I love The New Yorker” magazine. Always interesting, informative articles — and often, I’ll find something that applies to screenwriting. Like the latest issue (5/26/08), there’s a short piece in “The Talk of the Town” section titled “Power Hour” about a psychological study that came out in 2006. So I bumped around the Web until I found the article in question at the site of “Psychological Science”. Unfortunately, you can’t access the article without a subscription, but they have the abstract there:
ABSTRACT—Four experiments and a correlational study explored the relationship between power and perspective taking. In Experiment 1, participants primed with high power were more likely than those primed with low power to draw an E on their forehead in a self-oriented direction, demonstrating less of an inclination to spontaneously adopt another person’s visual perspective. In Experiments 2a and 2b, high-power participants were less likely than low-power participants to take into account that other people did not possess their privileged knowledge, a result suggesting that power leads individuals to anchor too heavily on their own vantage point, insufficiently adjusting to others’ perspectives. In Experiment 3, high-power participants were less accurate than control participants in determining other people’s emotion expressions; these results suggest a power-induced impediment to experiencing empathy. An additional study found a negative relationship between individual difference measures of power and perspective taking. Across these studies, power was associated with a reduced tendency to comprehend how other people see, think, and feel.”
It’s not like this is anything I wouldn’t expect, however it’s not something that would necessarily leap to the front of my consciousness if I was developing a character in a position of power. But now, I’ll add that to my mental notes.
It brings to mind that moment in The Shawshank Redemption, where Andy (Tim Robbins) is telling Warden Norton (Bob Gunton) the news about another prisoner, Elmo Batch, having confessed to killing Andy’s wife and her lover — this could be the basis of Andy getting out after all his years of imprisonment:
INT — NORTON’S OFFICE — DAY (1966) 192NORTON
Well. I have to say, that’s the
most amazing story I ever heard.
What amazes me most is you were
taken in by it.ANDY
Sir?NORTON
It’s obvious this fellow Williams
is impressed with you. He hears
your tale of woe and quite
naturally wants to cheer you up.
He’s young, not terribly bright.
Not surprising he didn’t know what
a state he’d put you in.ANDY
I think he’s telling the truth.NORTON
Let’s say for a moment Blatch does
exist. You think he’d just fall to
his knees and cry, “Yes, I did it!
I confess! By all means, please add
a life term to my sentence!”ANDY
It wouldn’t matter. With Tommy’s
testimony, I can get a new trial.NORTON
That’s assuming Blatch is even
still there. Chances are excellent
he’d be released by now. Excellent.ANDY
They’d have his last known address.
Names of relatives…
(Norton shakes his head)
Well it’s a chance. isn’t it? How
can you be so obtuse?NORTON
What? What did you call me?
It’s like Andy has a moment of insight into people with power, they can’t step outside of their own experience and imagine emotions and motivations of other people, hence, his accusation — “How can you be so obtuse?” And boy, does that piss off Norton.
The thing is, I don’t think Norton’s being obtuse at all. He gets what Andy is saying, all too well, and why he’s throwing out obstacles at every one of Andy’s pleas is simple — he doesn’t want to lose Andy. Andy is an enormous asset to Norton. He’s not being obtuse, he’s just being an asshole. Which, I suppose, should be the next study for those guys at Psychological Science.
Also, Norton is threatened. If Andy were free, his information and corruption could be exposed, like they are eventually. He’s vulnerable, his whole corrupt schemes, his survival as he knows it are on the line.
Another note on Shawshank, when Red finally gets out I thought it was interesting – he was scared – scared not of incarceration, but of freedom. I didn’t pick up on this in the script so much, but it was strong in the film.
Judy and I were discussing this the other day too – breaking the law – Did Andy break the law by escaping or did he rectify the laws? Morally he was in the right. He not only set the counter to right on a personal level, but also with Norton and Hadley. Justice was served.
When Andy emerged from the sewer and was washed clean in the rain -it was almost Biblical. A truly victorious scene.
Thanks again Scott!
Julie
Hey — found you! RE: Andy’s comment. I’ve always found it the one moment in Andy’s prison stay where he loses control, miscalculates, forgets his plan. Even while he is sitting in this office, hoping beyond hope that Norton will be reasonable, he is returning to his cell every day and digging just a little farther toward freedom. What this outburst costs him… But it is a true moment for him. His unguarded, true emotion. Something he hasn’t let himself do much of since walking through those gates as a fish. bc
Julie, of course, you’re right, and so there is that aspect which contributes to Norton’s fear.
Re emerging from the sewer and being washed clean in the rain: Certainly a biblical feel to it, especially with Andy raising his outstretched arms to the ‘heavens.’
bc, good point as well. That scene with Norton does present Andy at his most ‘unhinged,’ even the use of the word “obtuse” seemingly out of character for him. But I think that underscores the almost irrational hope-against-hope that somehow the truth will help set him free, he wants to believe that. Contrast his energy here with the last scene with he and Red, one of the most interesting scenes in the movie where Red thinks Andy has lost his marbles, but in fact, Andy is completely now — he’s going to escape.
Good analysis, you two!