I think Tomm Moore has great story sense, though with an odd approach to story-weaving that occasionally undermines his arguments. Curious to see how complete the storyform for “Song” is and how far down it drills.
Let’s start with identifying the OS Domain. I personally believe it is in Mind – everyone in the story is grappling with inner turmoil and their feelings toward each other.
Ruh-roh…has no one seen the film? Definitely worth checking out.
Here’s how I think the four throughlines / perspectives sit at the plot level:
OVERALL STORY - Repressing Grief
DOMAIN: Mind
CONCERN: Subconscious
Everyone in the story, real or fantastical, is struggling to cope with grief, or with the fallout of grief from parental figures. How one deals with emotions and inner turmoil defines the conflict, with Maka / Granny pursuing the story goal by stealing / downplaying everyone’s feelings.
MAIN CHARACTER - Ben
DOMAIN: Psychology
CONCERN: Becoming
Ben feels little obligation to his sister – he resents the connection of her appearance to their mother’s disappearance. So while Ben technically is Saoirse’s brother, his internal journey is about truly becoming her brother, in motive and spirit.
IMPACT CHARACTER - Saoirse
DOMAIN: Activity
CONCERN: Obtaining
Finding her selkie coat, ‘borrowing’ her brother’s shell, recovering her lost voice – Saoirse’s journey is all about external loss and acquisition.
RELATIONSHIP - Brother and Sister
DOMAIN: Situation
CONCERN: Future
Ben and Saoirse constantly find their future state in question. How long will they be forced to stay at Granny’s? When will they see their dad again? What will happen if Maka finds them?
I highly recommend purchasing – should be widely available.
I just borrowed my friend’s blu-ray of the film, but haven’t seen it yet. Hopefully will get a chance tonight, and I’ll add my two cents.
I’m going to do my best as well. Need a few days.
Having now seen it, I can see how all of your explanations line up, but I feel like the Domains are different.
For the Overall Story, which is definitely about repressing emotion, I’d argue manipulation/psychology. Particularly because of the Maka and Granny characters. Maka’s whole thing is that she doesn’t want to feel any negative emotions, so literally bottles them up – tricking herself into not feeling them. But psychology also applies because of the conflicting thought processes of the characters. Ben and his father, his sister, granny, etc. Everyone believes something different is needed to solve a particular problem.
As a main character, I would argue that Ben is a Fixed Attitude character from the very beginning. That scene on the beach in which Saoirse walks into the water, Ben seems very fixed in his belief “not to go in the water”. He doesn’t do anything about it, but he is very adamant that he is in charge and she should not be in the water. Later on, he abandons his own rule to dive into the water for the coat. His ‘change’ resolve is about both his emotional connection to his sister and his own change in attitude.
As a situation character, Saoirse has an impact by being both Ben’s sister and a selkie. Her disappearance, muteness and abilities suggest to me that she is defined by her situation.
That’s my personal thought, anyway. But I can easily see how yours could apply, also.
Thinking it over, I believe you are correct. It’s interesting that our different domain layouts really just involve a state vs process swap.
I was reluctant to remove Ben from Changing One’s Nature (I felt like truly becoming a good brother was key), but of course, if that is the OS Concern, then Ben is still experiencing that process – it’s just that everyone else is as well, which lines right up with your observations.
Once I starting asking myself whether the domains as I saw them were unique to those perspectives or the source of conflict / drive, it became clear your layout is right:
OS – PSYCHOLOGY, Becoming
MC – MIND, Subconscious
IC – SITUATION, Future
RS – ACTIVITY, Obtaining
The themes further down also work well: Closure and Denial, Rationalization and Obligation, Openness and Preconception, etc.
In either case, it’s nice to see an animated film where both the OS and the MC are dealing with internal conflicts, as it is frequently the opposite (assuming a complete story in the first place).
It’s clear from existing discussion that Ben is a Change MC and a Be-er. What is Ben’s problem solving style?
I’m not entirely sure. I could argue either way on this one. But I’d argue that his consistent blame of Saoirse for the absence of his mother suggests linear - “it’s her fault because ___”. And on top of this, he seems to be the one that goes from A to B. “Saoirse’s coat is missing, I’ll dive in and get it”, etc.
I agree with Linear – Ben is very focused on the immediate cause-and-effect. Plus Saoirse, as his opposite, is clearly Holistic. This is illustrated well in their forest journey – Saoirse’s choices often don’t make short-term sense (getting off the bus, diving down the well), because she intuits the lights will lead to ultimate goals.
How about Story Driver? Do Actions force Decisions, or vice-versa? Something to keep in mind generally is the dualism of the Overall Story – the parallel narratives of the ‘modern’ Irish family and the dwindling faerie-folk (hence why I believe that Maka and Granny share the protagonist functions).
Actions force decisions. The biggest example I can think of is near the beginning; Saoirse finds the shell flute and coat and is brought to the water by the seals, setting the whole story in motion.
And, as a Be-er, Ben is a somewhat unwilling presence throughout the narrative until the end.
Nice observation! Also, Saoirse’s escapade forces Granny to put her foot down with Conor and take the kids away (actions force decisions).
We should discuss the inciting incident i.e. the beginning Story Driver. Which Action begins the central inequity of Song of the Sea? I do think, as you suggested, that Saoirse finding the coat is a good candidate, but there are other options I wonder about. Is it Maka turning Mac Lir into stone, beginning her raid on all faerie-folk? That action seems more connected to the overall goal of Repressing Grief, but it might be back-story and separate from the storyform. Is it Bronach’s disappearance in the sea? Is it Granny taking the kids away from the lighthouse?
Or is it some combination of these, considering the dualism of the modern / magical world narrative?
Having rewatched the opening 15 minutes, there is a pre-credit sequence establishing a lot of backstory. So I made a list of what I feel are possible opening story drivers (all of which, I believe, you suggested);
By that point, we have granny deciding to remove the children from the island, so it must be one of the above. My guess is finding the shell and coat, and going into the water. Granny’s decision to get them away from the lighthouse stems directly as a result of this action, which makes me think this is the most likely candidate.
Saoirse triggering the trail of light spirits (with her flute and coat) certainly seems to move things along, as we witness the lights contacting the various faerie-folk and catching the owls’ attention, but I’m not quite convinced…
The inciting incident creates the central inequity, which the Overall Story Goal is a response to. If the OS Goal is “repressing grief,” (Changing One’s Nature) then I would suggest that the inciting incident is Bronach’s disappearance, paralleled in the faerie world by Mac Lir’s loss.
When Granny first arrives, Ben mutters, “she’s going to try and make us leave again, isn’t she…” Granny has been trying to remove the kids from the lighthouse for quite some time – something she would never consider if Bronach were still around (similarly, Maka wouldn’t be stealing emotions if Mac Lir hadn’t lost his loved one).
I think Saoirse’s discovery of the coat is an important benchmark – it’s a warning to the story movers that their attempts to repress past grievances are not working, and hence they double down on their efforts (Granny puts her foot down and follows through on her long-time threats) – but it doesn’t create the central inequity of the narrative.
Pardon the whole ‘inciting incident’ diversion, it’s a concept I’m trying to improve myself at and thus I seized the opportunity to discuss it – but in either case, the Story Driver is clearly Action.
The next category might be tough for this film – Story Limit. This is something Tomm Moore’s previous effort Secret of Kells had some trouble with. For Song of the Sea, is it Timelock or Optionlock?
I finally got the movie. I haven’t read the thread, but will get on this pronto.
The movie is an Optionlock, as far as I can tell. I think the options it goes through are “how can we get back to the coat/lighthouse.” (Map, bus, water, magical dog spirits.) But this feels off-story somehow, and I wonder if it has more to do with the songs or the “flute”. It’s almost as though the right combinations of things has to be assembled: Saoirse needs to be with her coat, singing the song. At the beginning, she doesn’t have her coat or a voice or the words to the song. These all come together at the end.
It makes some hints at a time limit (“She won’t last the night without her coat.”) but it’s never definite; it’s more like stakes.
I don’t think it’s necessary to pin the First Driver to a specific event. What is clear is that a series of events leads to her taking the flute and nearly drowning (in appearance only) leading to the decision to take her off the island.
@LunarDynasty, you’ll find that I really dislike the term “inciting incident” and discourage its use. There are lots of reasons. Drivers are much better defined, so I don’t like “demoting” any thought to a previous incarnation. An “Inciting” incident sounds like it should happen first, whereas Syd Field actually coined it to refer to the event between acts one and two. And it implies an Action Driver. It’s great to pay attention to Drivers, but I prefer not using non-Dramatica language.
That’s reasonable. Perhaps Initial Story Driver instead?
I agree that while the film has elements of Timelock, it’s never truly defined.
I find it helpful to identify the first driver because it shapes the Overall Story goal – which then determines whether the Story Outcome is Success or Failure. Speaking of which, what do you think it is for Song of the Sea?
Healing the family. Ben is going to be the best big brother ever – he’s not. The Dad is absent. The daughter cannot speak. The mother’s loss has left a huge rift. At the end, they are all together (as are the Giant and the the Owl Witch). This could make it the actual goal, or the result of overcoming grief.
But, then who is the protagonist here?
The only place where this goes wonky for me now is that there is a secondary goal of “getting the selkie her coat” – this is going to save (essentially) all the sidhe in Ireland. It’s such a secondary thing for most of the movie – though it motivates the sidhe to help, and the owl witch to interfere – but then it overwhelms the ending. I think this might be because it’s a story for kids, and provides the most magical ending.
FWIW, the steps of the hero’s journey are so apparent to me in this movie that I believe the author was trying to map onto them. It would make a true storyform incidental or accidental though not impossible.
I no longer think we are on the right track. The problems that the characters go through are not problems of manipulation in the OS. What they have to do is get home. The RS is about the brother-sister relationship, which goes from antagonistic to healed.
I think we are going to see the OS in Activity and the RS in Manipulation. Saoirse is still going to be a Situation IC (Selkie).
I see where you’re coming from regarding the OS in Activity, but I’m not on board yet…
I think Maka/Granny is the protagonist (two different people but same dramatic functions – same with Conor/Mac Lir), and the Overall Story Goal is stealing / repressing everyone’s emotions. Ben and Saoirse’s search for the selkie coat (and ultimately her voice) are simply a means of fighting this goal.
I never cared for ‘Manipulation’ as an alternative for ‘Psychology’ – I find it misleading. It skews toward a particular application of inner processes and ignores more passive approaches to the domain. I personally think everyone in Song’s OS is suffering from problematic ways of thinking, and their inability to articulate their emotions or talk straight with each other stems from it.
I strongly agree that Ben and Saoirse’s relationship goes from antagonistic to healed, but I don’t think this process is unique to them. Familial bonds are healed for everyone – Conor and Granny, Maka and her fellow faerie-folk, etc.
I think the Story Outcome is Failure (the goal changes), but that the Judgment is Good (everyone feels right).
It’s possible that this is a weak point of the film – there might be Overall Goal confusion (is it internal or external? Evidence for both). The duality of the OS (modern vs myth) might be part of this, but I personally see the dualism as a strength of the film, especially for younger audiences: Granny will never explain why she does what she does, but her mythological counterpart is more than willing.
I think we are running into the kind of problem that arises from taking a “bulk action” at the beginning of an analysis. We might benefit from taking a step back and just asking, “Okay, what is the OS? Where do we see evidence of conflict?”
For instance, a lot of the conflict on the journey home comes from avoiding the owls, trying to find the mountains, having to rescue Saoirse from Maka. So, while everyone is suffering from grief, the actual problems seem very external.
There are overall stories that seem very external and based around conflicts of activity, but the source of friction is actually internal. The Incredibles comes to mind (OS in Psychology).
But these problems are almost exclusively experienced by Ben and Saiorse, which aligns with putting the RS in Activity. Fighting for control of the flute and Conor’s affections, losing Saoirse to the owls and getting her back, destroying Maka’s bottles (all examples of Obtaining) – these actions define the state of their relationship and seem fairly unique to their throughline.