all it really needs is confirmation that someone -- even Ozymandias -- really is definitely Right. Dr. Manhattan is a smart guy, and the rest of the heroes are convinced: The audience should be as well. That's what happens with Michael Corleone, after all.  He is in a better world than if he had failed, even if his success is tragic in its own way.  

Jurassic World

Jurassic World has a lot to recommend it. It gives a feeling of wonder at the successful completion of John Hammond's dream, a place where people can see dinosaurs up close and in natural environments. Thematically, though, it's all over the place. Is it about Teamwork is Good, or Corporations are Bad, or Nature Cannot Be Overcome, or something else?

If you haven't been here before, please take a look at the Introduction to Generations, the Generational Attributes and the Four Stories in order to get up to speed on how all this works, and the terms being used.

It probably should be a Heroic story, with the main characters working together to take care of the crisis on Isla Nublar, perhaps even returning it to a state where it is a working tourist destination, or something better. That would have had the additional advantage of being a different sort of story from the previous films in the franchise. It might have worked as Redemption - Claire has some issues she needs to work out - but the circumstances of her salvation appear to be a) getting the kids to safety and b) getting romantically involved with her co-worker.  It's not a Prophet story - nobody is seeking (or achieving, for that matter) a better state of being. It does work adequately (not well) as an Artist story:  The pinnacle of achievement that was the Jurassic World dinosaur theme park  is destroyed by the hubris and bad planning of those in charge, with even those who get away scarred by the experience. The state of the characters at the end isn't that hopeless, though. Even the "triumph" of the Tyrannosaurus Rex at the end - telling us, perhaps, that nature will overcome - is weak, since she's not a character with which  the audience had any emotional involvement.

The setting appears intended as today or the near tomorrow. There's no war or spiritual awakening in progress. Perhaps it's a First Turning, with people excited about this grand technological future they are in, and everyone belongs to their company. (Unless I missed it, every adult we meet is an Ingen employee...) Owen and Claire are played by GenX actors, though, and seem to have associated Nomad characteristics - Owen, in particular, has some Indiana Jones in his DNA.

The original novel of Jurassic Park can be seen as an Artist story - it's a cautionary tale of the events on Isla Nublar, which hardly anyone survives, and the invocation of chaos theory seems shorthand for "you can't fix anything." (Michael Crichton, Silent Generation, b. 1942 often wrote stories where the hero barely survives in a world that is flawed and likely doomed.) The movie of Jurassic Park, as is typical for Spielberg (Boomer, b. 1946), puts a focus on the main character ( played by Sam Neill) as a father figure who needs to become the father figure he was meant to be, saving the children under his care. (Even that one had weaknesses, apart from the spectacle of watching lifelike dinosaurs on the screen).

Certainly there may be little point in nitpicking a film that was one of the most financially successful ever. However, it didn't earn that all on its own - as the latest entry in a franchise 30 years in the making, it did well enough. It might have done better. It was not successful in awards, and not much of a critical success, probably for reasons such as these. Could a generational analysis have helped?

•  To make it a Hero story, the teamwork of the main characters could have been accentuated. A meaningful sacrifice - perhaps by Claire or Owen, but even by Masrani or Hopkins - would have shown that there was something important worth saving.
• A Redemption story would have required a focus on a single character, which probably would not have worked. A future that encompasses Isla Nublar's Jurassic World is too large a canvas for such focus.  Claire's redemption could have been done more effectively, though.
• A Prophet story would probably have focused on Owen, finding out that he needs to be more than an Alpha to the Raptors, perhaps becoming a savior that was able to resolve all the issues by setting up a perfect Eden for the dinosaurs there. (A Guardian of the Dinosaurs?)
• An Artist story would have required that someone be truly blamed for the issues with the park - better still if that person was able to survive and thrive. An end-credits scene with Dr. Wu being shown as the mastermind of all this, a man who wants nothing more than to create dinosaurs, and willing to sacrifice anyone to do it, might have worked.

Winter is Coming

The television series Game of Thrones is based on an epic fantasy series by George R.R. Martin, A Song of Ice and Fire. The series' name comes from the first book, A Game of Thrones, and its first episode is called "Winter is Coming." This is an allusion to the long "seasons" found on the world where it is set.

Anyone who has read The Fourth Turning may notice a coincidence: By way of comparison between seasons of the year and the different Turnings, that book's first chapter is called "Winter Comes Again."

If you haven't been here before, please take a look at the Introduction to Generations, the Generational Attributes and the Four Stories in order to get up to speed on how all this works, and the terms being used.

A Game of Thrones was published in 1996, a year before the fourth Turning. Martin began writing it about 1991, which was the same year that Generations was published. It might be possible that the authors influenced each other, but seems more likely that similar events inspired similar allusions.

Unlike previous assessments of known stories, this is the unusual case of a narrative that is not yet finished. The novels have a few more books to come, the series at least another season. It's also a massive ensemble of characters,  making it a daunting task to confirm the generations throughout it all.  The possibility that different regions are on different turnings would have to be considered as well: Generational cycles assume at least some communications between generations,  and in this world large areas never talk to each other. Dorne and Westeros, to name only two, could easily be in different Turnings. It may be best to start with a smaller target - something more manageable.

Even though the whole Story has not been revealed, we have clues enough on where it is going. The series title is one big one. Fire shows up many times - the sacrifices to the Lord of Light, in the secret weapon used by Tyrion at the Battle of Blackwater - but the real fire that  underlies it all, that was the source of power before the story opens,  is breathed by dragons.



Ice is seem more rarely, especially at the start when winter is coming, but not yet arrived.  It is nonetheless ubiquitous upon arrival at The Wall. It's north of that, though, that the real ice is found, in the form of the White Walkers, who dominate the ever-winter lands with power over life and death.

The Song is clearly going to lead to a battle between the two, one that will change the world, perhaps for hundreds of years. While some character arcs are already redemptive or tragic, the overall Story is clearly leading to a Heroic resolution, with teamwork and sacrifice and ultimate success. 

The conflagration that was the War of the Five Kings was sufficient to consider the events as happening during a Fourth Turning. If the story continues along the path suggested, that Fourth Turning will be continuing at least through that expected final battle between Fire and Ice.

How about the Characters themselves? For some of the major ones, the answers seem straightforward: 

• Ned Stark; the Head Sparrow: Principled and resolute - Prophets
• Cersei, Jaime, and Tyrion Lannister:  Practical, amoral, uncultured - Nomads
• Stark's children (Arya, Sansa, Robb, at least), Daenyres Targaryan: Insensitive and unreflective, selfless and overbold - Heroes

Even if this is too much making events fit into a box, and subjective in any case, the ease with the Characters fit the inferred Setting and expected Story is impressive. 

Network

To start, an economic joke that is so subtle I'm not sure it was intended. Nonetheless:

Classical economics sees the market as involving landlords - who get paid rent for the use of space; capitalists - who get paid in profits for the use of money;  and labor - paid in wages for effort. In television, this can be seen as the broadcast networks who own the airwaves; production companies who use money to produce content; and the workers who do the actual work. Laureen Hobbs,who is investing the Party's money to create a television show with the Great Ahmed Khan and transfer the content to the network, is the production company.

Which means, that "badass commie" has been twisted by television into becoming.... A capitalist. 

If you haven't been here before, please take a look at the Introduction to Generations, the Generational Attributes and the Four Stories in order to get up to speed on how all this works, and the terms being used.

 The film Network was released in 1976, and it ended up in competition for the Best Picture Academy Award against Rocky, All the President's Men, Taxi Driver, and Bound for Glory - all classic films of the New Hollywood era. And while it sometimes seems to be a drama, it's also very funny, in its bleak satirical way. Laureen Hobbs fighting with The Great Ahmed Khan over distribution rights. Newscaster Howard Beale suggesting that his planned on-air suicide should get a "50 share, easy". The head of the network using it to send a message, that message mostly being "will do anything for ratings." The radical steps taken to handle the resulting problems, and the classic last line.  It certainly reiterates that change is futile, that there are only perpetrators and victims.

While billed as the "Mad Prophet of the Airwaves," Howard Beale is obviously not a Baby Boomer. His marriage ended with his wife's death in 1970, and he says that he was married for thirty-three years, making him about 60 when the movie opens. Max Schumacher mentions being 26 when working with Edward R. Murrow in 1950, so he was born around 1924. Both of them are from the G.I. Generation, those with birthdates 1901-1924, old enough to have been adults during World War II. Max refers to Diana Christensen as being from a different generation, including once as being part of the "TV Generation." Her traits and apparent age suggest she is part of the Silent Generation (born 1925-1942). The actors themselves match these generations, although William Holden was actually only about two years younger than Peter Finch.

Screenwriter Paddy Chayevsky, whom we can assume is speaking through Howard Beale's prophecies of doom and danger, was born in 1923, making him G.I. Generation as well. With such predominance of G.I. influence, it's worth considering whether it fits better as Hero story, or an inversion of it. It can quickly be seen, however, that there is very limited teamwork among the characters. They are all pursuing their own inner-focused goals, based on abstract concepts such as truth, honor, and responsibility. Beale's fate is little changed by his actions, or by the virtues or vices of the Hero archetype. While a member of a Prophet generation would use his platform to tear down society in favor of something better, Beale's pronouncements lament the changes that are happening and suggests that it was the old days that were better. Mostly, though, he's really just going slowly mad, abetted by the large and then larger corrupt corporation that employs him.

Rocky

Sylvester Stallone wrote the script for Rocky, then famously used the script as leverage to star in the movie as well. It's one of the films created by a member of the Boom generation that was seen as the start of a new generation of filmmakers. It's also the first of them that has a story that works with the associated Prophet archetype.

If you haven't been here before, please take a look at the Introduction to Generations, the Generational Attributes and the Four Stories in order to get up to speed on how all this works, and the terms being used.

“Rocky” appears at first to straddle the line between the Doomed/Damned Artist movies of the New Hollywood  period and the Good Guy Wins paradigm when Boomers started taking over. After all, Rocky doesn’t really win, does he? It’s a split decision, leaving Apollo Creed as the undisputed heavyweight champion. There was even an original ending, as seen on the poster, of Rocky and Adrian walking quietly away from the fight, humble but happy. It’s not the absolute victory seen in Jaws and Star Wars nor in the dozens of sports underdogs movies that followed over the next 20 years.  

Still, by the given criteria, it’s rather clear that Rocky belongs with the Boomer movies rather than Silent Generation (Artist) ones. First: Are the protagonist and the other main characters either Doomed or Damned? If not, is there a good guy and a bad guy with the good guy winning? For Rocky, it’s much more the latter than the former. While Creed wins the bout - except that, really, he doesn’t lose - Rocky succeeds at his goal, to go the distance. He even surpasses it, by managing a split decision against the World Heavyweight Champion himself. Creed’s victory doesn’t neutralize Rocky’s, doesn’t make anyone’s life worse, doesn’t mean Rocky gets his fingers broken. (If it was a real New Hollywood picture, that twist could easily have found its way in: Rocky’s big break gets the unwelcome attention of his bosses, and he has to lose in order to stay alive, or completely annihilate Creed in order to “win.”)

There is - like Jaws and Star Wars, unlike The Godfather or Network - a definite Win for the protagonist that doesn’t lead to death or damnation. Still, Rocky doesn’t manage to be as audience-friendly as those which came after. It’s a long, slow drama that builds to an intense but not lengthy (under ten minutes!) fight sequence, which fight is the only real “action” in the whole film. (If you think the “Gonna Fly Now” montage is an action sequence...he slurps eggs, runs, gets to the top of the stairs, and raises his hands over his head. Stirring, excellent, not action.) Rocky gets to know the “pet shop dame,” argues with Micky and his boss, negotiates with Creed’s manager - almost all of the film is him talking with other people, and not always in a way that puts him in the best light. While it resembles New Hollywood's Artist movies in this way, it clearly is, and was, another stepping stone to Blockbuster Hollywood.

Purple Rain

As an investigation of changes in stories over time, this isn't the sort of blog that gets to be topical, usually. The death of Prince has naturally brought up his best-known narrative work, one that could not be escaped upon its release.

If you haven't been here before, please take a look at the Introduction to Generations, the Generational Attributes and the Four Stories in order to get up to speed on how all this works, and the terms being used.

In 1984, the movie Purple Rain played at movie theaters, the soundtrack was ubiquitous, the videos seemed non-stop on MTV. And people were still playing 1999 and Little Red Corvette. All. The. Time. 

It's watchable, well-produced,  worth having on in the background at a party, not the worst way to spend a afternoon. It's not quite a long-form music video, although it does feel at times like the narrative is just there as a way to tie the music together. For anyone who has dealt with difficult family situations while trying to get their own life started, it probably resonates, and returns a message of hope and possibility. 

How does it work in the generational model, then? It's been called semi-autobiographical, and is it ever a slice of its time, so it should be safe to use the people involved for this analysis. 

Characters: Prince, born 1958, is a late -wave Baby Boomer. Most of his peers in the movie, from Morris Day to Apollonia to Lisa, are also born around that time. (One unexpected exception is Wendy, a GenXer born in 1964.) The man playing The Kid's father was born in 1939, which makes him Silent generation. The actress who played his mother was born in 1947, so she's a bit young for the role - another Silent generation actress would have been old enough to actually have been his mother.  Still, the film primarily stars and represents  Baby Boomers, a Prophet archetype generation.

Setting: The early 1980s, late in the Awakening period that Strauss & Howe call the Consciousness Revolution. Which is fitting, considering the name of the Kid's (and Prince's) band. 

Story: The Kid is dealing with troubles at home, dissension in his band, an outside agitator in Morris Day and the Time, and a career that isn't quite moving as he had hoped. While he's a mercurial jerk at various times to almost everyone around him, it isn't a fundamental flaw he is working through. He succeeds instead when he is able to recognize in his father's music the same strivings that animate him.  From there he's able to integrate the various issues he's having by accepting Apollonia's love, acknowledging his bandmates' contributions, and allowing his own personality to come through on stage. It's a story of becoming the person he should be - aptly, a Prophet story. 

Some people really like this film, some do see it as a long-form music video. If the resolution is unsatisfying, this analysis might suggest that the Prophet arc needs to be clearer. The Kid starts off with troubles, some improvements happen, then bigger difficulties, then somehow he manages to pull himself out of it. Based on the goal of this archetypal story, it might be that accentuating his starting difficulties could help, particularly as they are tied together by the music that resolves them. Maybe the secret of The Time's success is how they throw their excitement out there, and The Kid has to learn how to do the same. Perhaps the similarities between the Kid and his father could be more obvious, at least to the audience if not the characters. Any of these would help the audience to understand why his Purple Rain set frees him, allowing him to become the star he is.. 

Macbeth

The Tragedy of Macbeth by William Shakespeare raises more complex questions than the previous stories investigated. The possible answers for the three main viewpoints aren't as clear, and it points up a weakness of the Four Stories as described so far.

Setting, at least, is obvious: like King Lear, Macbeth actions destroy King and country, invite invaders, and cause total war. It's Crisis time. 

Characters like Macbeth and his wife that are morally ambiguous or outright bad - what I've started calling mal - are Nomads often enough that 's easy to start with that and see where it leads. For the first few scenes of Macbeth, though, even knowing where things are going, this looks like an exception. Macbeth is called "noble," he has helped his king eliminate a traitor, and is being granted a grander title by this grateful sovereign.

Maybe he's not a bad guy.

Then, in the third scene, the witches tell him that he will be king.  Almost the first thing that comes to mind is "I could do it by killing King Duncan."  

Which doesn't mean the question is answered, or going to be answered with other options.  The generational attributes end up all over the place. Macbeth is ruthless but not  principled, pecuniary (insofar as the crown has inherent wealth) and practical,  indecisive and arguably neurotic.  On balance he does seem like a Nomad, although one could push the characterization in any direction. Which might explain why it is popular, if any generation can show the lessons they prefer to see:

• Artists: Fate can't be avoided; 
• Nomads: Evil is repaid, no matter how certain you are of success; 
• Prophets: Beware of ambition, or careful what you wish for;
• Heroes: Even a tyrant can fall to the strength of the team.  

This leaves little choice but to look at the Story, and the observation that the Four Stories have a bias towards uplifting results, of triumph over different sorts of adversity. Only the Artist story of Doom and Damnation is intrinsically tragic. (Which isn't the same as being a tragedy - Annie Hall, Doctor Strangelove, and The Producers all work as comedies and also as Artist stories.) Artist generations certainly aren't the only ones with tragedy in their lives. Still, their narratives seem to have this tendency. Since Macbeth is a tragedy, seeing it as an Artist story of Doomed and Damned is tempting. The problem is that the end result is triumphant in its way - the unequivocal bad guy is taken down. If we see the main character as Nomad, it would make sense for him to have a Redemption, but clearly that doesn't happen.  What does that leave?

Aristotle saw Tragedy as involving a tragic flaw that the main character is unable to avoid. In the generational view, people cannot escape the circumstances of birth. They get laden down with the events they experience, and the attitudes of adults during youth. What if that's the same, that tragic flaws are inherent in the same way? Then tragedy could be seen as either a) negative attributes that drag people down or b) positive attributes that are insufficient for salvation. Indeed, people can be dragged down by positive attributes as well, as Lear's desire for peace and fairness leads to his downfall. In general, then, tragedy becomes a reversal of the usual story,  happening through the failure of these fundamental attributes.

If this works, then what happens with Macbeth? His flaw seems to be a willingness to do bad things in order to improve his own situation. Trying to be practical leads him to additional murder, but doesn't set him on the path. If he'd stopped trying to fix things, though, there might not have been an opposition for Macduff to rally against him. In any case, it seems like an anti-Nomad story, where amorality and pragmatism lead the tragic figure to his inevitable end. Which further suggests that other generations have their own anti-stories, as well.

Bat Men

With the release of Batman vs Superman begins the fourth new film version of Batman in the last 50 years. In those four versions, views of this superhero can be seen changing as societal attitudes do. Generational turnover, too, appears to play a role.

If you haven't been here before, please take a look at the Introduction to Generations, the Generational Attributes and the Four Stories in order to get up to speed on how all this works, and the terms being used.

Batman: The Movie (1966 movie and television series)

This Batman is hardly hidden at all. He has a secret identity that he protects, but spends time on the streets, and works directly with the police. Robin is by his side throughout. Only criminals bring up his status as vigilante - the dangers of the day (and obvious government support) are sufficient to overlook that otherwise. He is effectively invincible, always ready with an unexpectedly specialized tool from his utility belt. His personal flaws are not even glossed over, but completely ignored in favor of his positive role as a savior of society in difficult times. 

Batman (1989 Tim Burton movie)

Michael Keaton's Batman is always in the shadows, trying to solve crimes without letting people know he exists. He fights mob corruption in the first movie, political corruption in Batman Returns. While his sanity is questioned by other characters, it's clear enough to the audience that he's the good guy.  He is more vulnerable than before, not always able to protect himself and others. although rarely outwitted or overcome. Robin shows up in the second sequel, Batman Forever, although having a sidekick doesn't seem to work well in this incarnation. 

Batman Begins (2005 Christopher Nolan film, start of The Dark Knight trilogy )

Bruce Wayne here has flaws that are shown from the start, and he needs to overcome many - including, in this origin story, a mentor who is not all that he seems.  His struggles are not only with unstoppable super-villains but with his own issues, inadequacies, and weaknesses. His vulnerabilities are specifically noted in this film and its sequels, where he is frequently injured and captured. Robin is absent, only suggested as a possible successor near the end of the third movie. 

This can be seen as a progression from a working-within-the-system Silent Adam West (b. 1928) to  an outside-the-mostly-corrupt-system Boomer Keaton (b. 1951) to completely-outside-and self- supported Generation X Bale (b. 1974). At the same time, Batman's flawed nature is being amplified, and whether the man himself is really good is questioned more.

This latest version of Batman is supposed to be a reboot, definitely different and separate from The Dark Knight. What can be expected from it? With Ben Affleck (b. 1972), it's another Generation X portrayal, so it's not likely to be a Heroic version, yet. It does appear to be a Crisis period, considering the level of destruction threatened by the villain.  While Batman has flaws, more time seems spent pointing out problems inherent in the alien savior Superman. When forced to take on bigger threats than either of them can handle alone, this Gen Xer appears forced to fight as part of a team. The other members of that team are played by Millennial actors Henry Caville and Gal Gadot.  Teamwork comes easily to Millennials, like other Hero generations, and it would make sense to have a strong team anchored by those who are good at working together. The older Batman, meanwhile, will be the one who finds teaming up difficult.  

King Lear

The Tragedy of King Lear by William Shakespeare is one of the Bard's best-known plays.

King Lear: Cordelia's Farewell 

By Edwin Austin Abbey - Metropolitan Museum of Art, Public Domain, 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=38699090

If you haven't been here before, please take a look at the Introduction to Generations, the Generational Attributes and the Four Stories in order to get up to speed on how all this works, and the terms being used.

In case you aren't up on the plot, Lear  is a more-tragic-than-usual tragedy. Which is to say, the title character makes one main mistake, one that isn't even that obviously wrong, but which leads to downfall for his family and his land.  Hamlet changes his plans far too often, Macbeth keeps killing to gain the throne, but Lear mostly screws up at the very start.

The king, looking to retire, decides to divide his kingdom among his offspring - three daughters. It doesn't work out well.  He asks for declarations of love, with which the two older daughters gladly flatter him. The youngest daughter, Cordelia, refuses to wax eloquent on her love for him, for which he disowns and banishes her.

Once the transfer of power is complete, of course, the other two daughters abandon him, leaving him to wander the land with his Fool and the disguised Earl of Kent. The daughters eventually go to war, the abandonment drives him insane, and while Cordelia eventually makes it back to her homeland, it's only to be captured and imprisoned. Her rescue does arrive eventually ... just a little too late.

In the generational framework, this story doesn't require much investigation. The possible options appear quickly.

Setting: A tale of civil war, strife in the royal family, and a king overthrown has the marks of a Crisis all over it.

Story: Artist. Everyone is Doomed or Damned, almost from the first act, done in by their least favorable attributes. 

Characters: In the midst of a Crisis, there should be older Prophets, mid-life Nomads, and young adult Hero generations. The elder daughters Regan and Goneril certainly work as Nomads, nothing but Bad from the start. (For those who think them Ruthless enough to be Prophets, note that they are driven by greed and jealousy, with principles never having any influence on their actions.) Cordelia, the third and youngest daughter, loyal and unconcerned, seems like a Hero.

We don't have an elder Prophet, though. With "four score years" behind him, in the midst of a Crisis, Lear's age matches that of an Artist. His attempt to settle his kingdom in a just manner ("...that future strife/ may be prevented now") supports this. Additional Artist attributes, such as being neurotic, indecisive and process-driven, make appearances as well.

Taken together, this is another a notable story that has consistency across generational attributes: Story type matches with primary character, and Setting matches with the Characters as a group. Perhaps that's a basic way to keep your story believable and understandable.

Gen X movies by Generational Story

Going through that previous list of Generation X movies, here's a quick and dirty assessment of which of the Four Stories they are. 

If you haven't been here before, please take a look at the Introduction to Generations, the Generational Attributes and (especially for this one) the Four Stories in order to get up to speed on how this works and terms being used.

1)  The Bad News Bears (1976)
Redemption - misfits make good. Even if the championship game doesn't work out exactly as everyone might have preferred. 

2)  Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)
Cameron Crowe 

This is an ensemble piece with a lot of threads, so it's difficult, but on balance it seems like a Prophet story, with people figuring out who they should be.

3)  Sixteen Candles (1984)

Claire isn't especially flawed, but she is saved - Redeemed - by others, particularly Jake. Although it's reasonable to say that she is finding out who she should be (i.e. a Prophet story).

4) Heathers (1988)

Redemption - Veronica isn't too flawed to start, but she has her issues that she has to work through

5)  Clerks (1995)

Redemption - Dante figures things out by the end.

6) Go (1999)

Hero - People working together, in different combinations, succeeding but with sacrifice (Ronna gets hurt, Simon gets shot, etc.)

7) High Fidelity (2000)

Redemption - flawed Rob figures himself out.

8) The Royal Tenenbaums: (2001)

Redemption, but for the father Royal,  who is of the Silent (Artist) generation. Although the Gen X Tenenbaum children are saved, as well.

9) Up in the Air (2009)

Anti-Redemption - Ryan Bingham (Clooney's character) is unable to be saved.

10) The Big Short (2015) 

Redemption - Flawed people all around, making as good as they can with the skills they have. 

We end up with six definite Redemption stories, plus one story of failed Redemption that is (for reasons we'll come back to) the Tragedy version of the Nomad story. There is one story split between Redemption and Prophet, one Prophet story, and one Hero story.  It's hardly scientific - both the original list and this assessment is too subjective - but it's interesting to see how the story type does seem to match more times than not.

Movies of Generation X

National Geographic has a list of films that purport to "sum up" Generation X as part of their series on those people born from 1961 through 1981.  As a member of that group, I was not impressed with the list.  It's focused on very narrow period of the Gen X lifespan, covering the 1990s plus a year or two either side. It's an important enough period - it shows a recognition of a new, separate identity -  but it misses formative and later adult years.

And most of the films aren't by Xers. 

I've put together an alternative list, with these goals:  

• Characters that are recognizably Generation X, that is, born in the years 1961 through 1981, and displaying common characteristics.  
• Covering as wide a range as possible - Generation X has been around for 55 years, so this should show a majority of that period. 
• As much as possible consists of movies written and / or directed by Gen X. 

Finding a starting point for this was an exercise of its own.  Star Wars influenced Generation X, but it doesn't actually represent them. Devil-child movies - Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist -  were common starting in the 1960s, and noted by Strauss & Howe as representing society's view of children. Still, rather than being about those children, the films themselves are about society's attitudes towards children, religion, and change. There's no choice but to move forward to when they are starting to get involved in activities with others of their age, which is why we start with:

1)  The Bad News Bears (1976)
A movie about young misfits and delinquents, thrown together on a single Little League baseball team, and coached by an alcoholic. The introduction of a lone female pitcher, Amanda (Tatum O'Neal, b. 1963) represents changes in attitudes towards gender roles. Kids using profanity, sexual propositions involving young teenagers, an adult mentor swigging cheap beer and passing it to his charges - it's a fine introduction to this Generation. 

2)  Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)
Cameron Crowe was holding a mirror up for Generation X, even before that label was common. His scripts and (later) directorial efforts, from this debut through Jerry Maguire, were always very aware of the pressures and expectations on the kids who were just a little younger than him.  Fast Times in particular was based on undercover work done by Crowe at an actual Southern California high school, and here already we see conflicts over love and sex, career and success, street smarts and wisdom. 

3)  Sixteen Candles (1984)

John Hughes, while a Boomer himself (b.1957), is identified with Gen X because of the influence of his teen movies. which treated high schoolers as human beings rather than bundles of hormones. The Breakfast Club and Pretty in Pink are perhaps too universal to be considered only about X.  Sixteen Candles, though, starring Molly Ringwald as girl navigating high school tribulations on her sixteenth birthday, is very definitely a product of its time, to the point that it's hardly understandable by millennials.   (How'd they forget her birthday?)

4) Heathers (1988)
Is there any other generation that would suggest a high school movie about faking suicides among the popular kids - much less celebrate such a pitch black comedy? Christian Slater and Winona Ryder became archetypical X representatives on-screen. Written by Daniel Waters (b 1962) it can be seen as the start of Generation X's influence behind the camera, as well. 

5)  Clerks (1995)
Young Xers in dead-end jobs, talking about videos, the future, and yes, sex. Profane, confused, too smart for their own good but not yet able to do anything about it.  Although writer/director Kevin Smith - who shot the film at the convenience store where he worked - did manage to get  himself out of that job, do what he likes to do, and do something about it all. 

6) Go (1999)
Beyond its perfect for the era culture-sub-referencing and non-linear plot, it's also about some very normal people, getting involved in complex, illegal and dangerous schemes, just to get by. That may not be a Gen X  attribute, exactly, but street-smart Xers suceeding in dangerous projects does seem to be a common trope. Writer John August would go on to work with Tim Burton, while Doug Liman (following up on the success of Swingers) would become known for action films such as Mr & Mrs Smith. 

7) High Fidelity (2000)
John Cusack is Gen X's patron saint of romance, in all its forms. He's the ordinary college student just trying to get laid in The Sure Thing, the wise but uncertain recent graduate in Say Anything, the hitman reconsidering his high school prom date in Grosse Pointe Blank. We could probably sum up Generation X just with his movies. Here, he's Rob Gordon, record store owner and music aficionado, in an unusual romantic comedy. This one starts with a breakup, then becomes a one-man history of Gen X relationships, presented via Rob's Top 5 Breakups. ("Only people of a certain disposition are frightened of being alone for the rest of their lives at the age of 26, and we were of that disposition.")

8) The Royal Tenenbaums: (2001)
Wes Anderson shows us siblings dealing with a father who has been a lifelong problem - what's more Gen X than that. It also shows a rarely seen side of Generation X success, which is often fleeting and incomplete. We burn out, but not in romantic ways. 

9) Up in the Air (2009)
George Clooney (b. 1961) plays a modern incarnation of Willy Loman, traveling the country firing people, too focused on the here and now and his 10 million mile goal to realize that life is passing him by - or already has. A cautionary tale, not a how-to guide. 

10) The Big Short (2015)
A fitting end to the list, a caper where our heroes really are the good guys, unable to stop the train wreck as they work to profit from it. Adam McKay moves away from the broad comedies done with Will Ferrell to a more focused and intellectual comedy about the mortgage crisis, its effects, and the people who realized it was going to happen.

Honorable mentions: 

I really wanted to include a film from Quentin Tarantino (b. 1963).  While he is influential, though, his films aren't really about his generation. Even if Butch - young at the end of the Vietnam War - clearly is a member.

Swingers (1996) is significant, all about Generation X, and involved a whole raft of talented folks who went on to shake up Hollywood.

Wayne's World, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Zoolander - Xers made stupid a new word for Cool.

Sound City: This documentary directed by Nirvana drummer Dave Grohl has a great combination of Gen X musicians with earlier musicians that influenced them.

Oceans 11 (2001) Bad guys, mostly Gen X,  treated as the good guys - and on top of that, allowed to succeed with their nefarious plans. Plus it's Steven Soderbergh (1963), one of the earliest Gen X directors.

Oedipus Rex

After a bit of extra time on a very recent movie, let's step back a bit. About 2000 years or so.  

If you haven't been here before, please take a look at the Introduction to Generations, the Generational Attributes and the Four Stories in order to get up to speed on how this works and terms being used.

Oedipus Rex - Oedipus the King  - is one of the few available tragedies from Ancient Greece. Written by Sophocles in the fifth century BC, it tells the story of the king of Thebes and his very dysfunctional family. Since it has given its name to a psychological label for a specific sort of neurosis, the basics are well known. The play itself, though, plays out as more of a police procedural or courtroom drama. The city of Thebes is in trouble, a plague is upon it,  something is clearly wrong, and the cause must be found. Witnesses of various sorts appear, adding new pieces of information to the case, eventually clarifying a complicated tale of prophecy and woe. It takes until the end for the  truth to be known, to reveal the unexpected connection between Oedipus and his current queen and the previous king.

For a generational view, it's easy enough to start with the title character. Oedipus, the king of Thebes has been married to Jocasta, widow of the late King Laiius, for about 12 years. For reasons that are abundantly clear by the end of the piece, Jocasta and Laiius are of the next older generation than Oedipus. Even older than them is a key witness to the events, Tiresius, who is literally called a prophet. Oedipus is therefore about 30 - 12 years since the marriage, and he was presumably about 18 when he departed his own home. The Queen, Jocasta, being the next older generation, must be around 50 years of age. The yet older Tiresius is probably a venerable 70, perhaps a bit more or less. 

If it's a dangerous time, with an old Prophet and a young Hero, it sounds like a Crisis. However it's not a heroic story, but a tragedy. It's not clear that it's a tragedy of Oedipus himself, although he bears the brunt of it. It is more about the futility of change, the inevitability of fate. The dead King Laiius tried murdering his child to avoid prophecy, while Oedipus runs from his adoptive home for the same reason. There are no winners, only doomed perpetrators and damned victims - it's an Artist story .  

The more we examine what is happening, though, the clearer it is that the generations and setting match each other, if not the story. Oedipus' parents try to avert prophecy through infanticide -  they are Bad - Nomads, if we needed another clue. That Crisis period matches, then, but the story does not. 

Which shows that different types of stories don't necessarily need to match up with their generations. There are Artist stories about Heroes, redemption stories involving Prophets, self-actualization stories about Artists. It's possible that there is an influence from the author to consider - Sophocles, born just before the triumphs of the Persian Wars, young when Marathon was won, is clearly an Artist himself.