This is Lessons from the Screenplay.

這是 Lessons from the Screenplay 的頻道。

A popular piece of advice for writers is to “write what you know.”

有一個常提供給作家的建議就是

While I do think a story's emotional authenticity comes from the storyteller's own experience,

『寫下你知道的』

I don't like the stagnation this phrase encourages.

雖然我確實認為故事中的情感會顯得真實

Instead, I prefer: “write what you want to know.”

常來自於講故事的人的親身經歷

Because, in many ways, a story is as much a journey for the person writing it as

我卻不喜歡這句話所立下的限制

it is for the characters in it.

相反的，我更喜歡

Such was the case for Pixar's "Inside Out."

『寫下你想要知道的』

It took their team a lot of introspection to arrive at the emotional truth that is the

因為，在很多方面

core of their story.

故事對於一個創作者來說也是一段旅程

So today I want to look at the process of writing this film.

就像故事中的人物一樣

To examine how creating some of its most powerful moments

皮克斯動畫電影『腦筋急轉彎』就是很好的例子

required the writers to explore vulnerable places within their own psychology.

他們的團隊花了很多心力去省視內心世界

And show how trying to answer a simple question can lead to the discovery of a creative premise

以達到故事中的真實情感

and an emotionally honest theme.

而這也是這部電影的核心

Let's take a look at "Inside Out."

所以今天我想看一下這部電影的創作過程

In my previous video I talked about how character arc should be an expression of the story's theme.

來研究為何創作出電影裡的感人時刻

But as a writer, how do you find the theme you want to explore?

需要作家們探索自己內心脆弱的那一面

Often, it can help to think about it in the form of a question you want answered.

並展示嘗試回答一個簡單的問題

For example, the question that led to "Inside Out" came when the film's director,

如何能夠導致發現一個很有創造性的假設

Pete Docter, noticed something about his daughter.

以及發現一個貼近真實情感的主軸

According to Meg LeFauve, who wrote "Inside Out" with Pete Docter:

讓我們來看這部電影『腦筋急轉彎』

"The director, he had a daughter."

在我之前的影片中

"And she was so happy all the time, and was so joyful."

我探討了角色的發展弧線 為何應該是表達故事主軸的一部分

"And then she turned eleven."

但作為一名作家，你如何找到你想要探索的主題

"And suddenly she was quiet and she wasn't smiling..."

通常可以藉由 『你想要回答的問題形式』來幫助你思考

"And he sat at breakfast and he wondered, 'What happened to joy?'"

例如，那個導致創作出『腦筋急轉彎』的問題

"And then he thought: I'm going to make a move about that."

來自於導演 Pete Docter 注意到他女兒的一些改變

From this question, he came up with the idea of the story taking place in the mind of a young girl

根據和導演一起寫出劇本的 Meg LeFauve 的說法

and having her emotions being characters in the film.

『導演，他有一個女兒』

But asking the question is only the beginning.

『她在生活中一直很開心，而且是太開心了』

The theme is expressed when you answer it.

『然後她十一歲了』

To answer the question "What happened to joy?"

『突然間，她變得很安靜，而且也少了笑容......』

they needed to figure out the protagonists's character arc,

『導演他坐著吃早餐時他就納悶， “快樂發生了什麼事？“』

which required asking even more questions.

『然後他想：我要為這個拍一部電影。』

"We always want to answer the same questions for any movie that we start."

從這個問題出發 他創作出了一個發生在年輕女孩腦海裡的故事

"What does the character want?"

並且讓她的各種情緒成為電影裡的角色

"What does the character need?"

但問問題只是一個開始

They quickly decided that Joy's want is for Riley to be happy.

當你回答問題時，你才展現了故事的主軸

But figuring out her need proved more difficult.

要回答『快樂發生了什麼事？』這個問題

The writers realized that pairing her up with someone would help express her need, so they

他們需要釐清主角的角色發展弧線

partnered Joy with Fear.

但這需要提出更多問題

Joy: "Stop!"

『對於任何電影的開始， 我們總是想要回答一樣的問題』

"You have caused enough trouble."

『這個角色想要什麼？』

But the lessons she learned while on the journey with Fear didn't seem to answer the question.

『這個角色需要什麼？』

"Pete Docter, the director, says that when he was an adolescent he was mostly afraid."

他們很快就決定了『樂樂』這個角色 就是想要 『萊莉』能夠快樂

"So he wanted to explore fear."

但弄清楚樂樂的需要，則比較困難

"But his problem was that when they got back up to headquarters,

作家意識到將她和其他角色配對 能夠協助表達她真正需要什麼

he didn't know what he wanted to say about fear."

所以，他們讓樂樂和驚驚搭檔

This is one of the many reasons the writing process is so difficult.

樂樂：『停！』

This question came from Pete Docter's personal life,

『你已經造成了很多麻煩。』

so I'm sure it seemed logical to try to answer it based on his own experience

但是她在與驚驚搭檔的旅程中學到的經驗 似乎沒有回答到這個問題

growing up with fear.

『導演 Pete 說，當他還是青春期的少年時， 他總是感到恐懼』

But sometimes the right answer requires uncomfortable self-reflection.

『所以他想探索恐懼』

"Hi. Pete here.

『但問題是，當他們回來總部討論劇本時』

I'm out walking in the woods because I'm stressed."

『他不知道，關於恐懼他想說什麼。』

Realizing that the film wasn't working, Pete Docter took a walk in the woods,

『這是為何創作過程如此艱難的眾多原因之一。』

allowed himself to be vulnerable,

這個問題來自導演的個人生活

and started asking himself some questions.

所以我確信一個合乎邏輯的方式是

"I started thinking, 'Ok, what if I lost everything.

基於自己和恐懼一同成長的經驗來回答這個問題

What would mean something to me?'"

但有時正確的答案需要令人不舒服的自我省視過程

"And like most of us, I think, the answer is relationships."

『嗨！我是 Pete』

"The people that really mean something deeply are those that I have cried with,

『我出來在樹林裡散步，因為我感到很有壓力。』

that I've been pissed off at, that I've experienced fear with."

意識到這部電影沒有進展 於是 Pete Docter 到樹林裡散步

"It's all the aspects of emotions that bond us together."

讓自己內心變得脆弱

And only then was he able to finally figure out the answer to his original question.

並開始問自己一些問題

"So that gives me this idea."

『我開始思考，好吧，如果我失去了一切會怎麼樣？』

"That maybe joy, as much as we all want it in our lives, is not the answer."

『哪些東西對我來說是真正重要的？』

"The answer is actually sadness."

『像大多數人一樣 我想答案就是和人之間的關係』

And now that he had the answer, Joy had a character arc and the film had a theme.

『對我真正意義重大的人』

As much as Joy wants everything to be happy all the time, to have healthy relationships

『是那些和我一起哭的人』

she needs to embrace sadness.

『那些曾讓我生氣的人』

So how do you bring the audience along on this journey?

『那些和我一同經歷恐懼的人』

The first step is to bring them into Joy's point of view.

『是情緒的各種面向將我們連結在一起。』

In order for the audience to discover Sadness the same way that Joy does,

只有到那時他才終於找到最初問題的答案

they have to be able to empathize with Joy's beliefs in the beginning to the story.

『所以這給了我一個想法』

But there were two obstacles in the way of that.

『那或許，快樂...』

The first was that Joy was a jerk.

『雖然我們希望它在我們生活中越多越好』

JOY: "So weak."

『但那不是答案』

"No way we're going to that!"

『答案實際上是悲傷』

FEAR: "Joy."

現在他得到了答案

JOY: "We should spit in that girl's face."

樂樂有了明確的角色發展弧線

OTHERS: "Whoa!"

電影也有了一個故事主軸

They originally made Joy angry and entitled, hoping that by giving her this flaw there

儘管樂樂希望所有的一切都一直保持快樂

would be opportunities for humor.

為了要有健康的人際關係

But she pretty much just came off as unlikeable.

她需要擁抱悲傷

JOY: "Francis.

那麼你如何引導觀眾 在這段旅程中走向這個答案？

That rat-faced creep."

第一步是將它們帶進樂樂的視角

JOY: "We ought to break his legs."

為了讓觀眾和樂樂一起發現最後的答案

OTHERS: "Whoa! Yikes!"

他們必須在故事開始時 對樂樂所相信的事情有同感

But even after they toned that down,

但這面臨了兩個障礙

they realized the audience might not immediately identify with Joy and her aversion to Sadness.

第一個是：樂樂是一個混蛋

To solve this, they made Sadness as annoying as possible.

樂樂：『這樣太弱了。』

"Sadness!

樂樂：『我們絕對不能這樣做！』

You nearly touched a core memory.

驚驚：『樂樂 ... 』

And when you touch them, we can't change them back!"

樂樂：『我們應該朝那個女孩的臉上吐口水。』

"I keep making mistakes like that.

其他所有人：『喂！！樂樂！！』

I'm awful…"

他們最初設計樂樂容易生氣並且有控制的權力

"Nooo, you're not."

希望藉由賦予她這個缺陷

"…and annoying."

能夠在適當的時機穿插幽默的片段

"Well… uh…

但卻讓樂樂成為了一個討厭鬼

"You know what? you can't focus on what's going wrong."

樂樂：『弗朗西斯，那個長相陰險的小人』

"There's always a way to turn things around, to find the fun!"

樂樂：『我們應該摔斷他的腿。』

And Joy's need to fix things was a solution to another obstacle they ran into,

其他所有人：『哇！嘿！』

which is that incessantly happy characters are annoying.

但即使在他們放棄了這個計畫後

"You have to make it very clear that Joy's chipperness is her solution to her vulnerability."

他們意識到觀眾可能不會立即 認同樂樂對於憂憂的反感

"If you don't have the vulnerability behind the 'ha-ha-ha'

為了解決這個問題 他們盡可能的讓憂憂變得煩人

you're just annoyed at her."

『憂憂！』

The writers included several moments where we see Joy deal with doubt and worry

『你差點就碰到了核心記憶』

by forcing happiness back into the situation.

『而且你如果摸了它們 我們是無法將它們改變回來的！』

FEAR: "Dad just left us."

『我一直犯像那樣的錯誤』

SADNESS: "Oh, he doesn't love us anymore."

『我真糟糕......』

"That's sad."

『不，你不會』

"I should drive, right?"

『......而且很討人厭』

"Joy?"

『嗯......呃......』

"What are you doing?"

『你知道嗎？你不能一直專注在你犯的錯。』

"Uh, just uh, gimme one second…"

『總有辦法可以解決的』

"You know what I've realized?"

『你要找到那樂趣』

"Riley hasn't had lunch!"

而讓樂樂出面來解決問題 恰巧就是第二個障礙的解方

By showing that Joy's incessant happiness was a defense mechanism,

這個障礙就是： 一直保持非常開心的角色會變得惹人厭

and by making Sadness as annoying as possible,

『你必須非常清楚的顯現出』

the Pixar writers allowed the audience to empathize with Joy

『樂樂的爽朗是她面對脆弱的方式』

and see things from her point of view.

『如果在樂樂的笑聲底下，沒有內心脆弱的這個設定』

With this connection made, the story could finally begin to explore

『你就只是單純對她感到厭煩』

the importance of sadness.

作者加進了一些片刻 讓我們可以看到樂樂如何處理懷疑和擔憂

"So you've set the belief system, and then act two is literally psychologically saying

而她的方式總是強迫回到開心這個情緒

to them, 'Is that true?'"

驚驚：『爸爸離開了我們』

"You're trying to break their psychology, you're trying to bring something to consciousness."

憂憂：『喔，他不再愛我們了，那好讓人難過』

Act one clearly establishes that Joy believes being happy all the time

『啊，我應該來掌控，對吧？』

is the right way to live.

『樂樂？你在做什麼？』

So in act two the writers start to poke holes in that belief system.

『呃，呃，給我幾秒鐘......』

One of the clearest examples is when they're trying to get to the train station,

『你知道我剛想到了什麼嗎？』

but Bing Bong's rocket is pushed into the memory dump.

『萊莉還沒有吃午餐！』

"Riley can't be done with me."

通過展示樂樂一直保持開心其實是一種防衛機制

Here, both Sadness and Joy have the same objective.

也透過讓憂憂盡可能的煩人

They want Bing Bong to lead them to the train station.

這些皮克斯的作家們讓觀眾們得以對樂樂感同身受

But by having them use different tactics,

並從樂樂的角度看周遭發生的事

the story demonstrates to the audience and the characters

當建立了這種聯繫後

the lesson that needs to be learned.

故事終於可以開始探索

Joy impatiently tries to make Bing Bong feel better the only way she knows how—

悲傷的重要性

by forcing him to be happy.

『所以你已經建立了一個相信體系』

"Hey, who's ticklish, huh?

然後在第二幕中 就是問他們，從心理層面問他們

Here comes the tickle monster…"

『這是真的嗎？』

No response.

『你試圖打破他們的心裡的牆 試圖讓他們意識到內心深處的東西』

"Hey! Bing Bong, look at this!

第一幕清楚地表明了，樂樂相信

Dohoioih!"

一直保持開心就是正確的生活方式

She makes a silly face.

所以在第二幕時 作者們開始在這個相信體系製造缺口

Nothing.

其中一個最明顯的例子 是他們希望小彬彬帶領他們去火車站

"Oh, here's a fun game!

但是小彬彬的火箭被推進了記憶垃圾場時

You point to the train station and we all go there!"

『萊莉不能沒有我』

"Won't that be fun?

此時，樂樂和憂憂都有相同的目標

Come on, let's go to the train station."

他們希望小彬彬帶他們去火車站

When this tactic doesn't work, Sadness sits next to Bing Bong

但是讓他們使用不同的策略

and patiently empathizes with him.

這個故事向觀眾和角色展示了

"I'm sorry they took your rocket."

我們還需要學習的地方

"They took something that you loved."

樂樂不耐煩地試著用她知道的唯一一種方式 讓他心情好起來

"It's gone, forever."

那就是通過強迫他感到開心

"Sadness, don't make him feel worse."

『嘿，誰在搔癢啊，蛤？』

"Sorry."

『搔癢怪物要來啦... 』

"It's all I had left of Riley."

沒有反應

"I bet you and Riley had great adventures."

『嘿！小彬彬，看看這個！』

"We were best friends."

『哇！%^*& ... 』

"Yeah."

她做了鬼臉

"It's sad."

沒有效果

Bing Bong puts his head on Sadness' shoulder and CRIES.

『哦，我有一個有趣的遊戲！』

Sadness keeps her arm around him until he's done.

『你指向火車站，然後我們都走去那裡！』

"I'm okay now."

『這不是很有趣嗎？』

"C'mon, the train station is this way."

『來吧，我們去火車站吧』

This shows Joy that she might be looking at life the wrong way—

當這種策略沒有用時

that happiness isn't always the answer.

憂憂在小彬彬的旁邊坐下

This idea is pretty unconventional, especially for a kid's movie.

並和他感同身受

As a culture we tend to constantly seek happiness and joy,

『我很抱歉他們拿走了你的火箭』

and look at sadness as something to be avoided at all costs.

『他們拿走了你深愛的東西』

But this moment rings very true to me,

『它永遠消失了』

and I think it's because it's actually based on experiences from Meg LeFauve's life.

『憂憂，不要讓他心情更糟』

"My son went to what's called an attachment preschool,

『抱歉』

where they're not teaching ABCs, 123s, they're teaching emotional intelligence."

『那是我僅有的有關萊莉的東西』

"Let your kid have whatever emotion they're having right now.

『我猜你和萊莉一定有過很棒的冒險。』

And just meet them where they are."

『我們曾經是最好的朋友。』

"And then you would just keep narrating it, and they would talk, and you'd narrate it."

『是啊』

"And then they'd pass through and toddle off and be happy

『這真的很讓人難過』

or angry whatever next emotion is coming up."

小彬彬把頭放在憂憂的肩膀上然後大哭

But Joy doesn't fully learn the lesson here,

憂憂一直摟著他，直到他哭完

as later in the film she chooses to leave Sadness behind

『我現在好了。』

when she finds a way back to headquarters.

『來吧，火車站往這裡走。』

"I'm sorry."

這表明樂樂對生活方式的看法可能是錯的

"Riley needs to be happy."

快樂並不總是答案

"Joy?"

這個想法非常跳脫傳統

She's still refusing to let go of her old beliefs,

尤其這是一個給孩童的電影

and this selfish choice is met with catastrophe.

因為我們常處在在一種文化 是認為我們必須一直尋求開心

"Ah!"

並把悲傷看作是不惜一切代價要避免的事情

"Joy!"

但這一刻對我來說非常真實

Joy realizes that despite her best intentions, she's found herself at her lowest point yet.

我認為這是因為它實際上是基於 Meg LeFauve 的生活體驗

It's the same point that Pete Docter found himself in

『我的兒子去讀所謂的附屬學前班』

when he realized the film wasn't working.

那裡他們沒有教ABC和123 他們教情緒商數

He thought wanted to talk about fear, but it wasn't what he needed to talk about.

『讓你的孩子擁有他們現在正在感受的情緒』

And for both he and the character of Joy,

『然後去面對這樣的他們』

it took arriving at this dark, painful place for them to realize the truth.

『然後你會繼續和他講述情緒 孩子會和你談論，你會繼續講述它』

"Mom and Dad…"

『他們經歷過這個過程，然後離開』

"The team…"

『他們變得開心，或是生氣， 或不管下一個來臨的什麼情緒』

"They came to help because of Sadness."

但樂樂還沒有完全學習到教訓

"Joy, as much as we all want it in our lives, is not the answer."

在電影的後半部

"The answer is actually sadness."

當她發現了一條回大腦總部的路時 她選擇丟下憂憂

Joy's character arc mimics Pete Docter's.

『對不起』

And her realization is powerful and authentic largely because it was inspired by the director's

『萊莉需要快樂』

own discovery of the importance of sadness.

『樂樂？』

"The mysterious thing about telling stories is that it ends up changing you."

她仍然拒絕放棄她以前所相信的

"As a storyteller, the research that you do,

而這種自私的選擇遭遇了災難

the almost meditation-like focus on a theme

『啊！』

that you're dealing with."

『樂樂！』

"It ends up seeping into your own system and changing the way you look at the world."

樂樂發現到儘管她出發點是好的

Knowing the mechanics of storytelling is important.

她卻發現自己來到了她的最低潮

But it's also important to remember that the ultimate goal of telling a story

這與 Pete Docter 當初

is to share something.

在電影沒有進展而到樹林散步時的發現相同

And I believe the way to ensure that your story is generous and not simply a vanity project

他以為他想談論恐懼

is to for it to be emotionally authentic—which is rarely an easy thing to do.

但這並不是他需要談論的內容

As Meg LeFauve says...

而導演和樂樂這個角色

"There should probably be, as a writer—now, I'm just talking about myself, personally..."

都在來到黑暗且痛苦的地方後

"A point in the process when you're writing that to write this scene..."

才了解到真相