⚖️ #231 - Take A Chance On Me
You gotta know when to hold 'em, and so forth.
Characters need a conflict to overcome, but how are they going to choose to work through it? Do we charge in, guns blazing? Find a proxy to do the job for us (or act as a distraction)? Do we just walk away?
Characters need to do a mental calculation balancing their competencies, their confidence, and how risky they think their options are.
Drawing on real life, consider Eric W. Dolan’s summary of a study on how the presence of a romantic partner can lead men toward more reasoned, less risky behavior. Kathleen K. Reardon argues that true courageous action requires calculation instead of impulsiveness. The strategies she highlights can be instructive in thinking through how characters can create acceptable levels of risk for them while still pursuing their goals.
Bringing this back to film, C.R. Mangum brings a risk assessor’s eye to five films and what they model in how characters attempt to make the least risky choice (or explain an incredibly risky one).
This collection of scenes from Apollo 13 shows risk assessment in a group setting. Everyone has their angle on what the most important concern is based on their department for the mission, while Gene Kranz needs to direct that energy. Sorting between signal and noise, Kranz is constantly ordering priorities instead of getting the opportunity to make one decision at a time.
Ron Gantt defends the Mayor of Amity Island for his decision not to close its beaches earlier in Jaws:
…from the mayor’s perspective, the loss of a life due to a shark attack is an uncertainty and highly improbable. In retrospect we know that the shark was coming back for more blood, but in reality that is extremely rare. So the mayor is faced with a choice between shutting down the beach, which is highly likely or guaranteed to cause harm, or keeping the beach open, which is highly unlikely, given the available data, to cause additional harm.
These clips from Crimson Tide show two different angles on assessing the risk of the same situation. Captain Ramsey and Lt. Commander Hunter are trying to decide if it’s riskier to fire their nuclear missiles immediately, or delay in an attempt to verify their orders. Hunter makes a further decision, deciding that it is less risky for him to remove Ramsey from command and face possible personal consequences than to allow Ramsey to guarantee a nuclear war.
Wrapping things up with two takes on Uncut Gems, Saransh Sharma explains the evolutionary adaptation of Present Bias, and how it helps to explain Howard Ratner’s risk taking throughout the film. The Kino Corner focuses on how the film’s camera work, editing, and casting all help to bring the audience into the stressful scenario created by Ratner’s addiction to making risky decisions.
👋 Are you new here?
Inneresting is a weekly newsletter about writing and things that are interesting to writers. Subscribe now to get more Inneresting things sent to your inbox.
Previously on Inneresting…
In case you missed it, in last issue’s most clicked link, we look back on John’s post for the late bloomers:
What else is inneresting?
Icelandic president Halla Tómasdóttir shares her thoughts on dealing with Impostor Syndrome and building trust as a leader.
Channel Serfer lays out how multiple lawsuits and competing interests lead to the downfall of 1990s book fair mainstay, Goosebumps.
A short clip of Ray Bradbury explaining how writing can help to understand emotions and “purify the stream.”
And that’s what’s inneresting this week!
Inneresting is edited by Chris Csont, with contributions from readers like you and the entire Quote-Unquote team.
Are you enjoying this newsletter?
📧 Forward it to a friend and suggest they check it out.
🔗 Share a link to this post on social media.
🗣 Have ideas for future topics (or just want to say hello)? Reach out to Chris via email at inneresting@johnaugust.com, Mastodon @ccsont@mastodon.art, or Bluesky @ccsont.bsky.social
Post-Credits Scene
