"Song of the Sea" analysis

analysis
#16

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.

#17

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).

#18

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.

#19

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.

1 Like
#20

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.

#21

I totally agree, I just want to be thorough.

The arguments in favor of “Grief” being the problem are strong. Specifically, once Maka is forced to deal with her feelings, she ceases to be antagonistic.

The dad throws away her Saoirse’s sealskin – is this because of grief? I think yes: he doesn’t want to lose her too.

And, skipping ahead and using Jim’s technique of taking things away and seeing if there is still a problem: If the children get home but the grief isn’t deal with, is there still a problem? Yes.

What about getting attacked by the owls and whatnot? The children, besides being the only ones who make the journey, are also the only ones who deal with the faerie world.

1 Like
#22

Stepping back and working from the beginning is a good idea. I had a lot of time to spin my own head-gears about this storyform before others started pitching in on the thread, so it’s possible I’ve got some blinders on.

I agree that “Grief” is the common problem. Everything was hunky-dory until Bronach disappeared / Mac Lir cried an ocean. Now everyone is overwhelmed with grief and doesn’t know what to do about it. This fits with what I was saying earlier…but…

Another possibility is that the reaction to the grief is the actual central inequity. Which would mean the OS Goal is in response to the reaction, and not the original grief. This significantly changes who the protagonist or antagonist is (which you alluded to in mentioning how Maka “ceases to be antagonistic”).

So what is the initial driver? Is it Bronach’s disappearance, causing everyone to grieve – thus the OS Goal is to repress grief? Or is it Maka’s reaction, stealing everyone’s feelings – thus the goal is to undo her work? Definitely different drivers, with different protagonists, and different domains of conflict.

I still lean towards the former, but I’m open to arguments for the latter (or something else entirely).

EDIT: Regarding the goal of ‘Healing the Family,’ I think this is a great dividend of the story’s resolution, but as you say, if it is the OS Goal there’s a serious lack of Pursuit of it.

#23

I think these are both in the backstory. I think the story itself starts with the two kids on the beach, so that’s six years later.

For me, the first driver is the seals coming up and encouraging Saoirse to go swimming. This leads to her finding the seal coat and ultimately the decision to send her to live with Grandma.

#24

This makes sense. If the seals hadn’t come on Saoirse’s sixth birthday, she wouldn’t feel the ‘call of the selkie,’ and life would have proceeded as normal…

But would it have? Granny seemed dedicated to getting the kids off the island in the first place…Saoirse’s nighttime swim just sped up the result (not trying to be a crank – bear with me). I think the seals certainly kick off Saoirse’s personal story, but I can’t picture what the OS goal would be in response to them.

I think this is because “Grief” as the inequity predates Saoirse’s birthday – it exists because of Bronach’s disappearance. If the seals / swimming are the first driver, then the story would have to be about a different inequity altogether.

#25

Grannie was dedicated to getting the kids off the island AND grief predates the seals’ arrival. This indicate that they were not sufficient on their own and rules them out as the first driver.

But once Saoirse is discovered in the waves, dad sends her away.

#26

But this is true of every driver in any Action storyform – Actions demonstrate that a problem exists and Decisions attempt to restore equilibrium. New actions are required throughout to show that the prior decisions do not solve the real problem – if no new, unforced actions occur, then characters will assume their decisions are working.

E.G. When Bronach disappears (first action), Conor decides to hide the truth from Ben and lock up Saoirse’s coat. Granny decides to pressure them to leave in order to bury the past (resulting decisions). But then Saoirse’s birthday arrives, the seals coax out her selkie nature and she finds the coat anyway (new actions), showing that the adult’s prior decisions are not sufficient. Granny decides to take matters entirely into her own hands and Conor decides to chuck the coat into the sea (additional decisions).

Everything the story is attempting to solve stems from avoiding the grief of losing Bronach.

#27

I think you’re adding things here that aren’t part of the movie. When Bronach disappears, the movie jumps forward six years. It doesn’t force any decisions, so far as we know. We never see this leading to hiding anything from Ben, or hiding the coat. Those things are just true after the jump.

However, when Saoirse goes into the water, this leads directly to the dad dumping the seal skin into the ocean, directly to his deciding to listen to the grandmother and send the kids away.

The movie is not about attempting to solve anything resulting from grief. The story is six years later, and everything is in equilibrium until the seals come. The dad’s decisions are to avoid more grief, not resolve old griefs.

1 Like
#28

You are right – the seals are the first driver.

We do see Conor decide to hide the truth – it’s when Ben is following the selkie memory strand. We’re shown the aftermath of Bronagh ‘drowning’ (Ben asks where Mom is, Conor doesn’t answer, but instead introduces his new sister). Whether this counts as back-story or storyweaving prerogative is arguable…

But that doesn’t terribly matter because you are right that the story is about fear of new losses, not previous ones. From a family-psych clinical perspective, current fears always trace back to original ones (hence my insistence that the loss of Bronagh is the lynch-pin), but that’s a different paradigm with different criteria from Dramatica storyforming.

The cast seems focused on helping or preventing Saoirse from fully becoming a selkie, and these efforts are expressed through physical means – getting rid of the coat, relocating the kids, capturing Saoirse, turning faeries to stone, finding the coat, etc. All efforts of Obtaining. Hence your argument that the OS is about Activity.

#29

Here’s the “12 Essentials” storyform for Song of the Sea. Explanations for new choices included.

Resolve: Change

Growth: Start

Approach: Be-er

Style: Linear

Driver: Action

Limit: Optionlock

Outcome: Success
Saoirse succeeds in ‘de-petrifying’ both the faeries’ stone forms and her family’s stony relationships.

Judgment: Good
Ben is at peace with his family’s past and his relationship with his sister.

OS Domain: Activity

OS Concern: Obtaining

OS Issue: Attitude
Past tragedies have made Conor’s family grim and stern. Ben agrees to watch his sister but refuses to be pleasant about it, Conor is in a stupor and sleepwalks through parenting, Granny insists on browbeating the kids into leaving the island – everyone could accept their losses and being controlled if others’ attitudes were more agreeable. Macha’s calm demeanor almost convinces Ben that her approach of stealing emotions is the correct solution.

OS Problem: Help
“I know what’s best for you, so stop this nonsense and do what you’re told!”
“She can’t help, not really help. Not the way I do.”
Granny and Macha create problems for everyone by ‘helping’ them avoid grief.

#30

(I gotta be honest, my brain has moved on from this.)

It’s possible that the “help” could be “hinder” --> by locking away emotions, Macha is hindering anyone’s ability to deal with them. It’s worth thinking about, at least. Then the solution would be… they help her get the sealskin coat, or something like that.

#31

Don’t blame you. It’s been three weeks, plus I was obstinate on the last topic.

My first impulse was for “hinder” as well. It’s kind of weird to think of “help” as problematic. But hinder is different from “avoid” in that it is primarily concerned with delaying a goal, rather than outright preventing it (whether that is the outcome or not). That didn’t seem to fit as the cast’s primary problem (Macha definitely works to prevent the fairie homecoming, but that aligns with her Antagonist role). When I looked at help as misplaced assistance, that really seemed to click. Macha and Granny et al see what they’re doing as helping, but it’s not. Conor does this too, by going along with Granny’s demands. Once they’re convinced that their help is hindering, they stop.

Other ways that “hinder” is the solution – the faerie minstrels delay the owls from taking Saoirse, Ben delays Macha from entering the attic so Saoirse can finish the flute song, and Macha is forced to re-absorb the emotions she had considered as hindrances. Ben also delays Conor from sailing off with Saoirse when he dives out of the boat.

Help and Hinder also work for Ben as problem and solution, but with a negative spin. Ben’s problem isn’t that he hinders others but that he lacks the drive to help out (most commonly with his sister). He gets over this problem by shedding personal hindrances (notably by taking off the life-jacket so he can dive after Saoirse’s coat).

Choosing “help” also makes Saoirse’s IC problem “Pursuit.” Since she’s steadfast, she retains this drive and doesn’t accept “Avoidance” as solution, all of which fits her story well.

I could definitely be wrong, as I’ve been wrong on this thread many times already. But ‘misguided help’ as the problem with ‘accepting and/or shedding burdens’ as the solution feels right to me.

#32

Finally saw this last night. What an incredibly beautiful film and lovely story. Thank you so much for bringing up this film as a point of discussion–I don’t think I would have taken the chance to see it otherwise.

I’ve read through all of the above and while I agree with most of it, I think there are some key points that haven’t been addressed. In particular I have issues with this:

To me it seemed like the whole story was about overcoming the urge to “bottle” up feelings that come as a result of a great tragedy. The potential for conflict exists in the justifications the characters have created in order to suppress their hurt.

I would love to do a “full” analysis of anyone is up for it. I have a feelin only the three of us have seen it. If so we can start at the beginning and work our way through. There is a process that seems to always guarantee some degree of accuracy in the analysis.

If not, I’ll just add my thoughts about the storyform discussion here and we can just continue along with where you have come so far. Most of it I agree with – though I note there have been two different takes on the Overall Story (activity or manipulation).

1 Like
#33

@jamjam1794 has also seen it – don’t know if anyone else has.

I’m definitely up for a full analysis. We have covered a lot of ground, but starting from the beginning would clarify the previous debates.

#34

I think you are I are saying similar things here, though I don’t think I worded it very well.

I don’t think I will engage in a full analysis. Despite thinking the movie was beautiful, I didn’t really connect to it.

1 Like
#35

You know, I thought I was alone in this. Friends that have seen it praise it unbelievably, but I just found it to be pretty. There was no connection for me, either. I watched it, thought it was just ‘okay’ and forgot it days later (hence my absence in this thread).