Assignment 1/31/2012

1) State your (newly revised?) premise (the one sentence COP).

Corruption leads to rebellion

2) Explain how your protagonist and antagonist really fit your premise.

Romeo and Juliet have a great love that defies even death. Are your characters also the embodiment of your stated premise?

The protagonist of my story Comrade30s is a victim of corruption, while the antagonist Comrade 35s is a victimizer. Corruption is a central factor in both their lives. But while Comrade 30s chooses to rebel and fight against it, Comrade 35s chooses to embrace it. Comrade 35s first wants to change things and embrace rebellion, but in the end fears the consequences and instead decides to accept corruption.

3) Do your characters make their own decisions?

In providing the details to round out these characters have you provided sufficient physiological, sociological, and psychological justification so the protagonist and antagonist are acting on their own in the face of conflict? This is important: Your characters should be complex, but your characters must also act in ways that are consistent with traits and experiences. Please explain how Jeff Kitchen’s ideas about an “ethical dilemma” apply to your protagonist.

Comrade 30s and Comrade 35s paths are marked by their personal stories. Their background does justify why they chose different roads in the end. Comrade 30s comes from a family where corruption was always demeaned as inacceptable. Comrade 30s mother, who had a huge influence in his life used to work in the public system and always rejected corruption. Growing up he always heard stories related to her work and how people tried to bribe her, but she never complied despite the benefits it might have meant to her. Refusing corruption was engraved in his mind.

Also, Comrade 30s always had a relatively comfortable life. Although not rich, his parents managed to maintain a middle class lifestyle. Having a father who worked in the private sector and came from a wealthy family reduced his level of class resentment. This is what also allowed him in some way to distance himself from the desire of money and power.

The opposite can be said for Comrade 35s whose economic family life was more restricted. His father worked in the public legal system and job stability was always at the mercy of his political contacts and good standing with whatever current government was in charged. Sometimes they had good economic periods and sometimes they didn’t. He had to study hard and win scholarships to finance his studies. Plus, he comes from a family who used to have money and respect, but thanks to some old relative who made a bad financial decision lost it all. This induced a certain level of shame and resentment in the character. His deepest desire is put his family back on top, to get power and wealth to win respect for them.

In conclusion, both character’s decisions are marked by their parents approach to corruption. In Comrade 30s case his mother-rejected corruption so he too finds it unacceptable. Comrade30s ethical dilemma revolves around corruption: should he adapt to the system and embrace it knowing that by doing his career will prosper or should he fight against corruption and lose his job? In the end, he chooses to rebel despite the consequences. He decides to kill those who corrupt the system as a means to change it.

In Comrade 35s his father always embraced corruption, so he in the end when he must chose between losing his position or allowing corruption he chooses the latter.

4) Does your conflict and its resolution prove your premise?

I think that the conflict and the resolution of my film does probe the premise. The conflict of the story is whether to embrace corruption or rebel against it. In the end the main character choses the latter.