译介丨CraigMazin论电影的主题

本文系用户投稿，不代表机核网观点
他一开始的目标是回到起点，回归静止，重新获得那个安全的、虽然不完美、但完全可忍受的生活。但是，目标破碎了。他们原有的信念，无论他们在故事开头紧紧抓住的是什么，现在都被揭露为虚假。现在摆在他们面前的，庞然巨物般的真实目标，压得他无法喘息。他们还无法接受这个真正的课题，因为它太可怕了。当你原有的价值观消失了，而你还没准备好，用新的价值观取代它时。你简直如同死亡。你该怎么办？绝处逢生？还是就此死去？而这，正是人们去看电影的原因。
写在最前
首先感谢重轻老师，他所做的节目不仅是我乏味生活中的调味剂，关于 Craig Mazin 编剧方法的这期，更是成为了我创作经历中的一味良药。发自内心的表达感谢。
秉着‘原汤化原食’的想法，于是乎去油管扒拉来了字幕，并翻译成了中文，以供感兴趣的朋友参考。（翻译方法是 AI 工具+手改，水平有限，请见谅）
这篇内容的最早起源，是 Craig 在奥斯丁电影编剧节的一场演讲。后来过了一段时间，Craig 估摸着版权专利期差不多到了。于是在自己和 John（《大鱼》编剧）的博客里，重新进行了阐述。它本就不是一个课程，所以，取其中真意，不必太过纠结行文逻辑。
如果可以，带着下面几个问题去进行阅读，会更有体会：
电影为什么需要主题？
电影的主题是什么？
什么才是好的电影主题？
主题对于观众来说是什么？对于编剧来说是又什么？
什么是正反合辩证法？Pixar 是如何运用类似正反合的方式，去构建故事并最终形成剧本的？
原文&翻译
when we talk about writing a script, a lot of times we’re talking about structure. There are, I don’t know, four million books about structure. There are, I don’t know, four million books about structure. I went online and I looked for just images based on screenplay structure. And what I saw was kind of mind-blowing. There are these long narrow lines with little ticks on them.And then there’s a pie chart. And then there’s a swirly thing that kind of looks like a snail shell. There’s a triangle. There’s a diamond. I think there’s a parallelogram.And if there’s not a trapezoid maybe one of you can get on that. All of this is designed to help you learn how to structure a screenplay.
当我们谈论写剧本时，很多时候我们在谈论剧本结构。有，我不知道，可能有四百万本关于结构的书。我上网找了一些关于剧本结构的图片。我看到的东西让我大吃一惊。有一些长长的窄线，上面标有小刻度。然后还有饼图，还有一个看起来像蜗牛壳一样的旋转图案。有一个三角形，还有一个菱形，我想还有一个平行四边形。如果没有梯形的话，也许你们中的一个可以搞一个出来。所有这些都是为了帮助你学习如何构建剧本的结构。
All of it is done from the wrong end, All of it. It’s all done from the point of view of analysis. They look at things, they take them apart, and then they say, look, all these pieces fit into this swirly shape, or this diamond. The issue is that’s not going to help you actually write anything. Because when you write you’re starting from scratch, You’re not breaking something apart.You’re building something out of nothing.
所有这些图表，都是从错误的角度出发的，全都是。这些都是从分析的视角出发的。他们观察事物，把它们拆开，然后说，看看，所有这些部分都适合这个旋转形状，或者这个菱形。问题是，这并不能真正帮助你写出任何东西。因为当你写作时，你是从零开始的，你不是在拆解某个东西。你是在，从无到有地“创造”剧本。
And when you’re building something out of nothing, you need a different set of instructions. I can think of a doctor who takes bodies apart. That’s a medical examiner or a coroner. That’s not the doctor you want to go to, to make a baby for instance. It’s just a very different thing, right?So we’re going to come at it from the point of view of making babies and your baby is your script. 
当你从无到有地创造时，你需要一套不同的指导原则。我能想到一个拆解身体的医生，那是验尸官或法医。你不会去找那样的医生来帮助你创造孩子，对吧？这完全是两码事，对吧？所以我们要从“生孩子”的角度出发，而你的“孩子”就是你的剧本。
So, structure. Structure, structure, structure. Screenplay is structure. You need to know how to do your structure. Structure I’m here to tell you is a total trap. Yes, screenplay is structure, but structure isn’t what you think it is. Structure doesn’t say this happens on this page, this happens on that page. Here’s a pinch point. Here’s a stretchy point. Here’s a midpoint. Structure doesn’t tell you what to do
结构，结构，结构，结构。剧本就是结构，你需要知道如何做结构。我要告诉你，结构是一个彻底的陷阱！是的，剧本是结构，但结构并不是你想象的那样。结构并不是说这一页发生了什么，那一页发生了什么。这是一个关键点，这是一个延展点，这是一个中点。结构并不会告诉你该做什么。
If you follow strict structural guidelines, in all likelihood, you will write a very well-structured bad script. Structure isn’t the dog. It’s the tail. Structure is a symptom. It’s a symptom of a character’s relationship with a central dramatic argument. Take a moment. Think about that for a second.
如果你严格遵循结构指导原则，很有可能，你会写出一个结构很好但很糟糕的剧本。结构不是狗本身，而是它的尾巴。结构是一种表象。它反映了角色与核心戏剧冲突之间的关系。稍等一下，仔细想想这句话。
I’ll repeat it. Structure is a symptom of a character’s relationship with a central dramatic argument. Structure isn’t something you write well. It’s something that happens because you wrote well. Structure is not a tool, it is a symptom.
我再重复一遍。结构是角色与核心戏剧冲突关系的表象。结构不是你能很好地写出来的东西。它是因为你写得好而自然产生的东西。结构不是一种工具，而是一种结果。
When we think of rigid structural forms, I have to tell you there’s nothing honest about them. There’s nothing true about them. They’re synthetic. There’s never been one single great writer who created one single great screenplay following a structural template. Not one. What real writers follow are their characters. And what great writers follow are their characters as they evolve around a central dramatic argument that is actually meaningful to other human beings.
当我们想到那些僵硬的结构形式时，我必须告诉你，它们没有任何真实的成分。它们没有什么是真的，都是人造的。没有任何一个伟大的作家按照结构模板写出过一个伟大的剧本。没有一个。真正的作家遵循的是他们的角色。伟大的作家遵循的是角色围绕着一个对人类有意义的核心戏剧冲突逐渐演变。 
but for a bit now we’re just going to talk a little bit of philosophy. First, let’s consider what we call basic structure. There’s a Syd Field point of view. You have your three acts, your inciting incident, act break escalation, magical midpoint character shift, third act low point, and kick off to climactic action. We also have the Chris Vogler Hero’s Journey, ordinary world, call to action, refusal of call, acceptance of call, and blah, blah, blah. There’s a lot of what to do, but where’s the why? Who came up with this stuff in the first place? Why is it there? Why are there three acts at all? Why is there a low point? Why do we like it when there’s an inciting incident? Why do we like it when there’s a low point? If we don’t know why those things are there, how are we supposed to know how to write them?
但现在我们先谈一点哲学。首先，让我们考虑一下所谓的基础结构。有一个西德·菲尔德的观点。你有三幕结构、激励事件、幕间升级、神奇的中点角色转变、第三幕低谷，以及高潮行动的开始。我们还有克里斯·沃格勒的英雄之旅，普通世界、行动号召、拒绝号召、接受号召，等等等等。有很多关于怎么做的内容，但“为什么”呢？最初是谁想出这些东西的？它们为什么存在？为什么一定要有三幕？为什么会有低谷？为什么我们喜欢激励事件？为什么我们喜欢低谷时刻？如果我们不知道这些东西为什么存在，我们怎么知道该如何写它们？
Because we process the world through our consciousness, and our consciousness is sort of a natural storyteller, all of us are actually walking around doing this right all the time. We just don’t know it. We’re narrativizing our own lives better than most who try and do it on purpose on Fade In or WriterDuet, or Highland2.
因为我们通过意识来感知世界，而我们的意识本身就是一个天生的讲故事者，我们每个人实际上都一直在这么做。我们只是不知道而已。我们讲述自己生活的方式比那些用 Fade In、WriterDuet 或 Highland2 尝试写故事的人还要好。
Right now you’re sitting there, you’re riding along in your car, you’re being passive. You are accepting this structure talk, wondering when I’m going to get to the practicals. And I will. But later. If someone asks you about this experience you’re having, you will naturally, without thinking, create a story. You won’t have to consult a graph or a chart or a swirly thing. You’ll just tell the story.
现在你坐在那里，或者在车上开车，处于被动状态。你在听我讲结构，可能在想我什么时候会讲到实际操作。我会讲的，但稍后。如果有人问你正在经历的这个体验，你会不假思索地自然讲述一个故事。你不需要查阅图表或旋转图形。你会自然地讲出这个故事。
Here’s a story. I listened to a podcast. It was on the following topics. Reasonable people could agree or disagree. Anyway, I’m the same. That’s not a very good story, is it? Here’s another story. I was listening to a podcast and it was OK, it was sort of a little boring. But then the person said this one thing and it reminded me of something else I’d heard once, and that tied back to this moment in my life where something really interesting happened. And now I’m wondering maybe if I was wrong about that thing and I should be doing it this way instead.
比如这是一个故事。我听了一个播客。它涉及以下话题。有理智的人可以同意或不同意。总之，我还是一样。这个故事不怎么好，对吧？这是另一个故事。我在听一个播客，内容还行，有点无聊。但后来那个人说了一件事，它让我想起了我以前听过的一件事，这件事又让我联想到我生命中的一个时刻，当时发生了一些非常有趣的事情。现在我在想，也许我对那件事错了，我应该换一种方式去做。
There you go. And that story has character, meaning you. That story is about you and maybe it’s about me. It’s about a relationship that we’re having right now through this podcast, for better or worse. And if you were to relay this story, this experience, you might share some parts of this that you thought were interesting or some parts that you thought were stupid, but you will naturally contextualize it as such. This moment in time did or did not help you in your desire to change. We live our lives this way, but when we sit down to write, we somehow forget.
就这样。那个故事有角色，指的是你。这个故事是关于你的，或许也关于我。它讲述了我们现在通过这个播客正在进行的关系，不管是好是坏。如果你要转述这个故事，这次经历，你可能会分享一些你觉得有趣的部分，或者一些你觉得愚蠢的部分，但你会自然而然地给它一个语境。这一时刻是否帮助了你在改变的愿望上。我们就是这样生活的，但当我们坐下来写作时，却不知为何会忘记这一点。
You know who never forgets? Actors. They have to get it because they are the characters and we are experiencing them as the characters. So there’s that old cliché line: what’s my motivation? Well it’s not a joke. Believe it or not that is the key to structure. What is the purpose of all this storytelling, that we engage in, all this narration? Well, narration helps us move through a changing world. And story is about a change of state.
你知道谁从不会忘记吗？演员们。他们必须明白，因为他们就是角色，而我们是通过角色来体验他们的。所以有那句老套的话：“我的动机是什么？”其实这不是开玩笑。信不信由你，这就是结构的关键。我们参与的所有这些讲故事、所有这些叙述的目的是什么？叙事帮助我们在不断变化的世界中前行。而故事就是关于状态的变化。
There are three basic ways your story changes, and this applies, I think, to every possible story. The first way is internal. This is what is going on inside the character’s mind. This is the things they’re thinking, they’re feeling, their emotions. And this axis goes all over the place. It zigzags up and down. Then there’s interpersonal. That’s the main relationship of your story. It has a start, it has an end. It usually begins in a kind of neutral way. Then depending on how your story unfolds, it can dip and then rise and then plummet and then spike. And finally you have the external axis. That’s the narrative, the plot, the things that are going on around you. And that generally is just a straight line. Start to end.
故事有三种基本的变化方式，我认为这适用于每一个可能的故事。第一种方式是内部的。这是角色内心的变化。这是他们的想法、感受和情感。这条轴线到处移动，时而上升，时而下降。然后是人际关系的变化。这是你故事中的主要关系。它有开始，也有结束。通常它以一种中立的方式开始。然后根据你故事的展开，它可能会下降、上升，再剧烈波动。 最后是外部轴线。这就是叙事、情节以及围绕你发生的事情。而这一部分通常是一个直线，从开始到结束。
All of this is made up of scenes. And within scenes we’re doing something that follows the Hegelian dialectic. Calm down. You don’t need to look it up. I’ll help you out. The Hegelian Dialectic basically is a way of thinking about how we formulate ideas and thoughts and arguments. You take a thesis. That’s a statement. Something is true. And then you apply to that an antithesis. No, that’s not true and here’s why. Those things collide and in theory what results from that is a new thesis called the synthesis. And that starts the whole process over again. That synthesis becomes a thesis. There’s an antithesis. A new synthesis. That becomes a thesis. Constant changing.
所有这一切都是由场景组成的。而在场景中，我们遵循的是黑格尔辩证法。冷静点。你不需要查它。我会帮你理解。黑格尔辩证法基本上是一种思考方式，关于我们如何形成思想、观点和论点。你提出一个论点。这是一个陈述。某些东西是对的。然后你为它提出一个对立论点。不，那不是真的，原因在这里。这些观点碰撞，理论上，产生的新论点被称为综合。然后这一过程再次开始。综合变成新的论点。然后有了新的对立论点。再产生新的综合。然后再次变成新的论点，循环往复。
Every scene begins with a truth, something happens inside of that scene. There is a new truth at the end and you begin, and you begin, and you begin. And who is the person firing these antitheses at these theses? You. So, as we go through this talk never forget this one simple fact. At any given moment as you begin a scene you have a situation that is involving those three axes and you are going to fire something at at least one of them to make something new. That is all story is.
每个场景从一个真理开始，场景中发生了一些事情。最后有了新的真理，你又开始了，再次开始。是谁在向这些论点提出对立论点呢？ 是你。所以，在我们继续这个讨论时，永远不要忘记这个简单的事实。当你开始一个场景时，在任何时刻你都有一个涉及这三个轴线的情况，而你会向其中至少一个提出对立的观点，来创造新的内容。这就是故事的全部。
But what is the glue that holds all those changes together? What’s the glue that you, the creator, can use to come up with your antitheses and get your new syntheses and do it over and over again? And that brings us to theme. Theme is otherwise known as unity.  
但是什么是把所有这些变化联系在一起的“胶水”呢？你作为创作者，能用什么来提出对立论点并获得新的综合，并一遍又一遍地重复这个过程？这就引出了主题。主题也称为统一性。
Unity is a term that was first used by Aristotle in *Poetics* and this is one you actually should read.  I know you’re like, Aristotle? Hegel? Hegelian guy.  Calm down. It’s fine. In fact, Aristotle was really a contemporary writer in his own way.  *Poetics* is an easy read. It will take you about 30 minutes.  It’s a pretty good bathroom book.  And in it you’ll find a lot of things that we hear today, like for instance the worst kind of plot is an episodic plot.  Well, that’s pretty much true.  
统一性是亚里士多德在《诗学》中首次使用的术语，而这本书你真的应该读一读。我知道你会想，亚里士多德？黑格尔？又是黑格尔？冷静点，没关系。实际上，亚里士多德从某种意义上来说也是一位当代作家。《诗学》很容易读完，大约只需要30分钟。它是一本不错的“浴室读物”。你会在书中发现很多我们今天依然听到的观点，比如最糟糕的情节类型是片段式情节。嗯，这基本上是对的。
What did he think of unity or theme?  Well, basically theme is your central dramatic argument.  Some of those arguments are interesting. Some of them are a little cliché.  And the quality of the argument itself isn’t necessarily related to the quality of the script.  For instance, you can have a really good screenplay built around "you can’t judge a book by its cover."  That’s OK.  The theme itself doesn’t have to be mind-altering or, I don’t know, revolutionary.  It’s your execution around it that’s going to be interesting.  But the important thing is that the argument has to be an argument.  I think sometimes people misunderstand the use of theme in this context and they think a theme for a screenplay could be brotherhood.  Well, no.  Because there’s nothing to argue about there.  There’s no way to answer that question one way or the other.  It’s just a vague concept.  But, "men and women can’t just be friends," well, that’s an argument.  "Better to be dead than a slave."  "Life is beautiful, even in the midst of horrors."  "If you believe you are great, you will be great."  "If you love someone, set them free."  Those are arguments.  
他对统一性或主题有什么看法呢？基本上，主题就是你剧中的核心戏剧论点。有些论点很有趣，而有些则有点陈词滥调。而论点本身的质量与剧本的质量不一定相关。例如，你可以围绕“不要以貌取人”写出一个非常好的剧本。这没问题。主题本身不必非得是颠覆性的，或者说，革命性的。有趣的是你如何围绕这个主题展开。但重要的是，这个论点必须是一个论点。我认为有时人们误解了在这种情况下的主题使用，他们以为剧本的主题可以是“兄弟情”，其实不是。因为这没有什么可以争论的。没有办法从任何一个角度回答这个问题。它只是一个模糊的概念。但“男女不能只是朋友”，这就是一个论点。“宁愿死也不愿为奴。”“即使在恐怖中，生活依然美丽。”“如果你相信自己伟大，你就会伟大。”“如果你爱某人，就让他们自由。” 这些都是论点。
Screenplays without arguments feel empty and pointless.  You will probably get some version of the following note:  What is this about?  I mean, I know what it’s about, but what is it **really** about?  Why should this movie exist?  What is the point of all this?  
没有论点的剧本让人感觉空洞且毫无意义。你很可能会得到类似的反馈：这个故事到底是关于什么的？我是说，我知道它讲的是什么，但它**真正**是关于什么的？为什么这部电影应该存在？这一切的意义是什么？
Now, it’s really important to note you probably don’t want to start with an argument.  That’s a weird way to begin a script.  Usually we think of an idea.  And that’s fine.  But when you think of the idea, the very next question you should ask is: what central dramatic argument would fit really well with this?  And ideally you’re going to think ironically.  
现在，必须注意的是，你可能不想以一个论点作为开头。那是一个奇怪的剧本开头方式。通常，我们从一个想法开始。这样没问题。但当你想到这个想法时，你应该接着问：哪个核心戏剧论点能很好地与之契合？理想情况下，你会带有一些讽刺性地去思考。
For instance, let’s talk about this idea.  A fish has to find another fish who is somewhere in the ocean. Got it.  The animators will love it.  Water. Fish. Cool.  OK, let’s think of a central dramatic argument.  How about "if you try hard enough, you can do anything, even find a fish"?  That’s a bit boring, isn’t it?  How about "sometimes the things we’re searching for are the things that we need to be free from"?  Well, OK. That’s an interesting argument.  I’m not sure how it necessarily is served or is being served by this idea of a fish in the ocean.  How about "you can’t find happiness out there; you have to find it within yourself"?  That could work.  That’s sort of *Wizard of Oz*-ish.  But let’s go really ironically.  How about this one: "No matter how much you want to hold onto the person you love, sometimes you have to set them free."  
比如，让我们谈谈这个想法。一条鱼必须找到另一条在海洋某处的鱼，明白了。动画师会喜欢这个。水，鱼，很酷。好，我们来想一个核心戏剧论点。比如“如果你足够努力，你可以做任何事，甚至找到一条鱼”？这有点无聊，不是吗？比如“有时候我们在寻找的东西，正是我们需要摆脱的东西”？嗯，好吧，这是个有趣的论点。我不确定这个论点是否一定与“海里的鱼”这个想法相匹配。比如“你无法在外界找到幸福，你必须在自己内心找到它”？这也行。这有点像《绿野仙踪》。但让我们走得更讽刺一些。比如：“无论你多想留住你爱的人，有时你必须让他们自由。”
Well, that is pretty cliché but it is a great central dramatic argument to pair with "a fish needs to find another fish."  Because when you’re looking for somebody out there in the deep, deep ocean, you the writer know that what you’re promising is they’re going to find them and then have to let them go anyway.  And that is starting to get good.  All right. Let’s get into some practicals, shall we?  Because this is thematic structure.  This is going to help you write your script.  
嗯，这确实有点陈词滥调，但它与“鱼需要找到另一条鱼”这个想法相配，是一个很棒的核心戏剧论点。因为当你在广阔的海洋中寻找某人时，你这个编剧知道你承诺的是他们会找到对方，然后最终不得不放手。这样就开始变得有意思了。好了，我们进入一些实际操作，好吗？因为这就是主题结构。这将帮助你写出你的剧本。
In thematic structure the purpose of the story – and listen carefully now – the purpose of the story is to take a character from ignorance of the truth of the theme to embodiment of the theme through action.  I shall repeat.  The purpose of the story is to take your main character, your protagonist, from a place of ignorance of the truth or the true side of the argument you’re making,   and take them all the way to the point where they become the very embodiment of that argument and they do it through action.  
在主题结构中，故事的目的是——现在请仔细听——故事的目的是通过行动将角色从对主题真相的无知带到对主题的体现。我再重复一遍。故事的目的是把你的主角从对真相或你提出的论点的无知，一路带到他们成为那个论点的体现，并通过行动实现这一点。
So, let’s talk about how we introduce.  We begin in the beginning with the introduction of a protagonist in an ordinary world.  You’ve probably heard this a thousand times.  But, why?  Sometimes movies don’t start ordinarily.   You probably saw *Mad Max: Fury Road*.  If you didn’t, do so.  Well, there’s no ordinary beginning there.  I mean, it’s crazy from the jump.  
那么，让我们来谈谈如何引入。我们从一开始就引入主角处在一个普通的世界中。你可能已经听过一千遍了。但是，为什么呢？有时候电影并不是以普通的方式开头的。你可能看过《疯狂的麦克斯：狂暴之路》。如果没看过，那就去看吧。嗯，那里可没有普通的开头。我是说，从一开始就疯狂了。
Ordinary doesn’t mean mundane.  Although sometimes it can.  What ordinary means here is that the protagonist’s life essentially exemplifies their ignorance of the theme,  of the argument that you want them to believe eventually.  In fact, they believe the opposite of that argument. That’s how they begin.  Typically in the beginning of a story your main character believes in the opposite of the theme. and they have also achieved some kind of stasis.  There’s a balance in their life.  
普通并不意味着平凡无奇。尽管有时确实如此。这里的“普通”指的是，主角的生活本质上体现了他们对主题的无知，对你最终希望他们相信的论点的无知。事实上，他们一开始是相信与该论点相反的观点。通常在故事的开头，你的主角会相信与主题相反的东西，同时他们也达到了某种静止状态。他们的生活中有一种平衡。
In fact, their ignorance of that theme has probably gotten them to this nice place of stasis and balance.  It doesn’t mean they’re happy.  What it means is that without the divine nudge of the writer-god their life could go on like this forever.  It’s not a perfect life.  It’s not the best life they could live but it’s the life they’ve settled for.  Their stasis is acceptable imperfection.  
事实上，他们对那个主题的无知可能让他们达到了这种平稳和静止的状态。这并不意味着他们是幸福的。这意味着，如果没有编剧上帝的神圣推动，他们的生活可能会一直这样继续下去。这并不是一个完美的生活。这并不是他们能过的最好的生活，但这是他们接受的生活。他们的静止状态是可以接受的不完美。
If we’re going to circle back around to my favorite fish movie,  Marlin can live with a resentful son as long as he knows his son is safe.  That’s acceptable imperfection.  I get it.  Nemo resents me.  He’s angry at me.  He feels stifled by me.  That’s OK. He’s alive. I can keep going this way.  
如果我们回到我最喜欢的那部鱼电影，只要知道儿子是安全的，马林就可以忍受一个心怀怨恨的儿子。这就是可以接受的不完美。我懂的。尼莫怨恨我。他对我很生气。他感到被我压抑。没关系，他还活着。我可以这样继续生活下去。
And then along comes you, the writer.  Your job is to disrupt that stasis.  So you invent some sort of incident.  Now we know the point of the inciting incident.  The point of the inciting incident is not to go, "Oh god, a meteor!"  The point of the inciting incident is to specifically disrupt a character’s stasis.  It makes the continuation of balance and stasis and acceptable imperfection impossible. It destroys it.  And it forces a choice on the character.  OK, but why?  I’m just going to keep asking that question.  But why? But why? But why?  Why do you have to do this to this poor character?  Because you are the parent and you have a lesson to teach this person, or animal, or fish.  
然后，你这个编剧出现了。你的任务是打破这种静止状态。所以你创造了一些事件。现在我们知道激励事件的目的了。激励事件的目的并不是“哦天哪，一颗流星！”激励事件的目的在于打破角色的、特定的静止状态。它让继续维持平衡、静止和可接受的不完美变得不可能。它摧毁了这一切。它迫使角色做出选择。好的，但是为什么？我会一直问这个问题。为什么？为什么？为什么？你为什么要对这个可怜的角色这样做？因为你是父母，你有一课要教给这个人、动物或鱼。
Your motivation is part of your relationship to your character.  You don’t write an inciting incident.  You don’t write push character out of safety.  That gives you no real guidance to let something blossom.  What you write is an ironic disruption of stasis.  Ironic as in a situation that includes contradictions or sharp contrasts that is,  
你的动机是你与角色关系的一部分。你不是在写一个激励事件。你不是在写让角色脱离安全的情节。这不会给你真正的指引来让故事展开。你写的是一个带有讽刺意味的静止状态的打破。讽刺的意思是包含矛盾或强烈对比的情境，
and hear me out, genetically engineered to break your character’s soul.  You’re going to destroy them.  You are god.  And you are designing a moment that will begin a transformation for this specific character  . so you have to make it intentional.  It can be an explosion, or it can be the tiniest little change.  But it’s not something that would disrupt everyone’s life the way it’s disrupting this person’s life.  You have tailored it perfectly and terribly for them.  
听我说，这种情境是基因设计来摧毁你的角色灵魂的。你要摧毁他们。你就是上帝。你在设计一个时刻，开始让这个特定角色发生转变，所以你必须有意为之。它可以是一场爆炸，也可以是最微小的变化。但它不是那种会以同样方式打破所有人生活的事情，而是特别打破这个人的生活。你为他们量身定制了一个完美而可怕的打击。
So, what’s the first thing your character wants to do when this happens to them?  Well, if they’re like you or me, they’re going to immediately try and just get back to what they had.  They have to leave their stasis behind because you’ve destroyed it,  but everything they’re going to do following that is done in service of just trying to get it back.  Shrek doesn’t have his swamp, so he has to go on a journey so he can get his swamp back.  
那么，当这种事发生在你的角色身上时，他们首先想做的是什么？嗯，如果他们像你我一样，他们会立刻尝试恢复原有的生活。他们不得不放弃静止状态，因为你已经摧毁了它，但接下来他们所做的一切都是为了试图找回原来的状态。史莱克失去了他的沼泽，所以他必须踏上旅程才能找回他的沼泽。
The point here is that the hero has absolutely no idea that there is a central dramatic argument.  They’ve made up their mind about something and their mind has not changed.  Your heroes should be on some level cowards.  I don’t mean coward like shaking in your boots.  I mean coward like I don’t want to change.  
关键在于，英雄完全不知道有一个核心戏剧论点存在。他们已经在某件事上下定决心，并且没有改变想法。你的英雄在某种程度上应该是懦夫。我不是指那种吓得发抖的懦夫。我所说的懦夫，是指主角在‘改变’这一点本身上，是十分抗拒的。
I’m happy with the way things are.  Please just let me be.  And underlining that is fear.  And fear, especially in your character, is the heart of empathy.  I feel for characters when I fear with them.  It is vulnerability.  It’s what makes me connect.  
我对现状很满意。请让我保持现状。而隐藏在其中的是恐惧。恐惧，尤其是你角色中的恐惧，是共情的核心。当我与他们一起感到恐惧时，我会对角色产生共鸣。这就是脆弱性。这让我产生了联系。
Every protagonist fears something.  Imagine a man who fears no other man.  He doesn’t fear death.  He doesn’t fear pain.  But, ah-ha, fill in that blank.  But the point is it has to be filled in.  You can feel it, right?  Like he’s going to have to fear something.  Because fear is our connection to a character.  
每个主角都害怕某些东西。想象一个不怕任何人的人。他不怕死亡。他不怕痛苦。但是，啊哈，请自行完成这个填空题。但关键是这个空白必须被填补。你能感受到，对吧？就像他必须害怕某些东西一样。因为恐惧是我们与角色联系的纽带。
And a fearful hero should have lived their lives to avoid the thing they’re afraid of.  You, are taking their safety blanket away.  So I want you to write your fearful hero honestly.  What do they want?  They want to return to what they had.  They want to go backwards.  And believe it or not, that is the gift that is going to drive you through the second act.  The second act.  Oh, the thing that’s so scary.  No. No, you should be excited about it.  
而一个充满恐惧的英雄会一直生活在避免他们害怕的事情之中。你正在夺走他们的安全感。所以我希望你真诚地写出你的恐惧英雄。他们想要什么？他们想回到过去拥有的一切。他们想回到过去。信不信由你，这就是会引导你进入第二幕的动力。第二幕。哦，这个让人感到如此害怕的部分。不，不，你应该对此感到兴奋。
Let me take a break for a second and say that everything I’m talking about here is mostly to serve the writing of what I would call a traditional Hollywood movie.  That doesn’t mean bad.  It doesn’t mean cliché.  It doesn’t even mean formulaic.  It just means it’s a traditional narrative.  So, I don’t know, if you’re looking to be a little more Lars von Trier about things,  well, I don’t know how interesting or helpful this is going to be.  But I’m presuming that most of you just want to write a general kind of movie that conforms to a general kind of movie shape. So this is how we’re going to help you do it.   
让我暂停一下，我想说的是我所讲的一切主要是为了服务于传统好莱坞电影的写作。这并不意味着不好。这也不意味着陈词滥调。它甚至不意味着刻板。它仅仅意味着这是一个传统的叙事方式。所以，我不知道，如果你想在风格上更接近拉斯·冯·提尔，嗯，我不确定这会有多有趣或多有帮助。但我假设你们中的大多数人只是想写一部符合一般电影结构的电影。所以我们就是要帮助你做到这一点。
And the second act is the part that I think freaks people out the most.  They get scared.  But I think you should be excited about pages 30 to 90 roughly. Please do not quote me on those numbers.  
而第二幕是我认为最让人害怕的部分。他们会感到害怕。但我认为你应该为大约第30到90页感到兴奋。
But first, are you getting it?  Have you stopped thinking about plot?  Have you stopped thinking about plot as something to jam characters into?  Because when you do that, that’s why you run out of road in your second act.  You ran out of plot because it wasn’t being generated by anything except you.  But when you start thinking of your plot as not something that happens to your characters,  but what you are doing to your characters,  that’s when you can lead them from anti-theme to theme.  
但首先，你明白了吗？你有没有停止去思考情节？你是否不再将情节视为强行嵌入角色的东西？因为当你这么做时，这就是你在第二幕用尽情节的原因。你之所以没有情节可写，是因为情节只由你而生，并没有其他动力。但当你开始不把情节视为发生在角色身上的事情时，而是你对角色所做的事情时，那时你就可以将他们从反主题引导到主题。
How do we do it?  First, we reinforce the anti-theme.  That might sound a little counterintuitive, but hear me out.  You’ve knocked your hero out of their acceptable stasis.  They are now on the way to do whatever they need to do to get back to it.  The hero is going to experience new things.  And I want you to think about making those new things reinforce her belief in an anti-theme.  Because this is going to make them want to get back to the beginning even more.  
我们该怎么做呢？首先，我们强化反主题。这听起来可能有点违背直觉，但请听我说。你已经将你的英雄从他们可接受的静止状态中推了出来。现在他们正在努力做任何需要做的事，想回到之前的状态。英雄将经历新的事物。我希望你考虑让这些新事物加强她对反主题的信念。因为这会让他们更加渴望回到起点。
Oh, it’s delicious.  We’re creating a torture chamber basically.  Keep thinking that way.  Imagine your hero is moving backwards against you,  and you push them forward and they push back.  Good.  Design moments to do this.  You’re going to keep forcing them forward,  but you’re also going to put things in their path that make them want to go backwards.  That’s tension.  That’s exciting.  And more importantly, when they do get past those things, it will be meaningful.  You want to write your world to oppose your character’s desires. So, you’re going to reinforce their need to get back.   
哦，这真是妙不可言。我们基本上是在制造一个折磨室。继续以这种方式思考。想象一下你的英雄正在与你对抗，向后退，而你推动他们向前，他们又抵抗着后退。很好。设计一些时刻来这样做。你会不断逼迫他们向前，但你也会在他们的路上设置一些东西，让他们想回到过去。这就是张力。这很让人兴奋。更重要的是，当他们最终超越那些障碍时，这将具有意义。你需要写出一个与角色欲望相对立的世界。所以，你需要强化他们想回到原点的需求。
So, let’s see,  Marlin wants out into the ocean.  His theory is the ocean is really, really dangerous.  What should the first thing be?  Maybe let’s have him meet some sharks.  And actually, oh, you know what, they’re not scary at all.  Oh god, yes they are.  The ocean is in fact way worse than he even imagined.  That’s what you need to do.  He needs to get his son back really, really soon so he can return to stasis.  
那么，让我们看看，马林想进入大海。他的理论是，大海非常非常危险。第一件事应该是什么？也许我们可以让他遇见一些鲨鱼。实际上，哦，你知道吗，它们一点都不可怕。但紧接着，哦天哪！它们确实很可怕！事实上，大海比他想象的还要糟糕。这就是你需要做的。他必须很快找回他的儿子，这样他才能回到之前的安全静止状态。
Something or someone lives in a different way.  Someone or something in your story is an example of the life of theme rather than the life of anti-theme.  So remember, your hero believes in one side of the central dramatic argument.  It’s the wrong side.  You want them to believe the other one.  
有某人或某物以不同的方式生活。在你的故事中，有某人或某物是代表主题生活的，而不是反主题生活的例子。所以记住，你的英雄相信的是核心戏剧论点的另一面，这是错误的一面。你希望他们相信另一面。
OK, but they believe the wrong one.  They need to run into someone or something that believes in the right side of it.  This element of doubt creates a natural conflict for the protagonist because of course I believe this, you believe that.  But it’s also attractive to them on some level because – and again, really important.  Your hero is rational.  This is a critical component of a good hero.  
好的，但他们相信的是错误的那一面。他们需要遇到某人或某物，这个角色相信正确的一面。这个疑问的元素为主角制造了一个自然的冲突，因为当然我相信这一点，而你相信那个。但在某种程度上，这对他们也具有吸引力，因为——再强调一次，这非常重要——你的英雄是理性的。这是一个好英雄的关键要素。
You are dealing with somebody that probably lives irrationally, fine, but they have to have the capacity to see that maybe there is a better way.  You’re living things maybe the wrong way but you need the capacity to see things going the right way.  It is fear that separates the irrational hero from their rational potential.  And because they’re rational when they get a glimpse of this other way of being they’re going to realize there’s value to it through circumstance or accident or necessity or another character’s actions.  
你处理的可能是一个生活方式不太理性的人，这没问题，但他们必须具备能够看到也许有更好方式的能力。你可能以错误的方式生活，但你需要具备看到正确方式的能力。正是恐惧将非理性的英雄与他们的理性潜能隔开。因为他们是理性的，当他们瞥见这种不同的存在方式时，他们会通过环境、意外、必要性或另一个角色的行为意识到它的价值。
These are all things you’re inventing, but here’s why – the hero is going to experience a moment of acting in harmony with the right side of the central dramatic argument.  This could involve their own action or it could be something that they watch someone else do or something they experience passively.  But this is why the magical midpoint change occurs.  
这些都是你创造出来的情节，但原因在于——英雄将经历一个与核心戏剧论点的正确一面协调一致的时刻。这可能涉及他们自己的行动，或者是他们看到别人做的事情，或者是他们被动地经历的事情。但这就是为什么会出现神奇的中点变化。
Now you know why.  You’re not just doing it because a book said.  These things generally happen in the middle of the movie because our hero’s belief system has been challenged.  There is an element of doubt.  There is not a willingness to go all the way and believe the other side of the argument yet.  They may not even understand the other side of the argument.    There’s only a question that maybe for the first time they have to wonder if their side of the argument that they started with, the anti-theme, maybe it doesn’t explain or solve everything.  
现在你知道为什么了。你不是因为某本书说了你才这么做的。这些事情通常发生在电影的中间部分，因为我们的英雄的信仰体系受到了挑战。有了疑问的成分。他们还没有完全愿意相信论点的另一面。他们甚至可能还不理解论点的另一面。只是第一次，他们可能会开始怀疑他们最初持有的反主题是否无法解释或解决所有问题。
Have I been living a lie?  That’s what’s happening in the middle of a movie.  So, remember in *Finding Nemo* there’s a moment where because Marlin has to rescue Dory from this field of jellyfish he invents a game.  She forces him to do something that he normally wouldn’t do. Play.  He’s doing it for the old Marlin reasons of neurosis,  but it’s working.  She’s following him.  And as he’s doing it he gets a glimpse of what it’s like to live without fear.  He gets a glimpse of what it’s like to be carefree.  To not worry so much.  To be, well, a little less conservative with your own life.  And he loves it.  
我是不是一直生活在谎言中？这就是电影中段发生的事情。所以，记住在《海底总动员》中有一个时刻，马林必须从水母群中救出多莉，于是他发明了一个游戏。她迫使他做一些他通常不会做的事情——玩耍。他是出于老马林的神经质原因去做的，但它起作用了。她跟着他。当他这么做的时候，他瞥见了无惧生活是什么样子。他瞥见了无忧无虑的生活。不那么焦虑。对自己的生活不那么保守。而且他喜欢上了这种感觉。
And then what happens?  She gets stung.  Oh, glorious.  And that gets us to this reversal of theme.  The very moment your hero takes the bait that you put there to think about maybe switching sides   – maybe switching sides of the argument –    you need to hammer them back the other direction.  The story has to make them shrink back to the old way.  Dory almost dies in the jellyfish.  And why?  It happened because Marlin decided in a moment out of necessity to have fun and then forgot himself, forgot his fear.  And what’s the price of forgetting fear and not being vigilant?  Pain and tragedy.  
接下来发生了什么？她被蛰了。哦，精彩极了。这将我们带到了主题的逆转。就在你的英雄上钩，开始思考是否要改变立场  —是否要改变论点立场的那一刻—  你需要把他们重重地打回原来的方向。故事必须让他们退缩回原来的方式。多莉差点死在水母群里。为什么？这是因为马林一时出于需要决定享乐，然后忘记了自己，忘记了他的恐惧。忘记恐惧和失去警惕的代价是什么？痛苦和悲剧。
The tragedy of the beginning is reinforced and the hero retreats once again.  It’s good stuff.  And it means you have to be kind of mean.  Sadistic really.  But it turns out that these are the kinds of things we want out of our narrative. It’s the essence of what we call dramatic reversal.  
开头的悲剧得到了强化，英雄再次退缩。这很好。这意味着你必须有点狠心。真的有点虐心。但事实证明，这正是我们想要从叙事中获得的东西，这就是我们所谓的戏剧性逆转的本质。
I’m going to put aside the examples from Pixar for a second and I’m going to talk about somebody real.  There’s a guy named Jose Fernandez.  This is a true story.  Jose Fernandez is born in Cuba and at the age of 15 he escapes Cuba with his mother and his sister and many others, all packed in a very small boat.  And during the difficult voyage he is awakened to the sound of someone yelling.  That someone has fallen overboard.  And Jose, 15 years old, doesn’t hesitate.  He dives into the choppy water to save whoever it is.  And it’s only when he drags this person back onto the boat does he realize he has saved his own mother. Wow.  
我暂且搁置皮克斯的例子，来讲一个真实的故事。有一个叫何塞·费尔南德斯的人。这是一个真实的故事。何塞·费尔南德斯出生在古巴，15岁时，他与母亲、妹妹和其他许多人一起逃离古巴，挤在一艘很小的船上。在这段艰难的航程中，他被一声尖叫声惊醒。有人落水了。15岁的何塞毫不犹豫。他跳进波涛汹涌的水中去救那个人。当他把这个人拉回船上时，他才意识到自己救的是自己的母亲。哇。
Jose Fernandez grows up, he’s a hell of an athlete.  He goes on to pitch. Major League baseball pitcher. And he’s really good.  In fact, he is the National League Rookie of the Year. And he’s an All Star.  His future isn’t just bright, it is glorious.  Jose Fernandez is living the American dream and I don’t know how much you know about baseball, but ace pitchers they get paid hundreds of millions of dollars.  But at the age of 24 Jose Fernandez dies.  He doesn’t die from illness.  He doesn’t die from violence.  He dies in an accident.  But not a car accident.  He dies in a boating accident. A boating accident.  
何塞·费尔南德斯长大后成为了一个非常出色的运动员。他成为了一名棒球投手，大联盟的投手。而且他非常厉害。事实上，他是国家联盟的年度新人。他还是全明星球员。他的未来不仅光明，而且辉煌。何塞·费尔南德斯正在实现美国梦，我不知道你对棒球了解多少，但顶级投手的收入是上亿美元的。但在24岁时，何塞·费尔南德斯去世了。他不是死于疾病。他也不是死于暴力。他死于一场事故。但不是车祸。他死于一场船祸，一场船祸。
Now, do you feel that?  Do you feel more than you would if I had said he died of a blood clot?  Well, why?  I mean, death is death.  Why does this detail of the boating accident make you feel more?  Because it’s terribly ironic.  Because this is a guy who saved his own mother from water and then he dies in water.  It implies that there’s a strange kind of order to the universe even when that order hurts.  
现在，你感觉到了吗？你是不是比我说他死于血栓时感受更多？那么，为什么呢？毕竟，死亡就是死亡。为什么这个“船祸”的细节让你感受更多？因为这具有极其讽刺的意味。因为这是一个曾经从水中救出自己母亲的人，最终却死于水中。这暗示了宇宙中有一种奇怪的秩序，即使这种秩序令人痛苦。
And this is where we start to pull irony out of drama.  This is essential to your choices when you decide how you’re going to push back against your hero.  How you’re going to hammer them back.  How you’re going to punish them.  Think about that Pixar short, *Lava*.  And I talk about Pixar all the time because it’s just pure storytelling and they’re really, really good at it.  So he thinks he’s alone.  He’s a volcano in the ocean.  He thinks he’s alone.  And then he discovers he’s not alone.  But when he discovers that, he also discovers that she’s facing the wrong way and she can’t see him.  And he doesn’t know how to sing anymore.  So she doesn’t even know he’s there.  Oh, that’s terrible. It’s unexpected. It’s contradictory. And it’s ironic.  And that’s exactly what you want to do.  
这是我们开始从戏剧中提取讽刺的地方。当你决定如何反击你的英雄时，这是至关重要的选择。你如何将他们打回去。你如何惩罚他们。想想皮克斯的短片《火山》。我总是提到皮克斯，因为它展现的是纯粹的讲故事艺术，而且他们真的非常擅长。他以为自己是孤单的。他是大海中的一座火山。他以为自己是孤独的。然后他发现自己并不孤单。但当他发现这点时，他同时也发现她的方向错了，她看不到他。他已经不会唱歌了。所以她甚至不知道他在那里。哦，这太可怕了。这出人意料，充满矛盾，并且具有讽刺意味。这正是你想要做的。
So, consider the irony that’s involved with Marlin.  Marlin is worried that he has lost his son.  Every parent who loses a child, even for an instant in a mall, is scared.  But that’s not enough.  Let’s talk about what the people at Pixar understood they needed to do to this character from the very start to punish him.  So that his journey would be that much more impressive.  It’s not enough to say, look, you love your kid, your kid is lost, you’ve got to go find your kid.  Everybody loves their kid, right?  OK. But they go a step further.  They say, you know what, there’s no mom in the picture.  Mom died. It’s just you. You’re a single dad.  You’re the only parent.  You’ve got to find your kid.  No, that’s not enough.  How about this? How about your wife and all of your other children were eaten in front of you because you couldn’t protect them?  And the only kid you had left out of all of that, the only memory you have of your wife and your happy life before is one tiny egg.  One kid.  
那么，考虑一下马林的讽刺情境。马林担心他失去了儿子。每个丢失孩子的父母，哪怕是在商场里瞬间丢失，也会害怕。但这还不够。让我们来谈谈皮克斯的人从一开始就明白他们需要对这个角色做些什么来惩罚他。这样他的旅程就会显得更加令人印象深刻。只说“你爱你的孩子，你的孩子丢了，你必须去找他”是不够的。每个人都爱自己的孩子，对吧？好的，但他们更进一步。他们说，你知道吗，故事里没有妈妈。妈妈死了，只有你。你是一个单亲爸爸。你是唯一的父母。你必须找到你的孩子。不，这还不够。那么这样呢？你的妻子和所有其他孩子都在你面前被吃掉了，因为你无法保护他们？在那一切之后，你唯一剩下的孩子，你关于你妻子和你曾经幸福生活的唯一记忆就是一个小小的蛋。一个孩子。
And that is still not enough.  And this is why Pixar is so amazing.  Because they knew that the further they went, the more we would feel at the end.  It’s not enough that he only has one kid.  When he looks at that little egg, he can see that the one kid that’s left is disabled.  He has a bad fin.  Now it’s enough.  
而这仍然不够。这就是为什么皮克斯如此了不起。因为他们知道，走得越远，最后我们感受到的情感就越强烈。光是他只有一个孩子还不够。当他看着那颗小小的蛋时，他发现唯一剩下的孩子是残疾的。他的鳍不健全。现在，这就够了。
Now you have created the perfect circumstance for that individual, you cruel, cruel god of story.  Now I know why he’s so panicked that that kid is somewhere out there in the ocean.  When you’re designing your obstacles and your lessons and the glimpses of the other way and the rewards and the punishments and the beating back and the pushing forward,  keep thinking ironically.  
现在你为这个角色创造了完美的情境，你这个残忍的故事之神。现在我明白为什么他如此恐慌，因为他的孩子就在外面的海洋中。当你设计障碍、教训、对另一种生活方式的短暂体验、奖励和惩罚、击退和推进时，要继续思考讽刺性。
Keep thinking about surprises that twist the knife.  Don’t just stab your characters.  Twist the knife in them.  If someone has to face a fear, make it overwhelming to them.  Don’t disappoint them.  Punish them.  Make your characters lower their defenses by convincing them that everything is going to be OK and then punch them right in the face, metaphorically.  
继续思考那些能“转动刀刃”的惊喜。不要只是刺伤你的角色。要在他们身上转动刀刃。如果有人必须面对恐惧，就让这种恐惧压倒他们。不要让他们失望。要惩罚他们。让你的角色放下防备，以为一切都会好，然后再狠狠地给他们一记耳光，当然是比喻意义上的。
So, sorry to tell you that as a writer you are not the New Testament god who turns water into wine.  You are the Old Testament god who tortures Job because, I don’t know, it seems like fun.  And when you’re wondering where to go in your story and what to do with your character, ask this question:  Where is my hero on her quest between theme and anti-theme?  Or I guess I should say between an anti-theme and theme.  And what would be the meanest thing I could do to her right now?  What would be the worst way to do the meanest thing right now?  Then do it. And do it. And do it again until the hero is left without a belief at all.  
很抱歉告诉你，作为一个作家，你不是那个把水变成酒的新约之神。你是那个折磨约伯的旧约之神，因为，我不知道，可能觉得这很有趣。当你在思考故事的方向和如何处理角色时，问自己这个问题：我的英雄现在处在主题和反主题的哪个阶段？或者，我应该说在反主题与主题之间。我现在能对她做的最残忍的事情是什么？现在做这件最残忍的事情的最糟糕方式是什么？然后去做，一次又一次地做，直到英雄完全失去信念。
So as the demands of the narrative begin to overwhelm the hero,  the hero begins to realize that her limitations aren’t physical but thematic.  Think about Marlin.  "I promised that I would never let anything happen to him."  But then I suppose nothing ever would happen to him. That’s what Dory says.  And Marlin knows she’s right.  He knows that if all he does is basically lock his kid up to prevent anything bad from happening to his kid, nothing good will happen to his kid.  The kid won’t have a real life.  
所以，当叙事的要求开始压垮英雄时，英雄开始意识到她的局限不仅仅是身体上的，而是主题性的。想想马林。“我承诺永远不会让任何事情发生在他身上。”但随后多莉说：“我想那什么也不会发生在他身上。”马林知道她是对的。他知道如果他所做的只是基本上把他的孩子锁起来，以防止任何不好的事情发生在孩子身上，那么好事也不会发生在孩子身上。孩子将没有真正的生活。
So, now what? Well, the answer is obvious, right?  If you love someone let them go.  And I’m sure that at that point in the movie if you ask Marlin that he would say, “I suppose that’s the thing that I’m supposed to believe.”  But they can’t do it.  Not yet.  In fact, you’re going to want to have a situation where they have a chance to do it.  And they fail at it in some important way because they don’t really accept the central dramatic argument you want for them.  
那么，现在该怎么办？答案显而易见，不是吗？如果你爱某人，就放手吧。我相信在电影的那个时刻，如果你问马林，他可能会说：“我想这是我应该相信的事情。” 但他们做不到。还不是时候。实际上，你会希望有一个场景让他们有机会去做这件事。而他们在某个重要方面失败了，因为他们并没有真正接受你为他们设定的核心戏剧论点。
They just lost the belief in their original point of view. They’re trapped between rejection of the old and acceptance of the new.  They are lost. Their old ways don’t work anymore.  The new way seems impossible or insane.  Shrek doesn’t want his swamp back anymore.  He wants love, but he is also not willing to do what is required to try and get it.  He’s trapped. And this is why they call it the low point. It’s not random.  It’s not the low point because the books say page 90 is the low point.  It’s the low point because your character is lost and in a whole lot of trouble.  
他们只是失去了对原有观点的信念。他们被困在拒绝旧的与接受新的之间。他们迷失了。他们的旧方法不再奏效。新的方式看起来不可能或疯狂。史莱克不再想要回他的沼泽了。他想要爱，但他也不愿意去做争取它所需要的事情。他被困住了。这就是为什么他们称之为低谷。这不是偶然的。这不是因为书上说第90页是低谷。这是低谷因为你的角色迷失了，并且陷入了巨大的困境。
Their goal in the beginning, which was to go backwards to the beginning to achieve stasis, to re-achieve stasis, that goal is in shambles.  Their anti-thematic belief, whatever it was that they clung to in the beginning of this story, it’s been exposed as a sham.  And the enormity of the real goal that now faces them is impossibly daunting.  They can’t yet accept the theme because it’s too scary.  When your core values are gone and when you aren’t ready to replace them with new values, well, you might as well be dead.  And this is why people go to movies.  
他们一开始的目标是回到起点，实现静止，重新获得静止，这个目标已经破碎。他们的反主题信念，无论他们在故事开头紧紧抓住的是什么，现在都被揭露为虚假的。而现在摆在他们面前的真正目标的巨大规模令他们无法承受。他们还无法接受这个主题，因为它太可怕了。当你的核心价值观消失了，而你还没准备好用新的价值观取代它们时，你简直如同死亡。而这正是人们去看电影的原因。
So, granted, we love the lasers, we love the explosions, we love the ka-boom, and we love the sex, and we love the tears,  but what we need from drama – and when I say drama I mean the drama of comedy and the drama of drama – what we need are these moments where we connect to another person’s sense of being lost.  Because we have all been lost.  And that’s why the ending is going to work.  Because without this there can be no catharsis.  
的确，我们喜欢激光，喜欢爆炸，喜欢轰隆声，喜欢性爱，喜欢眼泪，但我们从戏剧中真正需要的是——当我说戏剧时，我指的是喜剧中的戏剧性和戏剧本身的戏剧性——我们需要的是那些让我们与另一个人迷失感产生联系的时刻。因为我们都曾迷失过。这就是为什么结局会奏效的原因。因为没有这一点，就不会有情感的宣泄。
Catharsis comes from the Greek word for vomiting I’m pretty sure.  So just think of a lot of your plot as shoving really bad food down the throat of your hero.  Because that’s how you’re going to get to this catharsis.  
我很确定“情感宣泄”这个词源自希腊语中的“呕吐”。所以你可以把很多情节想象成把非常糟糕的食物硬塞进你英雄的喉咙里。因为这就是你如何达到情感宣泄的方式。
Now, I want to say that these approaches don’t help you map out a second act.  What these approaches do is help you develop your character as they move through a narrative.  And that narrative is going to impact their relationship to theme.  And when you finish that movement of this character interacting with story so that their relationship to the theme is changing from “I don’t believe that” to “OK, I don’t believe what I used to believe but I can’t believe that yet,” suddenly you’ll be somewhere around the end of the second act.  And here is the big secret.  John and I have said this many, many times.  There are no acts.  So you can’t really be scared of the second act.  It doesn’t exist.  It’s not some sort of weird wasteland you have to get through.  It’s just part of one big piece.  
现在，我想说这些方法并不能帮你规划出第二幕。这些方法的作用是帮助你随着故事的发展塑造你的角色。而这个故事将影响他们与主题的关系。当你完成角色与故事的互动过程时，他们与主题的关系从“我不相信那个”变成“好吧，我不再相信我曾经相信的，但我还不能相信那个”，突然间你就会发现自己已经接近第二幕的结尾了。而这里有一个重要的秘密。约翰和我已经说过很多次了。没有所谓的“幕”。所以你不必真的害怕第二幕。它并不存在。它不是某种你必须穿越的荒芜之地。它只是一个整体的一部分。
There’s one act.  It’s called your story.  
只有一幕。它叫做你的故事。
And now we get to the third act, sorry, the end of your one act.  And this is the defining moment.  Your character needs to face a defining moment.  And this defining moment is their worst fear.  It is their greatest challenge.  This is the moment that will not only resolve the story that you’re telling but it will resolve the life of your character.  This moment will bring them to a new stasis and balance.  
现在我们到了第三幕，抱歉，也就是你“唯一一幕”的结尾。这是决定性时刻。你的角色需要面对一个决定性时刻。而这个决定性时刻就是他们最深的恐惧。这是他们最大的挑战。这个时刻不仅会解决你所讲的故事，还会解决你角色的生命历程。这个时刻将把他们带入一个新的静止与平衡状态。
Remember synthesis, thesis, antithesis, synthesis.  Here we are again.  But what are you going to do?  You have to come up with this thing.  This is the difference between what I’m saying to you now and what a lot of books say.  Books will say, “Defining moment goes here.”  And I’m saying, yeah, but how?  What makes it so defining?  
记住综合、命题、对立命题、综合。我们又回到了这里。你打算怎么做呢？你必须想出这个关键点。这就是我现在告诉你的和许多书籍所说的区别。书上会说，“这里是决定性时刻。” 而我在说，是的，但该怎么做呢？是什么让它如此具有决定性？
You’re going to design a moment that is going to test your protagonist’s faith in the theme.  They need to go through something where they have to prove that they believe this new theme.  They have to **prove** it. It’s not enough to say, "OK, I get it. What I used to think is wrong. There’s a new way that’s right."  That’s not enough.  They have to prove it.  And they have to prove it in a way where they literally embody the point of that idea with everything they have.  
你要设计一个时刻来考验你主角对主题的信仰。他们需要经历一些事情，以证明他们相信这个新的主题。他们必须**证明**这一点。光说“好吧，我明白了，我以前的想法是错的，现在有一种新的正确方式”是不够的。这还不够。他们必须证明这一点。而且他们必须以一种方式证明它，让他们真正用尽一切去体现这个理念的核心。
But before you do that, don’t you want to torture them one more time?  Of course you do.  The relapse. A nice ironic relapse.  You want to tempt them right before this big decision moment.  Right before the defining moment.  You want to hold that safety blanket up and say, “Go ahead. Go back to the beginning. You get it. The thing you wanted on page 15, I’m giving it to you. Don’t go forward. Don’t change. Go back.”  And what do they have to do?  They have to reject that temptation.  You design a machinery where they have to reject that temptation and then do something extraordinary to embody the truth of the theme.  And now you get acceptance through action.  The hero acts in accordance with the theme.  Specifically by doing so they prevail.  They have to act.  
但在你做到这一点之前，难道你不想再折磨他们一次吗？当然你想。复发，一个漂亮的讽刺性复发。你想在这个重大决定时刻之前诱惑他们。就在决定性时刻之前。你想举起那条安全毯，对他们说：“继续吧，回到起点。你明白的，你在第15页想要的东西，我现在给你。不要前进，不要改变，回去吧。”他们必须做什么呢？他们必须拒绝那个诱惑。你设计一个机制，让他们必须拒绝那个诱惑，然后做一些非凡的事情来体现主题的真相。现在你通过行动获得了接受。英雄按照主题行动。正是通过这样做，他们获胜了。他们必须采取行动。
So let’s go back to Marlin.  It’s not enough for Marlin to say, “I get it now. I’ve heard the wise turtles. I’ve seen the way Dory is. I’ve learned my lesson. I’ve got to let you live.”  That’s not enough.  What Pixar does is create a perfect mechanism to tempt and then force action.  Dory is captured.  And Nemo says to Marlin,  “I’m the only one who can go in there and save her.”  And this is a great temptation.  This is where Marlin has to reject the old way.  
所以让我们回到马林。对马林来说，光是说“我现在明白了，我听到了智慧乌龟的教诲，我看到了多莉的方式，我学到了教训，我必须让你自由生活”是不够的。这还不够。皮克斯所做的是创造一个完美的机制，先诱惑然后迫使行动。多莉被抓住了。尼莫对马林说，“我是唯一能进去救她的人。”这是一个巨大的诱惑。这就是马林必须拒绝旧方法的时刻。
We’re saying go ahead, you’ve got your kid, we’re giving him back to you.  It’s all you wanted.  On page 15 you just wanted your kid.  Here he is. Get out.  But he has to act in accordance with the theme.  So he rejects that and he says,  “No. Go ahead, son. And try and save her.”  And that simple decision is how he acts in accordance with theme. And it is terrifying.  And now you get one last chance to punish him.  Briefly.  Go ahead.  
我们在说，去吧，你已经找回了你的孩子，我们把他还给你了。这就是你想要的一切。在第15页时，你只想要找回你的孩子。他就在这儿，离开吧。但他必须按照主题行事。于是他拒绝了这一点，并说，“不，去吧，儿子。去试着救她。”而这个简单的决定就是他按照主题行动的方式。它令人恐惧。现在你有最后一次机会来惩罚他。短暂地。继续吧。
Let’s see Nemo coming out of that net and let’s think that he’s dead.  And let Marlin hold him.  And let Marlin remember what he was like when he was in that little egg.  And let Marlin kind of be OK with it.  Because that’s what it means to live in accordance with theme.  If you say, look, sometimes if you love someone you have to let them go, that’s one thing.  Actually having to let them go is another thing.  Letting them go and seeing them get hurt is yet another.  That is the ultimate acceptance of that idea, isn’t it?  And that’s what he sees.  But then, of course, faith in the theme rewards.  And Nemo is alive.  So then you get this denouement.  
让我们看到尼莫从渔网中出来，让我们以为他死了。让马林抱着他。让马林回忆起尼莫在那个小小的蛋里的样子。让马林勉强接受这一切。因为这就是按照主题生活的意义。如果你说，有时候当你爱某人时，你必须让他们走，那是一回事。真的不得不让他们走又是另一回事。让他们走，并亲眼看到他们受伤，那是另一回事。那是对这个理念的终极接受，不是吗？而这就是马林看到的。但当然，对主题的信仰会带来回报。尼莫还活着。于是你得到了故事的结局。
What is the denouement? Why is it there?  It’s not there because we need to be slowly let down and back out in the movie theater lobby.  It’s there because we need to see the new synthesis.  You have successfully fired a billion antitheses against a billion theses and come up with one big, grand, lovely new synthesis.  Please show it to me.  So we now see that the after story life is in harmony with theme.  
什么是结局？为什么它在那里？它的存在并不是因为我们需要被慢慢地引导出来，然后走回影院。它存在的原因是我们需要看到新的综合结果。你已经成功地用无数的对立命题反驳了无数的命题，并得出了一个宏大、壮丽、可爱的新的综合结果。请展示给我看。所以我们现在看到，故事后的生活与主题和谐一致。
And here’s the deal with the first scene and the last scene of a movie.  If you remove everything from the story except the introduction of your hero and the last scene of your hero there should really be only one fundamental difference.  here it is.  The hero in the beginning acts in accordance with the anti-theme and the hero at the end acts in accordance with the theme.  Now, this should all help you create your character.  When you’re creating character I want you to think of theme.  I want you to imagine a character who embodies the anti-theme.  You can be subtle about this.  You probably should be.  It generally works better if you are.  
关于电影的第一幕和最后一幕，有一个关键点。如果你从故事中去掉所有内容，只保留英雄的介绍和最后一幕，应该只有一个根本性的区别。开头的英雄按照反主题行动，而结尾的英雄按照主题行动。现在，这些都应该能帮助你塑造你的角色。当你塑造角色时，我希望你考虑主题。我希望你想象一个体现反主题的角色。你可以表现得微妙一些。你最好是微妙一些。通常这样效果会更好。
And I want you to think of your story as a journey that guides this character from belief in the anti-theme to belief in theme.  Remember you’re god – angry, angry god.  You have created this test.  That’s what your story is.  In order to guide your character to a better way of living, but they have to make the choices.  if you’ve heard, “The worst character is a passive character,” that’s why.  They have to make the choices or you’re making it for them.  And then, well, it just doesn’t count, does it?  If you can write the story of your character as they grow from thinking this to the opposite of this, and guess what, you will never ask “what should happen next” ever again.  
我希望你把你的故事想象成一段引导角色从信仰反主题到信仰主题的旅程。记住，你是上帝——愤怒的上帝。你创造了这个考验。这就是你的故事。为了引导你的角色走向更好的生活方式，但他们必须自己做出选择。如果你听过“最糟糕的角色是被动的角色”，这就是原因。他们必须做出选择，否则就是你替他们做决定。那样的话，这就不算数了，不是吗？如果你能写出一个角色从思考这个问题到思考相反问题的成长故事，那么猜猜看，你永远不会再问“接下来该发生什么”了。
原播链接：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSX-DROZuzY